Case for Israel - Dershowitz - Part IV

22) Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands has been the longest and perhaps most brutal in modern history. Truth: This is ridiculous, certainly there have been many long occupations such as Tibet and for a Kurdish homeland, and certainly the brutality is immense in many others. But not only is the occupation not “brutal” except by terms of the “cycle of violence” but of course the solutions for a homeland have been rejected.

23) Israel has denied Palestinians statehood. Truth: Never sought statehood as part of Jordan or Egypt or Syria. Again, Arafat has rejected agreement, but de facto has control. As we can see in today’s news, what he has control of in Gaza and West Bank, he doesn’t know how to govern from police to sanitation, let alone full sovereignty.

24) Israel’s policy of house destruction as collective punishment. Truth: An economic penalty for complicity with murder, it’s the terrorism that’s collective punishment against Jews. Similar to US policy of confiscation against drug dealers.

25) Is it “unlawful” to target for assassination terrorist leaders? Truth: Under laws of war, it is perfectly proper to target military leaders. The Israeli government has stopped short, repeatedly protecting Arafat, as the chief political leader though he is a terrorist as well.

26) A major barrier to peace is settlement of the West Bank and Gaza. Truth: There is no moral reason why ancient Jewish cities like Hebron and Bethlehem should be Judenrein ( to use the infamous German word for “free of Jewish presence”). But pragmatically the Jewish settlements in “Palestinian territory” are bargaining chips and any right of return should be denied and the present settlements abandoned for peace. Again, the current news shows the Sharon government calling for backing out of Gaza

27) The “cycle of violence” is the reaction of terrorism and retribution. Truth: Terrorism is a political tactic and increases when the terrorist leaders want it to be news (Suicide bomber may be recruited by “revenge” but are not autonomous, they are sent). When Israel does not respond, it continues. Firm military action and security measures reduce the number and severity of attacks.

28) According to the UN, Israel is a prime human rights violator. Truth: The UN spends too much time and effort on Israel to avoid looking at other member states. Israel operates under a rule of law under difficult circumstances., and a true analysis of civil liberty as noted by distinguished persons such as Justice Brennan would have this conclusion.

29) Moral equivalence between terrorism and Israel’s response. Amnesty International and Pope John Paul II seem to think so. Truth: the difference is based on the deliberate targeting of civilians versus the targeting of terrorists who hide among civilians.

30) The divesting of university investment in Israeli business. Truth: A campaign is being waged based on bigotry and misinformation. Radical apologists such as Noam Chomsky are trying to straddle the fence.

31) Why do Jews charge any critic of Israel as anti-Semitic? Truth: Mere criticism of Israel policy is not anti-Semitic but as he has shown, anti-Semitism will not be allowed to fester and grow by deceptive approaches whether holocaust denial / minimization, moral equivalence, denial of Israel self-determination and right to exist, denial of equality before the law in the international arena.

32) Why do so many Jews side with Palestinians? Truth: It’s not that’s there’s so many, but that Jews in the US and Israelis have freedom to dissent and hold a great variety of views while the lack of same in Muslim states makes realistic comparison impossible.

GIRLS ARE EVIL

The above link  IS NOT endorsed by this site.  This conservative must undoubtedly suffer for his logical analysis of life.

Intelligence failures - Plessner

Gerry, you didn’t get back me on my critique of the Fahrenheit 911 article of yours on July 1, but I am proud of your writing a more tightly written article that at least tries to marshal facts to meet your opinion rather than pointing to Michael Moore a beacon of investigative journalism who agrees with you on disproved and distorted canards such as the Bin Laden flights and Afghan pipelines.
 
