Wednesday, May 31, 2006

CUPE in Ontario votes to boycott Israel


CUPE in Ontario votes to boycott Israel
Last Updated Sat, 27 May 2006 19:48:20 EDT
CBC News

The Ontario division of Canada's largest union has voted to support an international campaign that is boycotting Israel over its treatment of Palestinians.

Delegates to the Canadian Union of Public Employees Ontario convention in Ottawa voted overwhelmingly Saturday to support the campaign until it sees Israel recognizing the Palestinians' right to self-determination. The Ontario group represents more than 200,000 workers.

The global campaign started last July and has been supported by many North American churches, 20 Quebec organizations, and others, Canadian Press said.

CUPE also condemned what they called Israel's "apartheid wall," saying it is illegal under international law.

"Boycott, divestment and sanction worked to end apartheid in South Africa," said Katherine Nastovski, chairwoman of the CUPE Ontario international solidarity committee.

"We believe the same strategy will work to enforce the rights of Palestinian people, including the right of refugees to return to their homes and properties."


Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Office of Iranian Affairs is Open for Business

The Office of Special Plans is reopening its doors at the Office of Iranian Affairs.

We already have a false story about Iran religious clothing laws, a misquote of the Iranian president regarding "wiping Israel off the map." We also have exaggerated stories of Iran's impending WMDs.

Expect more to come.

According to Laura Rozen of the Los Angeles Times, the Office of Special Plans has been reincarnated as the Office of Iranian Affairs, apparently housed in the same Pentagon offices inhabited by its predecessor and involving some of the same slimy personnel. Notably, Abram Shulsky, who headed the OSP under Douglas Feith, is back. His crew will be reporting to none other than Elizabeth Cheney, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and daughter of the Vice President. Dick Cheney is generally understood to be the strongest advocate for an attack on Iran in the administration. (He is also, by the way, architect of Bush's "signing statements" appended to laws entitling him to ignore them. He is the man behind the throne, surrounded by neocon acolytes.)

As I wrote last November, "it is too soon to speak of the 'twilight of the neocons' while [John] Hannah, [Stephen] Hadley, [William] Luti, [David] Wurmser, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, John Negroponte and other neocons remain in power, with [Michale] Ledeen and [Abram] Shulsky still skulking about."


Monday, May 29, 2006

Foreign Policy a Mess

Dan Simpson writes about the state of US foreign policy:

Pushed by the war hawk neoconservatives in the Bush administration, the United States invaded Iraq, one of Israel's more vocal if ineffective enemies, with the idea that American military might would roll right over Saddam Hussein's regime there and then be in a position to take on two other of Israel's enemies, Iran and Syria. Instead, Americans' patience and resources now find themselves three years later pushed to the limit in Iraq; it is unclear now what Americans' response would be if, asked by President Bush, they were called upon to fight Iran for Israel.

Dan Simpson, a retired U.S. ambassador, is a Post-Gazette associate editor


Friday, May 26, 2006

The Plan for Iran

Here is one version of the plan for Iran. Clearly Israel is applying direct pressure on Washing to "take care" of the Iran problem.

Ynet learns that Bush told Olmert US time limit for action to stop Iran's nuclear program fits Israel's own timetable, but American diplomats make it clear diplomacy will be given chance [How can we do both?]

(WASHINGTON) US President George W. Bush agreed that plans for American intervention to halt Iran's nuclear program are congruent with a timetable discussed with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during talks in Washington.

According to Israeli intelligence assessments Iran will acquire the necessary nuclear technology to build a nuclear weapon within a year, Olmert said during the talks.

The prime minister said Israel fears diplomatic foot-dragging at the United Nations, where the United States has faced Russian and Chinese opposition to push for tough sanctions against Iran should it continue uranium enrichment in defiance of the international community.

"I am very, very, very satisfied," Olmert told Israeli reports after talks with Bush.

Bush told Olmert he will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, but US officials have cast doubt over Washington's capability to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology.

Under paragraph 7 of the United Nations charter, the US will ask the Security Council to impose economic and military sanctions on Iran should it refuse to halt uranium enrichment activities.

