YES TO THE IRAN TREATY
DON'T LET THE WAR HAWKS DO IT AGAIN!
A large majority of USA Democrat voters favor the President's just-revealed, framework-Iran nuclear deal. Interestingly, there is also a plurality of Republican voters who also support the deal. (This data according to a recent April 9, 2015, "the Atlantic" article by Jeff Bourdon). Yet there is little evidence of this public sentiment in the Senate. The President is faced with a great deal of opposition there. He is sweating this one out. He needs all of his Democrats to hold steady to prevent a veto override vote in the Senate, yet even stalwarts of the Party, such as Chuck Schumer are acting and sounding like Dick Cheney Republicans on this deal.
The reason? AIPAC AND ADELSON MONEY. The effect of big money from AIPAC and slush funds from one-issue billionaires released into the political system (by the Supreme Court recent Citizen's United decision) are showing clearly how the nation's elected officials are controlled (bought and sold) by big money. Our great nation is sadly in the process of morphing from a democratic republic into a South American style oligarchy, where the monied elites and powerful foreign interests control the nation's policies...not its voting citizens.
If our President's Iran nuclear deal is thwarted by the Netanyahu and Neocon crowd we can expect only WAR to follow. The Iran hawks are calling for " more sanctions" and "a better deal" but what they want and are unable to say is:"bomb bomb bomb Iran". That --regime change--is their actual goal. They have poor memories. But the American public does not. After the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos the American people find another long term war in the Middle East a very unpalatable idea. But it is clear that is the goal of the McCain-Cotton-Graham triumvirate. With no nuclear deal, Iran would simply continue to move ahead with its nuclear enrichment and development. With the threats of bombing from Israel, and saber rattling from Washington, a constant drumbeat, while US and other sanctions imposed on its economy reach existential threat levels ....one wonders what other choices would Iran have but to attempt to build a bomb "a la North Korea". At that juncture war, either instigated or initiated by Israel or the Washington crowd would be almost inevitable. But this would be a much wider, devastating conflict unlike a"the few days of bombing" which Senator Cotton has disturbingly indicated. It would probably include China and Russia, and other nations which would clandestinely arm and support Iran. It's an ugly and fearsome prospect.
In the end as many parts of the Middle East lay smoldering again the world and the American people would know who to blame for the loss of American life, the massive costs and wide and awful devastation. They would only have to review the anti-diplomacy, saber rattling speeches of the Republican War Hawks, the sneaky invite of Speaker of the House John Boehner, and the tapes of Netanyahu's war speech to Congress. The American people will know who to blame. But at what a cost!
Friday, April 10, 2015
Friday, April 3, 2015
FRENCH PROSECUTE GUANTANAMO TORTURE CHIEF
GTMO TORTURE RESURFACES IN FRANCE
MILLER SHOULD NOT TAKE ALL THE BLAME
I read yesterday in the foreign press, that the French justice system may have caught up with one of the low-level perpetrators of torture at GTMO, the now infamous General Geoffery Miller.
Though somewhat of a former Francophile myself...at least up to the recent Hollande Administration, I must report that the French, the people who claim the national motto: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" were not the first to intervene legally on behalf of their own citizen victims of US torture. That honor goes to Germany. Way back in November 2006, the Berlin government brought war crimes charges against a host of American "Iraq Era" War Criminals (see "real criminals" list below). Later in the same year, a German prosecutor brought similar charges against Geoffery Miller. And In 2011, the EU brought war crimes offenses against many of these same American defendants as well.j
Sadly, here at home American leaders have seemingly abandoned any idea of meting out justice to the perpetrators of America's most heinous crimes of the century. Also as great an embarrassment to our nation is the pallid response of the insipid American press who have reported little or nothing concerning these issues. In the USA we prefer to sweep all the ugly stuff which does not conform to our myths under the rug. AMERICA ignores its real history. It rather continue to perpetuate it's fantasies and point the finger of blame elsewhere. But we do so at our own disservice.
France Has become the most ecent claimant against American torturers. According to the French Internet site "France 24", the French court of appeals in Paris ordered a hearing this past Thursday (April 2, 2015) to adjudicate the complaints of two French citizens and former Guantanamo detainees. The two men, Mourad Benchellali, and Français, Nizar Sassi, were detained in Afghanistan, hooded, manacled and flown to Guantanamo where they were tortured during the period (November 2002 to April 2004) when General Geoffery Miller was director of the prison. See (France 24 : "Témoignage de Guantanamo : 'Je peux pas... res... p... i... rer."). According to Mssr. William Bourdon, attorney for Mssr. Benchellali , it was General Miller who was "at the heart of the policy of torture practiced at Guantanamo. He added, "If he refuses to come to the hearing he must face the consequences".
Mourad Benchellali and Français, Nizar Sassi, were arrested at different times by American forces in Afghanistan, and were then transferred from there to Guantanamo in Cuba. At Guantanamo they were subjected to all the common forms of torture you have seen and read about, threats of death to them and their families, forced nudity, threatened with a pack of snarling attack dogs, sexual humiliation, cold temperatures, denial of sleep, shackled into stress positions, water boarding, etc., etc. After a harrowing incarceration period of two years they were deemed to have no information, or were mistakenly arrested, and were quietly released. Read here: France 24 : "Rapport de la CIA : une arme judiciaire pour les ex-détenus de Guantanamo ?"