Before getting to your stronger points on Tenet and the CIA under pressure for “pro-war” intelligence, I must object to your last few paragraphs.  Though no fan of the style of the present resident of the Pentagon’s highest civilian chair (except his bravery on 9/11), you really are doing a non-sequitur from the CIA to the Pentagon with charges of a Wolfowitz independent Intel office (unsubstantiated) and Rumsfeld sign-off on Abu Gharib ( the release of records shows a clear delineation between interrogation policy and what happened with Lynddie England and her pals.  But wouldn’t you know about these things as a trained agent?).  And then you claim that led to “disastrous” military results when there is clear objective evidence that our forces achieved every objective assigned to them and that a political solution after only a year of “de-Baathing” is already happening.  And as far as mistaken efforts to enlist friends, there is not only a worthy alliance that has sacrificed alongside us, but the UN must now accept the new Iraq as “de facto” and should deal with their own failures on the growing “Oil for Food” scandal and the inability to do peacekeeping or even security on their own buildings without our help
 
One more point, on USSR as a basket case, as a political science student in the 1970s (not a secret agent), I knew that the Soviet Union was not only morally bankrupt but economically moribund.  It took a President, Reagan by name, who could act on that intelligence, to continually “push the envelope” that led to the “evil empire” to “tear down that wall”.
 
Anyhow, back to Tenet, whose “major fault was getting cozy with a president and vice president who had their own agenda”.  Tenet, by all accounts, attempted to serve his country loyally and competently and honestly throughout his intelligence career.  Ironically, he started out a staffer to
Senator Heinz (Kerry’s wife’s late husband) on the Select Committee on Intelligence.  My viewpoint would be that any appearance of coziness stands as stark contrast to the latter years of the Clinton Administration.  It seems to me that “Don’t Ask, don’t tell” was the slogan throughout his presidency, not only for gays in the military and his private life, but on the need for actionable intelligence in the post-Cold War years, and that intelligence gathering was not a priority.
 
Given the scathing and unanimous Senate committee on CIA intelligence, I must concede that Iraq intelligence was a problem. Certainly, Republican unanimity was probably given to get this report out there and over with, and probably as you said with the proviso, that the Democrats would not bring White House “pressure” or issues dealing with the Pentagon into the official report.  But you go way beyond Cheney and Rumsfeld being “pushers” to the illogical Moore conspiracy theories and I hesitate to argue with you in a rational debate on whether intelligence was “fabricated”.  In that case, I wonder not only about Tenet not quitting after his integrity was lost, but why oh why, has Colin Powell stayed around.  Maybe not only because they are loyal to the President’s agenda but actually believe that both Afghanistan and Iraq were proper courses of action, justified by the evil intent of an adversary, their violations of international law, and, by the way, righting a wrong and liberating people from tyranny.
 
My fallback position is not to argue with you about sarin shells and nuclear centrifuges and aluminum tubes.  Not even to discuss when exactly Zarqawi and other Al Queda may have established their infrastructure in Iraq.  My fallback position is not 9/11, it is rather another number, 1936.  In 1936, Britain and France, could have, should have, taken action against Germany for its violations of international law.  I am sure, in order to do so, the “national intelligence estimates” drawn up to justify invasion would have been documents driven by an agenda.  They probably would have been incorrect in many particulars.  But I don’t see that certain industrial expansion in the Ruhr could have been “dual-use” or certain divisions were not mechanized yet would be the key element.  And certainly as the Nazi apparatus fell in an invasion or a coup against Hitler, much would have been hidden – plans for a “final solution”,  blitzkrieg strategy, negotiation with Russia for Poland, etc, etc.  Maybe even feasibility of new weapons of mass destruction to save the Aryan nation from just such an invasion, much as Kaiser Germany premiered the use of chemical weapons.
 I see your line of arguments not as protective of an America that was deceived, but as true “weapons of mass distortion” as part of your role now in “counter intelligence” for a media elite that doesn’t know or care about America’s long term interests.

Faster Pastor

Well, some Christians know how to get the inside track on the NASCAR vote.
Please, Bush-Cheney campaign, be discreet in getting mailing lists when you find out about this!

