Iran Freedom Support Act (HR 282)

HR 282 (the Iran Freedom Support Act) will begin the process of sanctions against Iran. We have witnessed the consequences of acts like this in Iraq.

The people will suffer the most, not the leaders. Many may perish. Additionally, the US may suffer economically with even higher gas prices and other economic consequences.

The act will not elicit the desired result. Economics sanctions rarely do. This will lead to calls for "more action." We all know the final result – the people of Iran will suffer even more, and it will cost US taxpayers.

Who would sponsor such ill advised action? Is it the "greedy" oil companies? Well, a look at the bill sponsors in the House does not show any congressional sponsors from districts with strong oil interests. Perhaps there are, but I am not aware of any on the list.

I do see many sponsors from districts are thick with supporters of Israel, and who have been vocal proponents for Israel and AIPAC in the past.

So now you know who is pushing for the US to enter conflict with Iran, just in case you were wondering about that.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (Original Sponsor) [Strong AIPAC/Israel Supporter]
Mr. LANTOS,
Mr. CHABOT,
Mr. BERMAN,
Mr. CANTOR,
Mr. ACKERMAN,
Mr. ANDREWS,
Mr. BACHUS,
Ms. BERKLEY,
Mrs. BIGGERT,
Mr. BOEHLERT,
Mr. BURTON of Indiana,
Mr. CHANDLER,
Mr. COX,
Mr. CROWLEY,
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia,
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida,
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida,
Mr. ENGEL,
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA,
Mr. FOLEY,
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey,
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin,
Ms. HARRIS,
Mr. ISRAEL,
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois,
Mr. KIRK,
Mr. LARSEN of Washington,
Mr. MCCOTTER,
Mr. MENENDEZ,
Mr. MICA,
Mrs. MYRICK,
Mr. NADLER,
Mr. NORWOOD,
Mr. NUNES,
Mr. PENCE,
Mr. PLATTS,
Mr. PORTER,
Mr. ROTHMAN,
Mr. ROHRABACHER,
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin,
Mr. SAXTON,
Mr. SHERMAN,
Mr. SHIMKUS,
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey,
Mr. SOUDER,
Mr. SULLIVAN,
Mr. TANCREDO,
Mr. WELLER,
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina

LOC

Colbert Interviews Bill Kristol

Great interview of Bill Kristol by Colbert. You should really watch this.

Colbert

Vice Squad

Background the Vice President's Office and their hand in the false intellegence gathering efforts leading up to Iraq.

The pivotal role of Cheney’s staff in promoting war in Iraq has been well documented. Cheney was the war’s most vocal advocate, and his staff -- especially Libby, Hannah, Ravich, and others -- worked hard to “fit” intelligence to inflate Iraq’s seeming threat. William J. Luti, a neoconservative radical, left Cheney’s office for the Pentagon in 2001, where he organized the war planning team called the Office of Special Plans. David Wurmser, another neoconservative from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), joined the Pentagon to found the forerunner of the OSP, the so-called Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, which then manufactured the evidence that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were allies. To that end, Wurmser worked closely with Hannah, Libby, Luti, and Harold Rhode, a Defense Department official in Andy Marshall’s Office of Net Assessment. Ravich, along with Zalmay Khalilzad, a neoconservative Middle East analyst and now U.S. ambassador to Iraq, worked hard to build the Iraqi National Congress–linked opposition forces under Ahmad Chalabi. Libby and Hannah produced key propaganda for the war, including the most inflammatory and inaccurate speeches delivered by Cheney and Bush. The Libby-Hannah team also authored a 48-page speech for Colin Powell’s 2003 United Nations appearance so extreme that Powell trashed the entire document. That version has never been released.

American Prospect

Xymphora

Israel Costs Us in So Many Ways

Great post on the relationship between gas prices and the Zionist demand that we deal with Iraq:

There are no fewer than five seperate proposals floating around Congress to "do something" about high gasoline prices. And, of course, President Bush has also promised to deal with "the problem," by investigating any allegations of price fixing on the part of oil refiners, marketers and retailers.