" I have been tortured, and I want those responsible brought to account. I demand reparation," stated, Mssr. Benchellali to France 24. He added, Geoffrey Miller never actually tortured him personally but that Miller was present in the prison and Benchellali can attest to having seen him passing among the cell blocks. "Of this I am certain."
Benchellali and his attorney agree that this hearing is overall symbolically useful. The former detainee sees his appeal as a very strong case which he hopes will open the halls of justice to the appeals of other victims of American torture and help bring to justice those who were responsible for the disgrace and embarrassment of America and its military forces.
In his 2006 retirement photos Miller, who hails from Ohio, looks like a bland, overworked store manager or shoe salesman. Born in 1949, he seems to have missed serving in Vietnam. He attended Ohio State where he earned a degree in history, and joined the U.S. Army in 1972 probably as a member of the Ohio State, ROTC. He trained and served in US field artillery. Not a West Point graduate so he had to work a little harder for advancement. He appears to have been assigned some of the less than desirable military posts and must have served his superiors well, eventually rising to become a senior officer and Army "management" desk man. After a mostly quiet career with little or no battlefield experience Miller somehow morphed into the epitome of the evil torturer of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. One wonders, how did he undergo such a metamorphosis?
MILLER AT GUANTANAMO
Soon after the ill-conceived and disastrous "Bush-Cheny" invasion of Iraq, Miller was assigned the command of Joint Task Force Guantanamo. That office ran the US detention system's now infamous facilities in Cuba known as Camp X-Ray, Camp Delta and Camp Echo. While there, Miller was under pressure from his superiors to "produce" information. At that time Miller claimed that 400 prisoners out of the 600 prisoners incarcerated at GTMO had "confessed" to having been involved in terrorism. we know now that these so called "confessions" were extracted by torture. Miller used that tainted criterion to subject the remaining two-thirds of the inmate population so designated to even "harsher procedures" to gain what was termed "actionable intelligence". Geoff Miller diligently tried to please his bosses. To do so, he had to go way beyond the line of what was legal, and venture outside the moral circle of acceptance of our Constitution and Amdrican culture.
According to Wikipedia's site: "General Geoffery Miller", "It was not Geoff Miller, but the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who on December 2, 2002 authorized in writing the "First Special Interrogation Plan," listing 17 techniques to be used on the detainee Mohammed al Qahtani." (Rumsfeld had help. These "interrogation plans" (torture procedures). were developed in consultation with General Miller who carried them out.) "It was later revealed that such techniques were used more widely against other prisoners as well." Wikipedia also notes that " On September 22, 2003, Miller ordered the arrest of James Yee, an Army captain who served as a chaplain for the Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo". Captain Yee courageously attempted to bring the maltreatment of the detainees to the attention of his superiors. Miller falsely accused Yee of stealing classified documents and of smuggling them out of the prison. Those charges were later dropped. No evidence of espionage or malfeasance was ever produced against Captain Yee and he was honorably discharged on January 7, 2004.
MILLER IN IRAQ
In August of 2002 legal advisor John Yoo of President Bush's Office of Legal Counsel wrote a draft memo to the CIA, known widley as the "Torture Memos" which claimed (now discredited) that existing international laws on torture were "antiquated" and did not apply to the Iraq, Guantanamo situations. Less than a year later, and five days before the invasion of Iraq (March 19, 2003), the same John Yoo issued an opinion to the Department of Defense in which legal scholar Yoo concluded (a view that is also now discredited) that federal laws related to the use of torture would NOT apply to detainees outside US borders. Most legal,observers Now believe that Yoo was writing opinions based on premises derived not from US law and legal precedent but from the questionable needs and priorities of his White House superiors.
Based on John Yoo's quasi-legal findings, the Defense Department, in August 2003, transferred General Miller, who they knew had experience in "extracting" information from Guantanamo detainees from Cuba to Iraq. Miller was tasked with developing "more productive" interrogation procedures for Iraqi prisoners. Besides dumbly following orders from Rumsfeld and others, Miller had his own insidious ideas as well. He submitted a report which recommended using the same harsh treatment (torture) methods he had employed in Guantanamo (GTMO) to Iraq. He referred this to this process as "GTMO-ising" the Iraq detainee prison system. Further, he proposed and implemented a staff utilization plan which combined two formerly separate detention and interrogation units at Abu Ghraib prison into one unit. Under this plan, the prison military police (detention) staff would be used (according to Miller) to "soften up" the prisoners for the actual interrogation process. This "plan" ultimately backfired on Miller. In a subsequent report on the Abu Ghraib scandal filed by General Antonio Taguba (2006), Taguba concluded that the degrading and brutal prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib were the direct result of Miller's use of untrained, poorly officered prison military police guards for the "softening up" interrogation purposes.
Miller was also accused of introducing the use of attack dogs to intimidate, and in some cases to maul prisoners, a procedure he had used at Guantanamo. And according to one of his Iraq-theater colleagues, General Janis Karpinski, he (miller) was quoted as advising senior prison officials "to treat detainees like dogs". Karpinski Attributes to Miller the statement: "If you permit them to think that at any point they are more than a dog then you have lost control of them." Miller denies these accusations. Though during the time Miller was commandant, several photographs released from the Abu Ghraib file do show naked, apparently screaming prisoners being threatened by snarling German Shepard dogs handled by military police.