Should Russia use its veto power to block a US-backed UN resolution for imposing sanctions on Iran, Washington will circumvent the Security Council by luring allied countries to impose an economic and military embargo on Tehran.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Iranian officials are using intermediaries to convey to Washington their readiness to talk directly to US officials.

Meanwhile, officials from France, Britain and Germany will hold talks with US Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns to discuss a compromise EU draft resolution against Iran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said Wednesday that Iran signaled its readiness to halt uranium enrichment activities in compliance with a European deal to supply Tehran with a light-water nuclear reactor in return for its compliance with international demands.

Monday, May 22, 2006

Ned Lamont on the Ballot

I didn't mention it last week, but Ned Lamont received twice the number of delegates necessary to be placed on the ballot against Lieberman this August. This exceeded all expectations and it a very bad sign for Joe.

When Ned Lamont captured a staggering third of the 1,509 votes cast Friday, the green challenger's handlers were the most surprised camp in Hartford's Expo Center. The Lamont campaign got a late start this past winter and wondered as recently as a week ago if it would reach the 15 percent threshold required to get on the ballot without resorting to the laborious petition alternative. In the end, Lamont showed support across the state

Ned Lamont

Rabbi Criticizes the Lobby

Florida rabbi, Bruce Warshal, finds that AIPAC exists and that it does not represent the best interests of "Israel and the United States, in the long run."

For that statement, he assures us that:

Beware that you are reading treasonable material. If you "out" the Israeli lobby and you are Gentile, you're branded an anti-Semite; if you are Jewish, you're obviously a self-hating Jew. The Jewish establishment abides no criticism of Israel. You don't agree with me? Take this example: Last month a pro-Palestinian play entitled My Name is Rachel Corrie was to open at the New York Theatre Workshop, a "progressive" company on East Fourth Street. The play is based on the writings of a young British girl who was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer when she was protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes in Gaza two years ago. Although the play was widely praised in London last year, it never opened in New York. The theater producers spoke to the ADL and other Jewish leaders, including big-money Jews on its board, and that was the end of that. But, of course, we don't "censor" discussion concerning Israel. We just politely give our opinions and the voice of the other side disappears.

So, you are in good company if you are a critic of The Lobby.


Saturday, May 20, 2006

Bogus Denial from Zelikow

Philip Zelikow is denying that he said the war in Iraq was based on concern about Israel. But Walt-Mearsheimer has responded convincingly.

Philip Zelikow claims he did not say in September 2002 that the present war in Iraq was motivated in good part by concerns about Israel’s security. He suggests that our reference to his remarks came from an unreliable source and says we ‘misused’ his comments. He implies that he was talking mainly about the 1990-91 Gulf War, not the US decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. Furthermore, he maintains that he ‘expressed no view’ on ‘whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq’. None of these assertions is correct.

Emad Mekay, who wrote the Asia Times Online article we referenced, is a well-regarded journalist who worked for Reuters and the New York Times before moving to Inter Press Service, a legitimate news agency. He did not rely on ‘local reports’ in writing his story, but had access to a complete and unimpeachable record of Zelikow’s talk. He repeatedly tried to contact Zelikow while writing his story, but his inquiries were not returned.

Much more discussion here.

Friday, May 19, 2006

Iranian "Badge" Story is Propaganda

The neocons continue their shameless campaign to drive us into war with Iran using easily falsifyable propaganda.

I hope the american people are smart enough to see through this.

There have been several diaries on the story that was published in the right-wing Canadian newspaper, The National Post, today ... which relied on Iranian exiles as sources. But significant is a companion piece by one, Amir Taheri ... What makes it significant is who Taheri is, who his associates are, and who sponsors him.

Google the name Amir Taheri and you will find that his writings are published by National Review, the New York Post, the Jerusalem Post and the Weekly Standard. But more significant is that he has sponsored by Benador Associates an erstwhile public relations firm whose founder, Eleana Benador has major right-wing connections[.]

Lots more information here.