And yet, this very same day, a bill tightening US sanctions on Iran is also being taken up in Congress. Team Bush continues to threaten to attack Iran (an attack that would have significant bipartisan support), and has refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons.

Far be it from me to assume anyone in Congress has many brains, but don't they see the connection? Don't stuanch Republicans, who like their gasoline cheap AND their foreigners bombed, also get it? The connection virtually every other trader, broker, buyer and seller of crude oil and refined products sees? That oil prices are probably $20/bbl higher than they might otherwise be were it not for all the bomb rattling over Iran?

Oh, they see the connection. They just don't care, becuase the security of Israel is far more important that the wallet of US citizens.

They don't even care about US lives, so why should they care about US dollars?

Lew Rockwell

The Decision to Go to War.

Zbigniew Brzezinski on why we should not attack Iran, and that it seems the Bush admin is committed to war as the only option.

Moreover, persistent hints by official spokesmen that "the military option is on the table" impedes the kind of negotiations that could make that option redundant. Such threats unite Iranian nationalism with Shiite fundamentalism. They also reinforce growing international suspicions that the United States is even deliberately encouraging greater Iranian intransigence.

Sadly, one has to wonder whether in fact such suspicions may not be partially justified. How else to explain the current U.S. "negotiating" stance: the United States is refusing to participate in the on-going negotiations with Iran but insists on dealing only through proxies. That stands in sharp contrast with the simultaneous negotiations with North Korea, in which the United States is actively engaged.

At the same time, the United States is allocating funds for the destabilization of the Iranian regime and is reportedly injecting Special Forces teams into Iran to stir up non-Iranian ethnic minorities in order to fragment the Iranian state (in the name of democratization!). And there are people in the Bush administration who do not wish any negotiated solution, abetted by outside drum-beaters for military action and egged on by full-page ads hyping the Iranian threat.

And just who is publishing those full page ads? The Lobby.

Link

Of Course There is an Israeli Lobby

Molly Ivans joins the chorus of people saying Alan Dershowitz is way off base.

For having the sheer effrontery to point out the painfully obvious -- that there is an Israel lobby in the United States -- Mearsheimer and Walt have been accused of being anti-Semitic, nutty and guilty of "kooky academic work." Alan Dershowitz, who seems to be easily upset, went totally ballistic over the mild, academic, not to suggest pretty boring article by Mearsheimer and Walt, calling them "liars" and "bigots."

Lots of great quotes in this article:

In the United States, we do not have full-throated, full-throttle debate about Israel. In Israel, they have it as matter of course, but the truth is that the accusation of anti-Semitism is far too often raised in this country against anyone who criticizes the government of Israel.

Being pro-Israel is no defense, as I long ago learned to my cost. Now I've gotten used to it. Jews who criticize Israel are charmingly labeled "self-hating Jews." As I have often pointed out, that must mean there are a lot of self-hating Israelis, because those folks raise hell over their own government's policies all the time.

I don't know that I've ever felt intimidated by the knee-jerk "you're anti-Semitic" charge leveled at anyone who criticizes Israel, but I do know I have certainly heard it often enough to become tired of it.

Right on, Molly. Pleaes take the time to read it.

Molly Ivans

It's Not Anti-Semitic

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post gives one of the best write-ups yet on the Walt-Mearsheimer paper. It exposes critics like Alan Dershowitz for the smear artist they are.

Mr. Cohen opens by responding to the hysterical and politically motivated attacks on the papers:

During the Jim Crow era, many American communists fiercely fought racism. This is a fact. It is also a fact that segregationists and others often smeared civil rights activists by calling them communists. This technique is sometimes called guilt by association and sometimes "McCarthyism." If you think it's dead, you have not been following the controversy over a long essay about the so-called "Israel Lobby." [Yup.]