THE REAL CRIMINALS
The case against Miller is a strong one. The Frenchman Benchellali's attorney, William Bourdon claims that Geoff Miller was "at the heart of the policy of torture" practiced at Guantanamo and at Abu Ghraib. That statement seems well justified. However, Miller was the low man on the chain of command. He was "only following orders" and attempting with little thought about right or morality to do the bidding of his just as evil superiors. In part Miller is a fall guy for more vicious and dangerous types, who remain unrepentant and unpunished. In my view the actual higher up perpetrators who set up the system with a so called legal rational for torture and abuse designed to sooth the concerns of those such as Miller (and others like him) are as morally repugnant and guilty as Miller. Those that participated in the subterfuge of creating legal cover for torture and falsity are more or equally guilty. Miller's superiors in the Defense establishment and in the White House have thrown Miller under the bus. While Miller suffers the infamy of his past...they bask in the limelight Of power, many still holding down good positions and remaininvestors mostly outside of public scrutiny and calumny. It is not fair. Justice requires more than that.
The real criminals are those who made policy, for the CIA and the Defense Department, who legally tried to justify this horrid anti-American, illegal and immoral program and gave orders to put it into motion. The truly guilty according to most accounts are: Richard Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald H. Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Stephen Cambone, Ricardo S. Sanchez, Walter Wojdakowski, Thomas M. Pappas, Barbara Fast, Marc Warren, John Yoo, William J. Haynes, II, David Addington, and Jay Bybee.
When will their day for retribution come?
And let us not forget the actual interrogators or "torture perps", yes working "under orders" of the above, but certainly guilty of horrible acts of illegal and unwarranted brutality. These faceless unknowns also must be discovered and punished. And finally, we come to those foul, complicitous so-called "professionals", I refer here to the psychologists, psychiatrists, and sadly even some physicians who abandoned their professional dignity, honor and their professional oaths to give aid, support and advice to the criminal torturers of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Your denoument and retribution also awaits.
MILLER SHOULD NOT TAKE ALL THE BLAME
I read yesterday in the foreign press, that the French justice system may have caught up with one of the low-level perpetrators of torture at GTMO, the now infamous General Geoffery Miller.
Though somewhat of a former Francophile myself...at least up to the recent Hollande Administration, I must report that the French, the people who claim the national motto: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" were not the first to intervene legally on behalf of their own citizen victims of US torture. That honor goes to Germany. Way back in November 2006, the Berlin government brought war crimes charges against a host of American "Iraq Era" War Criminals (see "real criminals" list below). Later in the same year, a German prosecutor brought similar charges against Geoffery Miller. And In 2011, the EU brought war crimes offenses against many of these same American defendants as well.j
Sadly, here at home American leaders have seemingly abandoned any idea of meting out justice to the perpetrators of America's most heinous crimes of the century. Also as great an embarrassment to our nation is the pallid response of the insipid American press who have reported little or nothing concerning these issues. In the USA we prefer to sweep all the ugly stuff which does not conform to our myths under the rug. AMERICA ignores its real history. It rather continue to perpetuate it's fantasies and point the finger of blame elsewhere. But we do so at our own disservice.
France Has become the most ecent claimant against American torturers. According to the French Internet site "France 24", the French court of appeals in Paris ordered a hearing this past Thursday (April 2, 2015) to adjudicate the complaints of two French citizens and former Guantanamo detainees. The two men, Mourad Benchellali, and Français, Nizar Sassi, were detained in Afghanistan, hooded, manacled and flown to Guantanamo where they were tortured during the period (November 2002 to April 2004) when General Geoffery Miller was director of the prison. See (France 24 : "Témoignage de Guantanamo : 'Je peux pas... res... p... i... rer."). According to Mssr. William Bourdon, attorney for Mssr. Benchellali , it was General Miller who was "at the heart of the policy of torture practiced at Guantanamo. He added, "If he refuses to come to the hearing he must face the consequences".
Mourad Benchellali and Français, Nizar Sassi, were arrested at different times by American forces in Afghanistan, and were then transferred from there to Guantanamo in Cuba. At Guantanamo they were subjected to all the common forms of torture you have seen and read about, threats of death to them and their families, forced nudity, threatened with a pack of snarling attack dogs, sexual humiliation, cold temperatures, denial of sleep, shackled into stress positions, water boarding, etc., etc. After a harrowing incarceration period of two years they were deemed to have no information, or were mistakenly arrested, and were quietly released. Read here: France 24 : "Rapport de la CIA : une arme judiciaire pour les ex-détenus de Guantanamo ?"
" I have been tortured, and I want those responsible brought to account. I demand reparation," stated, Mssr. Benchellali to France 24. He added, Geoffrey Miller never actually tortured him personally but that Miller was present in the prison and Benchellali can attest to having seen him passing among the cell blocks. "Of this I am certain."
Benchellali and his attorney agree that this hearing is overall symbolically useful. The former detainee sees his appeal as a very strong case which he hopes will open the halls of justice to the appeals of other victims of American torture and help bring to justice those who were responsible for the disgrace and embarrassment of America and its military forces.
In his 2006 retirement photos Miller, who hails from Ohio, looks like a bland, overworked store manager or shoe salesman. Born in 1949, he seems to have missed serving in Vietnam. He attended Ohio State where he earned a degree in history, and joined the U.S. Army in 1972 probably as a member of the Ohio State, ROTC. He trained and served in US field artillery. Not a West Point graduate so he had to work a little harder for advancement. He appears to have been assigned some of the less than desirable military posts and must have served his superiors well, eventually rising to become a senior officer and Army "management" desk man. After a mostly quiet career with little or no battlefield experience Miller somehow morphed into the epitome of the evil torturer of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. One wonders, how did he undergo such a metamorphosis?