China meets with Hamas

It is amazing to see what a rational foreign policy looks like. Here is a country acting in its own interest. America should follow China's lead.

Israel Protests China's Invitation to Hamas
18:42 May 18, '06 / 20 Iyar 5766

( China has joined a growing list of countries who have invited Hamas leaders to their countries, prompting a protest to the Chinese ambassador to Israel Thursday.

China has invited the foreign minister of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority (PA) to attend a conference on Chinese-Arab relations. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the Chinese ambassador was summoned to receive a protest against the invitation and against "Chinese diplomats [who] continue to meet with Hamas officials in Gaza."


Dissent Will Not Be Tolerated

Rep Betty McCollum (D-MN) responds to a threat from an AIPAC lobbyist with a letter. The threat was made in response to Ms. McCollum's vote against restricting humanitarian aid to thethe Palestinian, and thereby placing them on a "diet".

Remember, per capita GDP of Palestine is around US$1,000.

Mr. Howard Kohr
Executive Director
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
440 First Street, NW; Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20001

Dear Mr. Kohr:

During my nineteen years serving in elected office, including the past five years as a Member of Congress, never has my name and reputation been maligned or smeared as it was last week by a representative of AIPAC. Last Friday, during a call with my chief of staff, an AIPAC representative from Minnesota who has frequently lobbied me on behalf of your organization stated, "on behalf of herself, the Jewish community, AIPAC, and the voters of the Fourth District, Congresswoman McCollum's support for terrorists will not be tolerated." Ironically, this individual, who does not even live in my congressional district, feels free to speak for my constituents.

This response may have been the result of extreme emotion or irrational passion, but regardless, it is a hateful attack that is vile and offensive to me and the families I represent. I call on AIPAC to immediately condemn this un-American attack and disavow any attempt to use this type of threat and intimidation to stifle legitimate policy differences. I will not stand to be labeled or threatened in a manner that questions my patriotism or my oath of office.

But here is the kicker:

You and your colleagues at AIPAC have the right to disagree with my position on any piece of legislation, but for an AIPAC representative to say that I would ever vote to support Middle East terrorists over the interests of my country will never be tolerated by me or the families I serve. This incident rises to a level in which a formal, written apology is required.

The truth is, Rep McCollum, that you are supporting the interests of your country over the interests of a foreign nation. I only wish others would do so as well.


Dual Citizens and Security Clearance

Dual citizenship is a sensitive issue. I frankly don't believe in it at all.

But clearly, when it comes to positions requiring security clearance people with dual citizenship should be presumptively barred, with exceptions made for those with essential skills or that have proven themselves particularly trustworthy.

This applies for all nationalities including, for example, Chinese, Russian and Israeli.

Some, it seems, don't agree:

The Pentagon is citing a leak affair involving Defense Department analyst Lawrence Franklin and two pro-Israel lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, as a basis for stripping security clearances from government contractor employees who have dual Israeli-American citizenship or family in Israel, The New York Sun reported Wednesday.

[Makes sense to me.]


Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, a leader of the Jewish community in Washington, told the Sun he was disturbed by the growing number of similar incidents. "People around the country are turning to us and telling us of ongoing cases where people are stripped of their livelihoods just because they're Jewish," he said.

No, Mr. Herzfeld, they are not being denied access to certain jobs because they are Jewish. They are being denied access to certain jobs because they are Israeli citizens.

You don't equate being Jewish with being an Israeli citizen, do you?

I know lots of Jewish people who would object to that characterization.


Wednesday, May 17, 2006

History Will Find You.

Honestly I didn't really care much about the history of Israel until I found out that Israel's supporters were a major reason we went to war with Iraq. The are now pushing us into attacking Iran.

I think it has been said that "you may not care about history, but history will find you," or something like that.