Better yet, he rebukes Eliot Cohen for his article on the W-M paper, also published in the Washington Post.

But I did find Cohen's piece to be offensive. It starts by noting that the paper, titled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," had been endorsed by David Duke, the former head of the Ku Klux Klan. It goes on to quote Duke, who, I am sure, has nodded his head in agreement over the years with an occasional piece of mine, as saying the paper is a "modern Declaration of American Independence." If you follow Cohen's reasoning, then you would have to conclude that David Duke and the Founding Fathers have something in common. I am not, as they say, willing to go there.

Finally, Cohen exposes some of the real over the top rhetoric put forth with regard to the paper.

There is hardly a stronger, more odious, accusation than anti-Semitism. It comes freighted with more than a thousand years of tragic history, culminating in the Holocaust. The mere suggestion of it is enough for any sane person to hold his tongue. Yet this did not stop the respected German newspaper editor Josef Joffe from stating in the New Republic that the lobby paper "puts 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' to shame.", He is referring to the most notorious anti-Semitic text of all time. My friend Joffe is in dire need of a cold compress.

Thank you Mr. Cohen.

Washington Post

Tony Judt on The Lobby in the NYT

Tony Judt walks as delicately as possible through the minefield that is discussion of The Lobby.

Thus it will not be self-evident to future generations of Americans why the imperial might and international reputation of the United States are so closely aligned with one small, controversial Mediterranean client state. It is already not at all self-evident to Europeans, Latin Americans, Africans or Asians. Why, they ask, has America chosen to lose touch with the rest of the international community on this issue? Americans may not like the implications of this question. But it is pressing. It bears directly on our international standing and influence; and it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. We cannot ignore it.

The good news is that article is from The New York Times. Another great quote:

How are we to explain the fact that it is in Israel itself that the uncomfortable issues raised by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have been most thoroughly aired? It was an Israeli columnist in the liberal daily Haaretz who described the American foreign policy advisers Richard Perle and Douglas Feith as "walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments ...and Israeli interests." It was Israel's impeccably conservative Jerusalem Post that described Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, as "devoutly pro-Israel." Are we to accuse Israelis, too, of "anti-Zionism"?

I am too pessimistic to call this progress, but at least it is something.

Comment

NYT

Israel's Demographic Problem

No one dare discuss demographics in the US. For example, Bill Kristol just lambasted certain elements of the Republican party for their stance on illegal immgration.

But the demographics of Israel? That's another question entirely.

From left to right, the manifestos of all the Zionist parties during the recent Israeli election campaign contained policies which they claimed would counter the ‘demographic problem’ posed by the Palestinian presence in Israel. Ariel Sharon proposed the pull-out from Gaza as the best solution to it; the leaders of the Labour Party endorsed the wall because they believed it was the best way of limiting the number of Palestinians inside Israel. Extra-parliamentary groups, too, such as the Geneva Accord movement, Peace Now, the Council for Peace and Security, Ami Ayalon’s Census group and the Mizrachi Democratic Rainbow all claim to know how to tackle it.

Iian Pappe - LRB

Manufacturing Anti-Semitism

Kristoffer Larsson exposes the manipulation of surveys and logic to find anti-Semitism where none exists.

On March 14, 2006, a report on anti-Semitism in Sweden was published with sensation findings. It claimed that a significant proportion of the Swedish public harbor "anti-Semitic views." As one could expect, this finding caught the attention of the Jewish world. The Israeli daily Ha'aretz warned, "41 percent of Swedes are prejudiced against Jews."

Anti-Semitism does exist in Sweden, but it has been strongly exaggerated in this report, most of whose conclusions are highly questionable. This is especially clear when the authors of the report explain that sometimes criticizing the state of Israel could be regarded as anti-Semitism.

Why would anyone want to exaggerate anti-Semitism? Perhaps to create climate where it is difficult to criticize Israel.