MILLER AT GUANTANAMO
Soon after the ill-conceived and disastrous "Bush-Cheny" invasion of Iraq, Miller was assigned the command of Joint Task Force Guantanamo. That office ran the US detention system's now infamous facilities in Cuba known as Camp X-Ray, Camp Delta and Camp Echo. While there, Miller was under pressure from his superiors to "produce" information. At that time Miller claimed that 400 prisoners out of the 600 prisoners incarcerated at GTMO had "confessed" to having been involved in terrorism. we know now that these so called "confessions" were extracted by torture. Miller used that tainted criterion to subject the remaining two-thirds of the inmate population so designated to even "harsher procedures" to gain what was termed "actionable intelligence". Geoff Miller diligently tried to please his bosses. To do so, he had to go way beyond the line of what was legal, and venture outside the moral circle of acceptance of our Constitution and Amdrican culture.
According to Wikipedia's site: "General Geoffery Miller", "It was not Geoff Miller, but the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who on December 2, 2002 authorized in writing the "First Special Interrogation Plan," listing 17 techniques to be used on the detainee Mohammed al Qahtani." (Rumsfeld had help. These "interrogation plans" (torture procedures). were developed in consultation with General Miller who carried them out.) "It was later revealed that such techniques were used more widely against other prisoners as well." Wikipedia also notes that " On September 22, 2003, Miller ordered the arrest of James Yee, an Army captain who served as a chaplain for the Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo". Captain Yee courageously attempted to bring the maltreatment of the detainees to the attention of his superiors. Miller falsely accused Yee of stealing classified documents and of smuggling them out of the prison. Those charges were later dropped. No evidence of espionage or malfeasance was ever produced against Captain Yee and he was honorably discharged on January 7, 2004.
MILLER IN IRAQ
In August of 2002 legal advisor John Yoo of President Bush's Office of Legal Counsel wrote a draft memo to the CIA, known widley as the "Torture Memos" which claimed (now discredited) that existing international laws on torture were "antiquated" and did not apply to the Iraq, Guantanamo situations. Less than a year later, and five days before the invasion of Iraq (March 19, 2003), the same John Yoo issued an opinion to the Department of Defense in which legal scholar Yoo concluded (a view that is also now discredited) that federal laws related to the use of torture would NOT apply to detainees outside US borders. Most legal,observers Now believe that Yoo was writing opinions based on premises derived not from US law and legal precedent but from the questionable needs and priorities of his White House superiors.
Based on John Yoo's quasi-legal findings, the Defense Department, in August 2003, transferred General Miller, who they knew had experience in "extracting" information from Guantanamo detainees from Cuba to Iraq. Miller was tasked with developing "more productive" interrogation procedures for Iraqi prisoners. Besides dumbly following orders from Rumsfeld and others, Miller had his own insidious ideas as well. He submitted a report which recommended using the same harsh treatment (torture) methods he had employed in Guantanamo (GTMO) to Iraq. He referred this to this process as "GTMO-ising" the Iraq detainee prison system. Further, he proposed and implemented a staff utilization plan which combined two formerly separate detention and interrogation units at Abu Ghraib prison into one unit. Under this plan, the prison military police (detention) staff would be used (according to Miller) to "soften up" the prisoners for the actual interrogation process. This "plan" ultimately backfired on Miller. In a subsequent report on the Abu Ghraib scandal filed by General Antonio Taguba (2006), Taguba concluded that the degrading and brutal prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib were the direct result of Miller's use of untrained, poorly officered prison military police guards for the "softening up" interrogation purposes.
Miller was also accused of introducing the use of attack dogs to intimidate, and in some cases to maul prisoners, a procedure he had used at Guantanamo. And according to one of his Iraq-theater colleagues, General Janis Karpinski, he (miller) was quoted as advising senior prison officials "to treat detainees like dogs". Karpinski Attributes to Miller the statement: "If you permit them to think that at any point they are more than a dog then you have lost control of them." Miller denies these accusations. Though during the time Miller was commandant, several photographs released from the Abu Ghraib file do show naked, apparently screaming prisoners being threatened by snarling German Shepard dogs handled by military police.
THE REAL CRIMINALS
The case against Miller is a strong one. The Frenchman Benchellali's attorney, William Bourdon claims that Geoff Miller was "at the heart of the policy of torture" practiced at Guantanamo and at Abu Ghraib. That statement seems well justified. However, Miller was the low man on the chain of command. He was "only following orders" and attempting with little thought about right or morality to do the bidding of his just as evil superiors. In part Miller is a fall guy for more vicious and dangerous types, who remain unrepentant and unpunished. In my view the actual higher up perpetrators who set up the system with a so called legal rational for torture and abuse designed to sooth the concerns of those such as Miller (and others like him) are as morally repugnant and guilty as Miller. Those that participated in the subterfuge of creating legal cover for torture and falsity are more or equally guilty. Miller's superiors in the Defense establishment and in the White House have thrown Miller under the bus. While Miller suffers the infamy of his past...they bask in the limelight Of power, many still holding down good positions and remaininvestors mostly outside of public scrutiny and calumny. It is not fair. Justice requires more than that.
The real criminals are those who made policy, for the CIA and the Defense Department, who legally tried to justify this horrid anti-American, illegal and immoral program and gave orders to put it into motion. The truly guilty according to most accounts are: Richard Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald H. Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Stephen Cambone, Ricardo S. Sanchez, Walter Wojdakowski, Thomas M. Pappas, Barbara Fast, Marc Warren, John Yoo, William J. Haynes, II, David Addington, and Jay Bybee.