In the last week of April 1948, combined Irgun-Haganah forces launched an offensive to drive the Palestinian people out of the beautiful port city of Jaffa, forcing the remaining inhabitants to flee by sea; many drowned in the process. My aunt Rose, a teenager at that time, survived the trip to begin her life in exile on the Lebanese coast. Each Palestinian refugee family grows up hearing again and again the stories of those final moments in Palestine, the decisions, the panic, as we live in the midst of their terrible consequences. Throughout 1948, Jewish forces expelled many thousands of Palestinians from their villages, towns and cities into Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of others fled in fear. The purpose was to create a pure Jewish state, ethnically cleansed of the original inhabitants who had lived there for centuries. The creation of the state of Israel was the heart of this cataclysmic historical event for the Palestinians - the mass forced expulsion of a people; the more than 50 massacres carried out over the summer of 1948 by various armed Jewish forces; the demolition of villages to ensure the refugees could not return - all this is summed up in a single word for Palestinians: nakba, the catastophe.


Tuesday, May 16, 2006

The Hidden Costs of Empire

Dick Cheney is having a hard time finding oil to low gas prices. One of the factors is distrust of the US by Muslim nations. Another cost of empire and unthinking support for Israel.

The sources said Mr. Cheney found his hosts in Central Asia to be distrustful of U.S. intentions, with some Muslim countries fearful of a regime change as that which took place in 2005 in Kyrgyzstan, regarded as the most pro-American country in the region.

Mr. Cheney also was informed of the contracts China has already signed with Central Asian republics. In April, Turkmenistan signed a deal to supply China with 30 billion cubic meters of gas per year from 2009 to 2039. The price has not yet been determined.

"Even if many analysts doubt Turkmenistan's ability to meet this contract, that deal evokes the contradictions inherent in China's transitional phase," the Washington-based Jamestown Foundation said in a report. "In its substance it evokes the old approach: China subsidizing dictators by paying for pipelines as well as for gas and trying to knock prices down while tying up the producer for 30 years."

Insight Mag

Monday, May 15, 2006

Jaun Cole on Eva Fairbanks

Juan Cole discusses a negative op-ed peice on the W-M paper by Eva Fairbanks in the LA Times.

The illogic comes in from several contradictions. She admits that over 1,000 (actually over 1,500) academics have signed my petition asking the Conference of the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to condemn the playing of the race card against the authors for simply writing an academic analysis. But she goes on depicting academics as moral cowards afraid to speak out. Doesn't she recognize what courage it takes to sign that petition after the Washington Post itself shamefully invoked David Duke's praise of the LRB paper? She dismisses the petition as an example of my being "publicity-hungry." She then goes on to talk about Alan Dershowitz with no adjectives about him! [Alan is a publicity whore!] If academics speak out in defense of the authors from being smeared, they are mere publicity hounds. If they decline to talk to her, they are cowards.

Juan Cole

New Push for HR 3077?

According to this source there is a new push to pass HR 3077 in the Senate.

HR 3077 would put university funding in jeopordy when "anti-American" and anti-Israeli" speech is found on campus.

H.R. 3077 is bureaucratic in its tone, decipherable only to those with the capacity to wade through legislative linguistics. It would set up a seven-member advisory board that would have the power to recommend cutting federal funding for colleges and universities that are viewed as harboring academic critics of Israel.

Two members of the board would be appointed by the Senate, two by the House, and three by the secretary of education, two of whom are required to be from U.S. federal security agencies. The various appointees would be selected from what The Christian Science Monitor described on March 11 as “politicians, representatives of cultural and educational organizations, and private citizens.”

Friday, May 12, 2006

Exist How?

What does the right to exist really mean?

What does a "right to exist" mean exactly? There is no "right to exist" for states under international law. The formula has arisen in international diplomacy uniquely regarding Israel. It does not mean simply diplomatic recognition, which is the "fact" of existence. It does not mean recognizing Israel's "right to self-determination," either, or we would be using that famous term.


Absent clear borders, recognizing Israel's "right to exist" must mean something else. And of course it does. Clearly implicit in the term is Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. In other words, the "right" Hamas is being required to endorse is that Israel can legitimately compose itself as a state in Palestine that is populated and run primarily by Jews, primarily for Jews. Such a state would thus be authorized by Hamas to sustain whatever laws and policies necessary to preserving its Jewish majority, even rejecting the return of Palestinian refugees mandated by international law. Or building a massive Wall on Palestinian land designed to protect the Jewish state from the "demographic threat" of mass non-Jewish citizenship-i.e., the Palestinians.