This Land - this is good

Hit the link above for a great animation, great fun, great (or grating) music. It may take quite a while for it to download, be very patient

Four Feathers

If people in the US were to have a mind to come to "common ground" on the war in Iraq (which we're not, especially coming into elections), they might do no better than to read the classic Four Feathers and / or see the latest version on DVD.

For those so inclined, they can examine a real imperialist power, the British empire of the late 19th century, getting involved in a messy war in the Sudan (which of course may be the next country in play for US involvement, albeit we might even get UN support for it), with plenty of mistakes in strategy and misunderstanding the Islamic population.

But it also examines the nature of loyalty and courage. Whatever the justification for the Sudanese war, and there was much : a brutal and fanatic regime was selling its own people for slaves (as it still does!!), and challenging the Anglo / Egyptian alliance with terrorism and territorial agression (sound familiar), it is in essence examining the code of honor of the British empire. Do we have a similar code of honor as a people, should we? What obligations do individuals have to a nation, to friends and family in setting of strong cultural bonds? Do our hearts and minds belong to furthering our own interests, or do we use them for our nation, use them to understand other cultures? And in understanding and interacting with other cultures, do we act only for ourselves but for the greater good? And how do we define the greater good?!!!!

CNN vs ABC - The AIDS war is screwed up

ABC - abstinence, being faithful, condoms.

CNN - condoms, needles, negotiating skills!

Political correctness beats proven track record at world AIDS conference, big surprise?

Exactly what is wrong with telling people to zip it up until they know how to use it wisely, I just dont get.

Case for Israel - Dershowitz Part 3

16) Israel is not serious about peace. Truth: Though provoked by Palestinian terrorism especially from 1968 on, Israel has offered serious proposals but Palestinians have rejected every offer. Dershowitz has another book, Why Terrorism works. He argues that the loser of war should not be equal partners and that any negotiation is based on each other’s right to exist. Nonetheless, the Oslo peace process led to an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinians towns by 1995. But Arafat is not prepared, is scared of Hamas and others, so is afraid to make a formal peace and achieve a formal 2 state independence.
17)Arafat was right to turn down the Barak / Clinton proposal in 2000 or at least all sides are to blame. Truth: In addition to arguments above, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia even disagrees and blames Arafat. He was a crucial intermediary between Arafat and Clinton. Everyone knew it was Israel’s best offer, that unlimited Arab right of return and total contiguity could not be offered. The excuse of Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount (September 2000) to resume violence is ridiculous.
18)Why have more Palestinians been killed than Israelis? Truth: It’s not for lack of trying – many terrorist actions including at least one documented one on scale of 9/11 have been stopped, also better medical care on Israeli side in emergency response prepared for suicide bombings. Also, many of the casualty lists are padded by the Palestinians to include the terrorists themselves, Arabs killed in their bombings or premature detonation, etc, etc.
19)Does Israel torture Palestinians? Truth: Israel Supreme Court has explicitly outlawed techniques of torture, some of which are legitimate as physical pressure in the US anti-terror campaign and for which we were “called on the carpet” for excesses and humiliation at Abu Gharib.
20)Does Israel engage in genocide? Truth: The Israel army has always targeted only military and terrorist targets. Again the military code and the Israeli Supreme Court specify much more stringent “rules of engagement” than does the US
21)Is Israel a racist state because of its right of return immigration policy? Truth: it is a non-racial policy that allows priority of immigration due to religious belief and family ties following from that. There is freedom of religion and much less discrimination than in the Arab countries. Other countries have “right of return” and explicitly ethnic immigration policies, including most Arab states.

beholding.net

Thanks for Matt reading my blog.