When will their day for retribution come?
And let us not forget the actual interrogators or "torture perps", yes working "under orders" of the above, but certainly guilty of horrible acts of illegal and unwarranted brutality. These faceless unknowns also must be discovered and punished. And finally, we come to those foul, complicitous so-called "professionals", I refer here to the psychologists, psychiatrists, and sadly even some physicians who abandoned their professional dignity, honor and their professional oaths to give aid, support and advice to the criminal torturers of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Your denoument and retribution also awaits.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
NO SCHUMER AS SENATE LEADER
NO TO CHUCK SCHUMER AS SENATE LEADER
NO TO THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG
Mr Schumer has been a fine Senator on domestic issues and is a nice man. But unfortunately he does not think on his own when it comes to foreign policy in the Middle East...a part of the world where Israeli foreign policies and USA policies are diverging. This is no time for a Schumer ascendancy. This Senator has manifested particular biases and weaknesses all too often. The fact is Senator Schumer would have us manacled to the far right Israeli Likud leader Mr. Netanyahu's ISRAELI foreign policy. Recall, he was a co-sponsor of the dangerous Kirk-Menedez-Schumer Act of 2014 sometimes referred to as the "Wag the Dog Act" (formally known as the Iran Weapons Free Act of 2013. See lobelog.com (Dec 18, 2013)). That legislation would have effectively given over to the brazen, undiplomatic, trigger happy Mr. Netanyahu the ability to send our young men and women to war as a consequence of its "got Israel's back" clause. That alone should disqualify him from contention as Democrat Leader of the Senate, if nothing else. If Mr. Schumer were an Israeli Knesset member, rather than a US Senator, would he have given that powerful ability to the US President to wield over the Israeli citizenry? I think not!
But there is more. Just before Senator Reid announced his retirement from the Senate this week (March 27, 2015) Schumer announced that he was co-sponsoring the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. If it passes, the President will surely veto it. The bill ties the hands of our duly elected chief executive in his efforts to make the Middle East a safer place. Its provisions are designed to throw a monkey wrench into the President's agreement and drive Iran into an untenable position where it is more likely to seek a nuclear umbrella of its own. (Not perhaps as massive as that wielded by the 200 or more Israeli weapons.) Upending the deal is a vote for WAR, and for the neocon warmongers and representatives who have been bought and sold by mega rich mono-issue activists like Sheldon Adelson.
No to Schumer...I like the guy...but all of us must recognize his weaknesses and put our own US interests first. The Middle East would be a far better place today were it not for the pro-Israel "knee jerk" reactions made by American officials like Chuck Schumer and others to even the most dangerous, ill conceived and illegal Israeli policies.
Sorry Chuck..
NO TO THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG
Mr Schumer has been a fine Senator on domestic issues and is a nice man. But unfortunately he does not think on his own when it comes to foreign policy in the Middle East...a part of the world where Israeli foreign policies and USA policies are diverging. This is no time for a Schumer ascendancy. This Senator has manifested particular biases and weaknesses all too often. The fact is Senator Schumer would have us manacled to the far right Israeli Likud leader Mr. Netanyahu's ISRAELI foreign policy. Recall, he was a co-sponsor of the dangerous Kirk-Menedez-Schumer Act of 2014 sometimes referred to as the "Wag the Dog Act" (formally known as the Iran Weapons Free Act of 2013. See lobelog.com (Dec 18, 2013)). That legislation would have effectively given over to the brazen, undiplomatic, trigger happy Mr. Netanyahu the ability to send our young men and women to war as a consequence of its "got Israel's back" clause. That alone should disqualify him from contention as Democrat Leader of the Senate, if nothing else. If Mr. Schumer were an Israeli Knesset member, rather than a US Senator, would he have given that powerful ability to the US President to wield over the Israeli citizenry? I think not!
But there is more. Just before Senator Reid announced his retirement from the Senate this week (March 27, 2015) Schumer announced that he was co-sponsoring the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. If it passes, the President will surely veto it. The bill ties the hands of our duly elected chief executive in his efforts to make the Middle East a safer place. Its provisions are designed to throw a monkey wrench into the President's agreement and drive Iran into an untenable position where it is more likely to seek a nuclear umbrella of its own. (Not perhaps as massive as that wielded by the 200 or more Israeli weapons.) Upending the deal is a vote for WAR, and for the neocon warmongers and representatives who have been bought and sold by mega rich mono-issue activists like Sheldon Adelson.
No to Schumer...I like the guy...but all of us must recognize his weaknesses and put our own US interests first. The Middle East would be a far better place today were it not for the pro-Israel "knee jerk" reactions made by American officials like Chuck Schumer and others to even the most dangerous, ill conceived and illegal Israeli policies.
Sorry Chuck..
Friday, March 27, 2015
LEON PANETTA BACKSTABBING FOR CLINTON?
BACKSTABBING LEON PANETTA REDUX
ASKS PRESIDENT TO TAILOR US POLICY TO NETANYAHU'S
Panetta is a man who earned himself the epithet "stunningly disloyal" and greedy with the publication of his "tell all" book when he left the Obama Administration. The publication earned Panetta a nice buck when it was released just before elections. But it famously armed the Republican opposition with good talking points who claimed they were written by a "Democrat". This man has a long resume of working like a mole within the system. In his last tottering years he worked for President Obama and the administration as both CIA Director and Secretary of Defense. Positions which he did not deserve and was famously unprepared for. In his book he unjustifiably blames Obama for the rise of Isis and the destabilization of Iraq, as well as failing to send troops into Syria during the Syrian civil war. This man of who shifted with the winds from Republicanism to Democrat in 1971 is way off base in his recent pronouncements (March 26, 2015) advising the President to "make peace" with Bibi Netanyahu, another back stabber.