CounterPunch

Eric Alterman on Walt-Mearsheimer

Eric Alterman has some excellent comments on the Walt-Mearsheimer paper and the response thereto. His opening paragraph is excellent:

The University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer is among America's most admired political scientists. Stephen Walt is the academic dean and a chaired professor at Harvard's Kennedy School. Neither man has ever made any remotely racist or anti-Semitic utterance in the public sphere. And yet because they recently published an essay in The London Review of Books and (with full scholarly apparatus) on the Kennedy School website that critically and--this is key--unsentimentally examines the role of the "Israel lobby" in the making of US foreign policy, these two scholars have been subjected to a relentless barrage of vituperative insults in which the accusation "anti-Semite" is merely the beginning.

Unfortunately, Alterman concludes with some unwarranted criticism of the paper. First, he complains that Israel is singled out, without discussion of the influence of other lobbies. Second, he finds too little discussion of oil interests.

I just don't see a lot of evidence that big oil was involved in getting us into Iraq. If Alterman has such information he should provide it.

I also don't see any Middle Eastern country exerting any influence whatsoever in Middle Eastern affairs, as strange as that sounds. For example, the US has wasted no time pulling funding for the occupied terratories. I did not see any Arab nation effectively lobby to continue this funding, or even slow down the decision process.

It is hard to take Alterman's claims seriously without any examples of the influence of the other "lobbies" in action

The Nation

Eric Alterman on Walt-Mearsheimer

Eric Alterman has some excellent comments on the Walt-Mearsheimer paper and the response thereto. His opening paragraph is excellent:

The University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer is among America's most admired political scientists. Stephen Walt is the academic dean and a chaired professor at Harvard's Kennedy School. Neither man has ever made any remotely racist or anti-Semitic utterance in the public sphere. And yet because they recently published an essay in The London Review of Books and (with full scholarly apparatus) on the Kennedy School website that critically and--this is key--unsentimentally examines the role of the "Israel lobby" in the making of US foreign policy, these two scholars have been subjected to a relentless barrage of vituperative insults in which the accusation "anti-Semite" is merely the beginning.

Unfortunately, Alterman concludes with some unwarranted criticism of the paper. First, he complains that Israel is singled out, without discussion of the influence of other lobbies. Second, he finds too little discussion of oil interests.

I just don't see a lot of evidence that big oil was involved in getting us into Iraq. If Alterman has such information he should provide it.

I also don't see any Middle Eastern country exerting any influence whatsoever in Middle Eastern affairs, as strange as that sounds. For example, the US has wasted no time pulling funding for the occupied territories. I did not see any Arab nation effectively lobby to continue this funding, or even slow down the decision process.

It is hard to take Alterman's claims seriously without any examples of the influence of the other "lobbies" in action

What They Are

From a speech given to the Yale Political Union by Justin Raimondo.

The neoconservative foreign policy project – succinctly summed up by the president as the goal of "ending tyranny in our world" – is closer, in theory and in practice, to the spirit of Marxism than to anything vaguely resembling conservatism, or, indeed, any ideology born on American soil. That is entirely appropriate, of course, since the leftist roots of neoconservatism are well known, and it is clear that, as much as they talk about patriotism and "pro-Americanism," their real roots spring from a bulb planted not by Jefferson, but by Trotsky.

Well said.

Justin Raimondo

What They Are

From a speech given to the Yale political union by Justin Raimondo.

The neoconservative foreign policy project – succinctly summed up by the president as the goal of "ending tyranny in our world" – is closer, in theory and in practice, to the spirit of Marxism than to anything vaguely resembling conservatism, or, indeed, any ideology born on American soil. That is entirely appropriate, of course, since the leftist roots of neoconservatism are well known, and it is clear that, as much as they talk about patriotism and "pro-Americanism," their real roots spring from a bulb planted not by Jefferson, but by Trotsky.

Well said.