I think his web site is great - interesting poetry. I will need to return to ponder it later

World Mag blog on Spiderman's message

And yet another post and thread on Spiderman's philosophy

Adam Schiff - on Iraq and Saddam

Democrat that took Jim Rogan's spot he may be, but I'm proud that even with elections looming and the "bad" reports coming in, he's sticking to his position that Iraq was the right thing to do and things are moving forward

Here's his Saddam on trial press release

And here
he "gets it" (May 2003) like none of the Democratic "leaders" that they are seen as weak on national security

Spidey and Religion - Power and Responsibility

Well, you've seen my political analogy to George W and our current situation
Other people have responded to the movie's philosophy. In case, you don't want to register with Dallas Morning News, as the title link requests, here's some excerpts:

"Smack in the emotional heart of the new Spider-Man movie, which opens today, is the most famous line ever written for a comic book. It was the center of the first Spider-Man movie, too, pretty much the way Stan Lee wrote it 42 years ago:
"With great power there must also come – great responsibility." ....
"The theme that responsibility and power are webbed together is also found in many religious and ethical traditions. In fact, it's such a universal human conflict that even egghead theologians are inclined to nod respectfully at this particular comic book hero... "The whole Hebrew Bible is one long story about the just use of power," said Rabbi David Stern of Temple Emanu-El in Dallas. "From Adam and Eve onward, there is the idea that we are endowed with unique power by being created in God's image and that the power automatically entails responsibility." ...Christians hear ... (in) Luke: "From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required, and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded." ...Present-day real heroes often recognize that the power to do the right thing entails responsibility to act, said Samuel Oliner, author of Do Unto Others: Extraordinary Acts of Ordinary People. "This inner conversation is actually real: 'What will I tell my children? What will I tell myself if I don't act?' " he said. "You aren't allowed to be a bystander." ... In the original telling of the tale by Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko, Peter gains his powers and decides to make a buck – and nothing more. He lets a robber run by and discovers a few comic panels later that the same criminal has subsequently murdered his beloved Uncle Ben. In addition to religious traditions, the idea for the line could have emerged from the current events of the day. Questions about power and responsibility filled the headlines of the early 1960s even as they fill the headlines of the current millennium: President John F. Kennedy had recently told the nation to "ask not what your country can do for you ..." The Cold War was near-hot with the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Civil Rights movement was leaping into the headlines. The space race was flinging Americans and Soviets into orbit. Stan was just starting his revolution at Marvel Comics, co-creating a bullpen of unusually conflicted characters. So did world events or religious themes inspire the famous line? ..."I'd love to say that I was inspired by things happening in the world such as the civil rights movement or an impending war, or even a previous war, or politics or whatever," Stan, now 81, said this week. "But I really think it was just a phrase that came to me and it sounded good, and I wrote it down and continued writing without giving it much more thought," he said.

Reminds me of Son of Sam (or Sadaam) - reporters who know too much

How to define what this journalist has become is very hard.

In one way, he is indeed an intermediary providing an insightful look at a political insurgency.

But I am reminded of the Son of Sam, or the Zodiac killer, etc, who call or write a reporter and tell him what's he done or what he's going to do. It's just that petty and that sick, even on a global scale.

THE CASE FOR ISRAEL – SYNOPSIS OF DERSHOWITZ BOOK -- PART II

8)The UN Plan in 1947 was unfair to Palestinians. It was imposed on them to allow Zionist colonization to be formalized. Truth: The plan was fair, would have allowed for mutual self-determination and the outlines of such a 2-state plan are now the consensus of world opinion.

9)The Jews were a minority in Israel and should not have been granted any territory. Truth: The Jews were a substantial majority in the portion portioned by the UN.

10)The existence of the Palestinian victims of Israel is the core of Arab Israeli conflict. Truth: Arab rejection of Israel’s right to exist is the chief cause.

11)The War of Independence in 1948 by Israel was expansionist aggression. Truth: Israel defended itself against a genocidal war of extermination. As soon as Israel declared independence, the Arab states declared war to drive the Jews into the sea

12) Israel by its expansion in 1948 created the Arab refugee problem. Truth: The Arab states started the war, they exacerbated the refugee problem by panicking and deceiving the Arab villagers, and the Arab states have refused to integrate the Palestinians into their nations. The UN redefined its refugee program to keep it going these 40 plus years. Any excesses by Israel militia in defending their land that could be termed massacres, were dealt with promptly. The only true thing is that if Israel had lost, there would have been no Jewish refugee problem.