It was our nATION AND MR. OBAMA who were offended and rightly so, by the Israeli Prime Minister"s scheme to undermine the US President's foreign policy initiatives and (incomplete) attempt to conclude an Iranian nuclear deal, and to upend US protocol, and simple decent behavior, with his speech to the Senate, as well as his stated backtracking on commitments to support a two-state solution to the Palestinian question in good faith, and his racist remarks to supporters during the Israeli elections. It would be completely wrong for the US President to approach Mr. Netanyahu, hat in hand asking for reconciliation. Panetta does not mention that the crux of the problem is not personal pique between the two men, but MAJOR POLICY DIFFERENCES WITH THE ISRAELI LEADER, who had declared himself to be in direct opposition to established US policy goals. So what would Mr. Panetta have the President do? Tailor US policy to Mr. Netanyahu's whims? If that is Panetta's call it is plain stupid or worse it is unAmerican. The way I see it the brazen Israeli leader needs our help much more than we need his. But perhaps Leon is not that stupid, but has something else up his sleeve here.
The President's shift in policy toward the Israeli leader is a hard nut for Mrs. Clinton to swallow as she plans her initiation (we are all waiting!) presidential campaign. Perhaps Mr. Panetta, a longtime shill for the Clinton's is simply paving the way for Mrs. Clinton's presidential role-out. Having this disgustingly disloyal man claim that the President was at fault and SHOULD REVISE his new "businesslike" arrangement with Mr. Netanyahu would make it easier for Mrs. Clinton to stake out a position which would permit her to hold on to her big Jewish donors as well as keep a claim on Mr. Obama's loyal core constituency.
Panetta's machinations, at the behest of Clinton, undermine the President (again), and do the Israelis, and the nation no favors. This man should crawl right back under that pile of dry walnut hulls on his twelve acre 'nut ranch' in California from whence he slithered.
ASKS PRESIDENT TO TAILOR US POLICY TO NETANYAHU'S
Panetta is a man who earned himself the epithet "stunningly disloyal" and greedy with the publication of his "tell all" book when he left the Obama Administration. The publication earned Panetta a nice buck when it was released just before elections. But it famously armed the Republican opposition with good talking points who claimed they were written by a "Democrat". This man has a long resume of working like a mole within the system. In his last tottering years he worked for President Obama and the administration as both CIA Director and Secretary of Defense. Positions which he did not deserve and was famously unprepared for. In his book he unjustifiably blames Obama for the rise of Isis and the destabilization of Iraq, as well as failing to send troops into Syria during the Syrian civil war. This man of who shifted with the winds from Republicanism to Democrat in 1971 is way off base in his recent pronouncements (March 26, 2015) advising the President to "make peace" with Bibi Netanyahu, another back stabber.
It was our nATION AND MR. OBAMA who were offended and rightly so, by the Israeli Prime Minister"s scheme to undermine the US President's foreign policy initiatives and (incomplete) attempt to conclude an Iranian nuclear deal, and to upend US protocol, and simple decent behavior, with his speech to the Senate, as well as his stated backtracking on commitments to support a two-state solution to the Palestinian question in good faith, and his racist remarks to supporters during the Israeli elections. It would be completely wrong for the US President to approach Mr. Netanyahu, hat in hand asking for reconciliation. Panetta does not mention that the crux of the problem is not personal pique between the two men, but MAJOR POLICY DIFFERENCES WITH THE ISRAELI LEADER, who had declared himself to be in direct opposition to established US policy goals. So what would Mr. Panetta have the President do? Tailor US policy to Mr. Netanyahu's whims? If that is Panetta's call it is plain stupid or worse it is unAmerican. The way I see it the brazen Israeli leader needs our help much more than we need his. But perhaps Leon is not that stupid, but has something else up his sleeve here.
The President's shift in policy toward the Israeli leader is a hard nut for Mrs. Clinton to swallow as she plans her initiation (we are all waiting!) presidential campaign. Perhaps Mr. Panetta, a longtime shill for the Clinton's is simply paving the way for Mrs. Clinton's presidential role-out. Having this disgustingly disloyal man claim that the President was at fault and SHOULD REVISE his new "businesslike" arrangement with Mr. Netanyahu would make it easier for Mrs. Clinton to stake out a position which would permit her to hold on to her big Jewish donors as well as keep a claim on Mr. Obama's loyal core constituency.