Justin Raimondo

Pushing us into War

The Lobby exists and is pushing us into war with Iran.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) ... has also been pushing hard on Capitol Hill for legislation to promote regime change. Despite White House objections, the group has sought tough sanctions against foreign companies with investments in Iran.

"This bill has been pushed almost entirely by AIPAC," noted Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) here. " I don't see any other major groups behind this legislation that have had any impact on it."

Similarly, the American Jewish Committee (AJC), whose leadership is considered slightly less hawkish than AIPAC, has taken out full-page ads in influential U.S. newspapers since last week entitled "A Nuclear Iran Threatens All" depicting radiating circles on an Iran-centered map to show where its missiles could strike.

Jim Lobe

The Iran Plans

Seymour Hersh gives up the latest on the Iraq plans. Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

The New Yorker

Comment here

Of Course There Is an Israel Lobby

Interesting article on Israel and The Lobby.

The lobby's effectiveness at control was illustrated two years ago. Both government and media condemned China when it arrested, and accused of espionage, a Chinese citizen–Green Card holder visiting from the U.S. Neither the U.S. government nor media has ever protested—has never even mentioned—Israel's years-long multiple arrests and protracted detentions of American citizens, without charge or trial. In September 2000, CNN interviewed four Americans who had been tortured, the only report on this compelling story, and the network has since been forced to refuse selling recordings of that news segment, “Americans Mistreated in Israeli Jails.” America would have been fully informed had any other country committed these acts.

Link

Ambassador Edward Peck is an Advisory Board Member for the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute, was Deputy Director of the Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan White House and former Chief of Mission in Iraq, and was in Jerusalem and the West bank as an international observer of the presidential elections in 2005, and in Gaza for the Legislative Council elections in 2006.

Rafi Eitan

Although discussed by Steve Sailer, this comment by Dave in Boca is worth highlighting. It is always helpful to have background information on the various players in Israeli politics, if you are American.

The Pensioners' Party has come out of nowhere to win seven seats to the Knesset under the leadership of Rafi Eitan, a well-known figure in Israel's turbulent history, who at 79 years old is playing his third act in a lifetime full of skullduggery.

Eitan was the mastermind of the kidnapping of Adolph Eichmann from Argentina, resulting in that Nazi war criminal's trial and execution for war crimes during the Second World War.

Then, in a less glorious episode, Eitan set up Jonathon Pollard as a spy who stole US secrets which informed observers say Israel subsequently traded to the USSR for spy info on its enemies in the Middle East. This was the reason that recently-deceased Caspar Weinberger reportedly gave for ordering Pollard to be kept in a maximum-security facility for life with no hope of parole or early release.

Link

Jews Sans Frontieres Update

Jews Sans Frontieres has been posting interesting stuff over last few days. You should make it part of your daily reading.

Did you hear the one about the ADL calling Hebrew University anti-Semitic? I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

At least you will know that you are in good company When Abe Foxman comes after you.

ADL-Hebrew U.

Other interesting topics:

Israelis can't watch Machsom Watch


Writing on the Wall

Most Favored Nation

Great comment on the Walt-Mearsheimer paper in the Boston Globe, of all places. The writer, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, is British. This is de rigueur, as it does not seem possible for an American writier to discuss this topic without facing negative consequences.

What makes the paper more stinging is the fact that Mearsheimer and Walt write not from the doctrinaire left or the crackpot right but from the ''realist" foreign-policy establishment, and that they are on the faculty of highly respectable institutions. That, and their suggestion that America's ''unwavering support" for Israel, notably the $3 billion a year in direct aid, has no strategic or moral rationale anymore, if it ever had, and has among other things made America more, not less, vulnerable to terrorism. The clear implication is that loosening those ties with Israel would be in the American national interest.

Yup. That is the implication.