13) Israel started the Six Day War. Truth: Yes, it fired the first shots but Egypt, Syria and Jordan mobilized for Israel’s destruction and provoked attack by closing the Straits of Tiran.

14) There is no justification of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Truth: Israel was willing to trade land captured in a defensive war for peace, as it did with Egypt and Jordan. Almost immediately after prevailing over the Arab armies, Israel agreed with the principles of UN Resolution 242, which for the first time in history ordered a nation to return territories lawfully captured. But neither Syria or Palestinians have been willing to offer peace for land!

15) The Yom Kippur War (1973) was Israel’s fault. Truth: the unprovoked attack was unjustified and in violation of the UN charter. The only good thing it accomplished was both a restoration of Arab honor and a grudging admission by at least Egypt and Jordan that more could be accomplished by negotiation (the return of the Sinai!!) than by battle.

Spidey and W

Do the liberals know what a danger the Spiderman movies are to their message, how much it counters the vileness of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9-11. Do even the producers of Spiderman, who given the realities of Hollywood have to be mostly strident Democrats, understand that it is essentially neo-conservative, neo-imperialistic propaganda. I mean, we keep hearing the ghostly words echoed by Cliff Robertson “with great power, brings great responsibility”, what a lame re-tread of the philosophy of the “white man’s burden (see Kipling, you know, the Jungle Book guy, if you don’t get the reference).

Anyhow, consider Peter Parker and his alter ego, Spidey. He is naïve, sometimes a little tongue-tied, idealistic, but not guiltless (his recklessness killed his Uncle Ben and regularly put his Aunt May and girl, Mary Jane, at risk). He is, or he should be “conflicted”, for both he and Spidey are not praised for their actions but criticized for their failures to accomplish what they promise. But still that relentless bravado even when he doesn’t know if he will stick to the next building or fall into the dumpster of a dirty alley. If not for that bright red costume, couldn’t you just see Spiderman, instead of having stringy webs, with a lasso, swinging with a yippie-yi-yeah through the city?

So, in short, doesn’t Spiderman remind you of George W. and the policies he “foisted” upon us? Peter Parker considers himself a “do-gooder” and as Spiderman, in fact, he can’t seem to stop himself from doing so. Yet the newspapers and the powers-that-be do not accept him, they rather consider him one of the villains. After all, wherever there is trouble, he shows up. Therefore, in their minds, he is a troublemaker and if he can’t make the bad guys disappear in a day, then the responsibility for any evil they bring falls upon him. It’s like he’s in school and the report card says “strives to achieve, but does not work well with others!” The only thing they could have added would be a journalist asking, “So, Spidey, what has been your greatest failure these past couple years? Can you apologize to the people of New York?”

Let me ask you point blank, should W say he’s sorry for the mess we’re in, for mess it may well be?? We can see the burden he’s under, just like our “conflicted” Peter Parker, it may make both him and us “feel better”. Yet, if in making himself vulnerable, he weakens our resolve and opens all Americans to more risk that is a price he seems to be unwilling to pay, thank God. Lest you think Spiderman does not touch on this, let me take you near the end of Spiderman 2. Spiderman’s mask is off, his suit is in shreds, the human Peter Parker is revealed, after he’s given all he had to save a group of New Yorkers (though he put them in harm’s way by standing up to the villain) but they say to him, in turn, “ Don’t worry, your secret’s safe with me… and me… and me!” Then in a powerful touch of reality in this post-911 world, each man, woman, and child as passengers in a commuter train must stand up to the terrorizing super-villain. He goes on to reveal himself, finally, to his girl and even to the villains, but strangely, not to the press and public at large.