Panetta's machinations, at the behest of Clinton, undermine the President (again), and do the Israelis, and the nation no favors. This man should crawl right back under that pile of dry walnut hulls on his twelve acre 'nut ranch' in California from whence he slithered.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
SLATE LOSES IT ON KREMLIN TV
A ONE SIDED STORY ABOUT A ONE SIDED STORY
LOUSEY JOURNALISM
Slate published a piece, entitled "Kremlin TV," (March 19, 2015) by Lucian Kim. The piece reports on President Putin's TV exposition regarding the coup in Ukraine, and the Russian takeover of the Crimea. The author in characterizing a one-sided story, pens a one sided view of the events too reminiscent of Fox News "quality". That is, in his characterization of a Putin propaganda TV program..the author felt the need to generate another propaganda piece --though of the opposing view. The irony of the project did not seem to make an impression on the author. Though having the opportunity to set the record straight, none was taken. Only one aspect of a complex story is reported on. The Fox News style of: the USA is always right, and keep it simple for those who like their stories in only black and white was clearly followed. No mention of US encirclement of Russia with bases, or the history of CRIMEA, or encroachment by NATO into Russia's back yard, no word of the CIA involvement in Kiev demonstrations, or of the U.S. slush money spent to gin up anti Yanukovych crowds, or the activities of extremists such as "loose cannon" Victoria Nuland. Tsk tsk tsk....Slate is better than this PUTIN-style propaganda.
LOUSEY JOURNALISM
Slate published a piece, entitled "Kremlin TV," (March 19, 2015) by Lucian Kim. The piece reports on President Putin's TV exposition regarding the coup in Ukraine, and the Russian takeover of the Crimea. The author in characterizing a one-sided story, pens a one sided view of the events too reminiscent of Fox News "quality". That is, in his characterization of a Putin propaganda TV program..the author felt the need to generate another propaganda piece --though of the opposing view. The irony of the project did not seem to make an impression on the author. Though having the opportunity to set the record straight, none was taken. Only one aspect of a complex story is reported on. The Fox News style of: the USA is always right, and keep it simple for those who like their stories in only black and white was clearly followed. No mention of US encirclement of Russia with bases, or the history of CRIMEA, or encroachment by NATO into Russia's back yard, no word of the CIA involvement in Kiev demonstrations, or of the U.S. slush money spent to gin up anti Yanukovych crowds, or the activities of extremists such as "loose cannon" Victoria Nuland. Tsk tsk tsk....Slate is better than this PUTIN-style propaganda.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
BIBI EXPOSED-NO SHEEP'S SKIN CLOAK
BIBI SHEDS HIS CLOAK OF SHEEP'S SKIN
TIME TO TREAT ISRAEL JUST LIKE OTHER NATIONS
Faced with certain defeat, Mr. Netanyahu of Israel came out of the "peace" closet and exposed himself for what he is: a supporter of one illegitimate, ethnically cleansed state. The view is not pretty.
By his own words, Netanyahu has expressed his unwillingness to make peace, and to give up illegally occupied territories for a settlement with the Palestinians--the legitimate original inhabitants of most of what ISRAEL is today.
In this election, Netanyahu exposed himself and his Likud coalition for what they are: far right-wing radicals, determined to hold onto the West Bank, happy with the status quo, and opposed to peace at any cost. The USA and the rest of the world will have to deal with them accordingly.
Netanyahu was a desperate man on the eve of the election...like any politician he was ready to retain power at all costs. He has chutzpah. He accused his opposition and Mr. Herzog of being manipulated by Americans! He actually made these claims while he spoke to the nation on free air time over airways owned and operated by American, Las Vegas gambling tycoon Sheldon Adelson. Also Adelson the American has showered millions on Netanyahu. Netanyahu pulled the Palestinian card too. In an attempt to frighten Israelis he claimed that Palestinian-Israelis (citizens too) who were voting in large numbers in the election were a "threat" to Israel. He stated flatly "there would be no Palestinian state" while he was in office. He promised to expand settlements in East Jerusalem. These are all views that will make it impossible to renew talks of peace. They are dead. Palestinians under sixty years of occupation can have no hope of succor? What is left only conflict?
What about these pronouncements...won't Bibi just backtrack at some time and back off of these radical views? Probably not. The Israeli political system....more democratic than what we have--- does not easily permit a lying politician to get away with phony election promises. In the US system a pol has two to four years (in the Senate six) before the office holder must face the voters again, and hope that over that time the citizen's memory has gotten foggy (too often it's true) and has forgotten the unmet promises. Not so in Israel's more representative parliamentary system. If "lying Bibi" were to try to modulate or even go back on his election eve pronouncements some time during his new term...the splinter parties which had come together to form his government with the Likud party would very likely withdraw and deny him his majority. At thqt point he would have to call another election. So what we heard from Mr. Netanyahu is what we will most probably get in the coming years. If it is as it seems and he does form another government, expect more unreat, conflict, another intifada, more Gaza incursions, more deaths, more chaos and instability in the region.
But there is a bright spot of hope. Now that Mr. Netanyahu is exposed for what he is...and where he really stands, it will be much more difficult for his US and European sympathizers to concoct a false rationale for continuing to support this man's expansive, colonialist, bully government.
Now that Netanyahu has slipped his lamb's wool camouflage, it is time for the USA to TREAT ISRAEL LIKE ANY OTHER ALLY. TO USE IT'S UN VETO LIKE IT WOULD FOR ANY OTHER ALLY, AND it's time to support economic pressures on Israel which would help to bring about political change from within.
Israel is a small country desperately in need of the world's good will. It has lost much during Netanyahu's tenure. Perhaps a realistic view as now demonstrated by Mr. Netanyahu, of what Israel has become, will put more support behind the efforts of the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) movement. Perhaps a truly evenhanded US approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem is now possible. If so there IS hope for peace.
TIME TO TREAT ISRAEL JUST LIKE OTHER NATIONS
Faced with certain defeat, Mr. Netanyahu of Israel came out of the "peace" closet and exposed himself for what he is: a supporter of one illegitimate, ethnically cleansed state. The view is not pretty.