He goes on:

Whatever view is taken of that analysis, it is no secret that prominent members of the Bush administration who were ardent supporters of Israel were also strong advocates of invading Iraq to destroy Saddam Hussein. Supposing, then, for the purest sake of argument, that the war was fought in some manner to help Israel, did it do so? Ask an Israeli.

Lots of good stuff.

The Boston Globe

Hat Tip:Xymphora

AIPAC, Pollard, Immigration and Jerusalem Syndrome

Steve Sailer has a piece on lots of issues including AIPAC, the Israeli elections and Jonathan Pollard.

Of course, a big part of what drives the Christian fundamentalists'' obsession with Israel is that wacky Left Behind eschatology that believes that the fulfillment of Likud's plans will set off the Rapture. It will be tough toast for the Christ-rejecting Jews when Israeli dominance triggers the Apocalypse, but until then, they're all for Israel.

Steve Sailer

Is Supporting Israel in the US Interest?

Michael Neumann ask the question is support for Israel in the US interest?

What matters is that the US no longer has any reason to support Israel, and huge reason not to. Just imagine if the US stopped backing Israel and gave even moderate support to the Palestinians. Suddenly Islam and America would be on the same side. The war on terror would become a cakewalk. The credibility of American democracy would skyrocket in the Middle East. And it would all be a hell of a lot cheaper. This seems a tad more important than which Jewish neocon said what to whom.

Indeed.

CounterPunch

Victory for What?

The American Conservative has a great piece on the blunder that was Iraq:

President Bush has enunciated an ambitious standard for success in Iraq, albeit a much more modest one than his original vision of a democratic transformation of the entire Middle East. However, even if the current U.S. program is achieved, the question remains: is this war in the national interest of the U.S.?

Success in Iraq is certainly preferable to outright failure but still may be inferior to abandonment of a policy that was erroneous from inception. Thus, even if Bush can genuinely proclaim “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq when he leaves office, will the war not leave America worse off both at home and in the world? By continuing to pursue our current policy at exorbitant cost and risk, may the United States achieve nothing more than a successful mistake?

American Conservative

Saddam Accused of Genocide

It is welcome news that Saddam is being tried for the crime of Genocide. Of course, this genocide only involved 5,000 people. I guess genocide just ain't what it used to be.

And the incident occurred during the 1980's, prior to our first military action in Iraq. We didn't feel it necessary to have a war crimes trial then, but now, ten years later, it has become imperative.

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

The new case involves Saddam's role in Operation Anfal, a three-phase move against Kurds in northern Iraq during the war with Iran in the late 1980s. Anfal included the March 16 gas attack on the village of Halabja in which 5,000 people, including women and children, died.

And if 5000 people are genocide then what can we say about a war where a minimum of 900 Iraqi's died just this month?

ABC News

General Anthony Zinni on the Iraq War

General Anthony Zinni's is another voice in the chorus of voices that place blame for Iraq war squarely on the neo-conservative "cabal" in the Whitehouse.

General Zinni was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.
...

Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.

“I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.

“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested.”

General Zinni is confirming what we have heard from so many others.

When so many sources give the same story one is forced to conclude that the story has merit.

60 Minutes

Blankfort, Petras on Chomsky on The Lobby

Jeff Blankfort on Chomsky regarding Walt Mearsheimer:
Leftcurve


James Petras on the same:
James Petras


Additional discussion here:
Xymphora

Latest on Walt Mearsheimer

The editor of the London Review of Books discusses her decision to pulish the Walt-Mearsheimer paper.
The Observer

Justin Raimondo contines to discuss the reaction from The Lobby to the W-M paper.
Antiwar.com

Discussion of The Times artcile on the W-M paper and link thereto.
JSF

Discussion of The Financial Times artcile on the W-M paper and link thereto.
JSF-2

Walt Not Fired

As noted in a comment elsewhere on this blog Stephen Walt was not fired from his Deanship(?). He is stepping down as part of a normal handover process.

Here are two posts from Steve Clemons discussing the situation:

Steve Walt 1

Steve Walt 2