So go ahead, let’s keep calling W a cowboy, with dumbo ears (see editorial cartoons), a neo-imperialist. After all, we have to keep the secret. Some of us have seen into his heart, we know who the real W is, and what’s more, what he represents. We are grateful and love and honor him, but often quietly and secretly (like in the ballot box this November). Thanks, W, your secret’s safe with us!

IRAQ AND "1936"

Why DID we do it? Was it worth it? Let me cut past sarin shells and Abu Gharib and say one word: “1936”. To me, that says it all and let me explain why.

Let me relate a story, a true history, recorded just this past century. Yet it ends up a tale of what never happened, and therefore a great calamity, the greatest shared tragedy the world has ever known, did happen. Such are the missed opportunities to change history by bold, and perhaps righteous, action.

The imperialist powers of Britain and France, for indeed they were still masters of colonial empires that stretched around the world, looked to the east and worried about the foe they had defeated 18 years ago, defeated with the help of a coalition of nations that led to it being termed the World War.

This foe was rebuilding its industry and its military. Though in clear violation of the Versailles Treaty ending the Great War and the subsequent League of Nations (precursor to the United Nations), such a move was restoring the pride and sovereignty of this nation. The nation, Germany, led by a former foot soldier who had survived the deprivations of the trenches, and had returned along with many others, with a burning sense of humiliation and need for a renewed, strong, “pure” nation. As time went on, he claimed that other races, other cultures were corrupting forces. And these imperialist powers, Britain and France, were such hypocrites, and decadent with corruption and mixing of races, and they oppressed Germany with reparation payments that impoverished the people as a vain attempt to keep them down. The West had even “invaded” the industrial region of Germany several years back to get their “pound of flesh” of reparations, and the upshot of that were those pictures everybody has seen of wheelbarrows full of worthless German money.

But NOW was the moment for Britain and France to act. A defeated foe was rising again. The Nazis were already oppressing certain portions of the population, most notably the Jews, beyond the limits of normal European cultural patterns of racial discrimination and anyone who read Hitler’s Mein Kampf should have known where it was heading.

And YET beyond international protests of violations of treaty, they DID nothing. Why? Was it “imperialist” guilt? Was it the attempt to avoid a conflict, avoiding bringing back the memories of so much loss in the trenches? They dared not believe that this rude upstart Hitler would re-make Germany from a defeated foe into the most aggressive power the world has ever seen.

1936 – I hope I showed you it was not all black and white – there were “reasons” and “excuses” for inaction. And YET – if France and England had acted, whether or not from pure hands and selfless motives, a PRE-EMPTIVE invasion leading to the overthrow of the Nazi regime would have been the RIGHT thing to do, even if some innocents would have died and the Western powers “look” like the aggressors. So MANY lives, so much loss could have been spared. How would history have been different?!

Do I REALLY need to close the analogy with Iraq? In fact, we did not strike decisively, completely, until after Saddam has committed horrible crimes against the Kurds, the Shiites, in fact all of his people. Even after the Desert Storm defeat, he was able to use the United Nations sanctions program, now infamous as “Oil for Food” to build palaces, have his sons torture athletes and train terrorists, and send blood money to suicide bombers’ families in Palestine each time Jews died.

Maybe Saddam is a penny-ante Hitler, but he is still is the Hitler of our age. We could not let HIM represent a restored pride in the Middle East, not Saddam! Is it a forlorn hope that democratic institutions can flourish in Central Asia? Uh, ask Turkey,India, Israel, or even Russia that question? Can anyone believe that a federation of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites will hold together – or will it fall apart painfully like Yugoslavia or Lebanon? I mean, who can believe that a multi-racial society can survive and thrive? Oh wait, jeez, look around you right in your neighborhood, I certainly hope so!!

Yes, it is messy, it is painful,it is costly, maybe it is a “bad” situation. But look at Iraq, where it’s been, where it can go. What has happened in Iraq is the least “bad” scenario that a just God (or Jehovah or Allah or however you may deem to call the Almighty) could have conceived as a fate for the Iraqis.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and the peace of Baghdad. And God Bless America!!