By his own words, Netanyahu has expressed his unwillingness to make peace, and to give up illegally occupied territories for a settlement with the Palestinians--the legitimate original inhabitants of most of what ISRAEL is today.
In this election, Netanyahu exposed himself and his Likud coalition for what they are: far right-wing radicals, determined to hold onto the West Bank, happy with the status quo, and opposed to peace at any cost. The USA and the rest of the world will have to deal with them accordingly.
Netanyahu was a desperate man on the eve of the election...like any politician he was ready to retain power at all costs. He has chutzpah. He accused his opposition and Mr. Herzog of being manipulated by Americans! He actually made these claims while he spoke to the nation on free air time over airways owned and operated by American, Las Vegas gambling tycoon Sheldon Adelson. Also Adelson the American has showered millions on Netanyahu. Netanyahu pulled the Palestinian card too. In an attempt to frighten Israelis he claimed that Palestinian-Israelis (citizens too) who were voting in large numbers in the election were a "threat" to Israel. He stated flatly "there would be no Palestinian state" while he was in office. He promised to expand settlements in East Jerusalem. These are all views that will make it impossible to renew talks of peace. They are dead. Palestinians under sixty years of occupation can have no hope of succor? What is left only conflict?
What about these pronouncements...won't Bibi just backtrack at some time and back off of these radical views? Probably not. The Israeli political system....more democratic than what we have--- does not easily permit a lying politician to get away with phony election promises. In the US system a pol has two to four years (in the Senate six) before the office holder must face the voters again, and hope that over that time the citizen's memory has gotten foggy (too often it's true) and has forgotten the unmet promises. Not so in Israel's more representative parliamentary system. If "lying Bibi" were to try to modulate or even go back on his election eve pronouncements some time during his new term...the splinter parties which had come together to form his government with the Likud party would very likely withdraw and deny him his majority. At thqt point he would have to call another election. So what we heard from Mr. Netanyahu is what we will most probably get in the coming years. If it is as it seems and he does form another government, expect more unreat, conflict, another intifada, more Gaza incursions, more deaths, more chaos and instability in the region.
But there is a bright spot of hope. Now that Mr. Netanyahu is exposed for what he is...and where he really stands, it will be much more difficult for his US and European sympathizers to concoct a false rationale for continuing to support this man's expansive, colonialist, bully government.
Now that Netanyahu has slipped his lamb's wool camouflage, it is time for the USA to TREAT ISRAEL LIKE ANY OTHER ALLY. TO USE IT'S UN VETO LIKE IT WOULD FOR ANY OTHER ALLY, AND it's time to support economic pressures on Israel which would help to bring about political change from within.
Israel is a small country desperately in need of the world's good will. It has lost much during Netanyahu's tenure. Perhaps a realistic view as now demonstrated by Mr. Netanyahu, of what Israel has become, will put more support behind the efforts of the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) movement. Perhaps a truly evenhanded US approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem is now possible. If so there IS hope for peace.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
BREEDLOVE ......BREEDS WAR
BREEDLOVE...BREEDS----WAR...MUST BE BROUGHT HOME
Spiegel (March 06, 2015) reports that NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe...Gen Phillip Breedlove has lost his credibility with our European allies. His excessive bellicosity, his exaggeration of Russian intervention, troop movements, and deployment of weapons has become legendary. Our European allies have complained bitterly...that his alarmist proclamations seem to be designed to purposely make diplomacy more difficult. He and well known warmongering Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland are both loose cannons on a slippery deck and in rough sea. Both should be recalled and reprimanded by President Obama who with his European allies is rightly attempting to solve the Ukraine situation diplomatically.
All of our knowledgable military experts have stated that there is NO military solution to the Ukraine problem. Supplying weapons to the Ukrainians, is the overriding ill-conceived passion of both Breedlove and Nuland. Their plans, were they to come to fruition will be greeted with glee only by the casket makers, and war-material-mongers, but will bring only disaster, chaos and destruction to the people of Ukraine. These two are dangerous to the US as well as the peace and security in Eastern Europe. Their excesses have damaged their credibility irretrievably. Time for them to come home. PS. The talk of making Nuland Secretqry of State in a future GOP administration is laughable..and enough of a threat to force one to vote Democratic. See: "Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO stance....",Spiegel On Line International (3-6-2015).
Spiegel (March 06, 2015) reports that NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe...Gen Phillip Breedlove has lost his credibility with our European allies. His excessive bellicosity, his exaggeration of Russian intervention, troop movements, and deployment of weapons has become legendary. Our European allies have complained bitterly...that his alarmist proclamations seem to be designed to purposely make diplomacy more difficult. He and well known warmongering Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland are both loose cannons on a slippery deck and in rough sea. Both should be recalled and reprimanded by President Obama who with his European allies is rightly attempting to solve the Ukraine situation diplomatically.
All of our knowledgable military experts have stated that there is NO military solution to the Ukraine problem. Supplying weapons to the Ukrainians, is the overriding ill-conceived passion of both Breedlove and Nuland. Their plans, were they to come to fruition will be greeted with glee only by the casket makers, and war-material-mongers, but will bring only disaster, chaos and destruction to the people of Ukraine. These two are dangerous to the US as well as the peace and security in Eastern Europe. Their excesses have damaged their credibility irretrievably. Time for them to come home. PS. The talk of making Nuland Secretqry of State in a future GOP administration is laughable..and enough of a threat to force one to vote Democratic. See: "Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO stance....",Spiegel On Line International (3-6-2015).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)