Gerald Plessner Strikes Again - At OUR Security

Shame on you, Gerry.

There are many legitimate arguments to be used against the Bush administration and in this free country of ours, you can claim many things in your efforts to prove that Bush should be replaced in favor of another. But as I stated before to you and will state again, the opposition by Democrats and others on Iraq, especially when it goes off track from simply philosophical differences and charges of bungling and moves on to conspiracy theories and lies, is dangerous to the ongoing foreign policy of this nation. And I don’t want that to happen because, even if, (especially if!!), Kerry replaces Bush, he needs to have the U.S. and its policies abroad in the strongest position possible!!

Shame on you, for presenting warmed-over nonsense and mixing it with Moore’s vileness, and think that you have an argument. It seems that many angry conservatives, and many thoughtful liberals by the way, have come out against this false documentary. I don’t think anybody should seek to ban it. On the contrary, conservative outrage has fueled the publicity surrounding the movie, as Moore himself has gleefully acknowledged. (Guess conservatives are just returning the favor given by liberals and libertarians and anti-religious of all stripes criticizing the Passion movie). And so much the better, let everyone see it and the debate be joined.

First, your warmed-over nonsense is not only incorrect but off-point. On January 2002 (you said 2000!!?) you talked about the proposed Afghan pipeline and money going to the Taliban. But the only evidence of money you mention is the $43 million which you even admit was recommended by Clinton. And not only by Clinton but by the almighty U.N. which said that the Taliban had done a stellar job in banning opium poppy production in Afghanistan. Any American funds which Powell announced in April and May 2001 before the UN, were distributed by the U.N. and NGOs not as money without strings but as part of relief efforts that all can agree were needed throughout Afghanistan before and after the war. And the pipeline – again the pipeline – was something UNOCAL and Russia and Turkmenistan wanted, was a “carrot” the State Dept. had been using in negotiations with the Taliban since 1998 and probably before (once again do you know your dates – Clinton was in office!). What does that have to do, though, with ignoring Afghanistan in favor of Iraq? Even more, your June 21,2001 comments on the American imperium do not reference Iraq or any “neo-colonization” you think Bush wants, but rather focused on rejection of Kyoto environmentalism and missile defense treaties, neither of which would Saddam or other Middle east leaders have cared a fig about!!?

Finally we get to the Saudi flights. In testimony before the 9-11 commission, Clarke stated his role in organizing the flights though he hedged that the FBI had to clear it, “The request came to me, and I refused to approve it," Clarke testified. "I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the - at the time - No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved the flight."
In later interviews with “The Hill” newspaper, he more clearly states that he was the one authorizing it, and consulted with the FBI to clarify that there was no problem in letting them leave. He didn’t say that Bush was involved personally in this at all, but in the aftermath of “ 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.". This actually does fit into his overall argument that he was no longer on the “inside” with the administration as he had been with Clinton. Clarke said he did it and would do it again, and if I were him, I would have done it too. As a duly authorized government officer in charge of anti-terrorism, he knew who was a real threat or not, and felt that the safety of Saudis from a nation in shock was paramount. Remember the dozens of hate crimes in September 2001 – that often struck against non-Moslems, I know an Egyptian Christian and Sikhs were killed for looking Arab - and what such crimes against high-ranking Saudis would have meant to stability of international diplomacy

And you (yes, shame on you, once again) put this forward as number one in your list of particulars for charges of impeachment! Listen carefully – 1) the whole thing is balderdash, the FBI didn’t let anyone escape, none of those people that flew out have been shown to be any kind of danger 2) Clarke said Bush was not involved, 3) no intent of “evildoing” or deception could be proved of such a thing. The president, any president, could not been held personally accountable, especially in the criminal sense of an impeachment proceeding, on such operational details taking place in a crisis situation, even if turned out Osama himself escaped with the help of a false mustache and eyeglasses!

Yeah nobody likes to be lied to and bamboozled. Goes both ways, don't you think?