Who is the Crazy One

From this acccount of recent history, Iran seems to be a relatively peaceful country, compared to the US.

In the 27 years since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has launched air strikes on Libya, invaded Grenada, put Marines in Lebanon and run air strikes in the Bekaa Valley and Chouf Mountains in retaliation for the Beirut bombing.

We invaded Panama, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait and put troops into Somalia. Under Clinton, we occupied Haiti, fired cruise missiles into Sudan, intervened in Bosnia, conducted bombing strikes on Iraq and launched a 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia, a nation that never attacked us. Then, we put troops into Kosovo.

After the Soviet Union stood down in Eastern Europe, we moved NATO into Poland and the Baltic states and established U.S. bases in former provinces of Russia's in Central Asia.

Under Bush II, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, though it appears Saddam neither had weapons of mass destruction nor played a role in 9-11.

Yet, in this same quarter century when the U.S. military has been so busy it is said to be overstretched and exhausted, Iran has invaded not one neighbor and fought but one war: an eight-year war with Iraq where she was the victim of aggression. And in that war of aggression against Iran, we supported the aggressor.


Thursday, May 11, 2006

The US's geopolitical nightmare

The most fascinating indication of a sea-change within the US political establishment toward the Bush Doctrine and those who are behind it is the developing debate around the 83-page paper, first published on the official website of Harvard University, criticizing the dominant role of Israel in shaping US foreign policy.

The paper was initially trashed by the B'nai Brith and select neo-conservative writers as "anti-Semitic", which it is not, and one commentator tried to smear it as "echoing the views of former KKK [Ku Klux Klan] leader and white-power advocate David Duke", who has also attacked the Israel lobby.

However, profoundly significant is the fact that this time leading mainstream media, including Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, have come to the defense of authors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Even certain sections of the Israeli press have done so. The taboo of speaking publicly of the pro-Israel agenda of neo-conservatives has apparently been broken. That suggests that the old-guard foreign-policy establishment, types such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft and their allies, are stepping up to retake foreign-policy leadership. The neo-cons have proved a colossal failure in their defense of America's strategic interests as the realists see it.

Asia Times

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Not the Path to Peace

This was predictable. It is also predictable that this is not a path that is likely to lead to peace.

Palestinian gas stations started shutting down and motorists lined up at pumps after an Israeli fuel company cut off deliveries Wednesday, deepening the humanitarian crisis following Hamas' rise to power.

An end to fuel supplies for the West Bank and Gaza could cripple hospitals, halt food deliveries and keep people home from work — a devastating scenario for an economy already ravaged by Israeli and international sanctions.

The Israeli company Dor Energy, the sole fuel provider to the Palestinians since interim peace agreements in the mid-1990s, cited growing debts for its decision, Palestinian officials said. Dor declined comment, but the company had threatened to cut off supplies twice before this year, only to be paid at the last minute by the Palestinians.


The Anti-Semitism Smear

Norman Soloman comments on the us of the Anti-Semitism smear and the Walt Mearsheimer paper:

[T]he uproar over what Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt had to say could invigorate public discourse about Washington's policies toward a country that consistently has received a bigger U.S. aid package for a longer period than any other nation.


As with all forms of bigotry, anti-Semitism should be condemned. At the same time, these days, America's biggest anti-Semitism problem has to do with the misuse of the label as a manipulative tactic to short-circuit debate about Washington's alliance with Israel.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Israel, The Weakest Link

Thoughts from Leon Hadar:

In some respects, Israel's ties with the United States are starting to resemble the relationship between the old political and economic elites and the Jewish community in Europe during the 19th century. As Hannah Arendt pointed out in her classic study of European anti-Semitism, it was the erosion in the power of those elites — and their growing inability to protect the Jews of Europe — that sealed their fate.

The new and angry social classes and political players turned their frustration against the group they associated with the hated status quo — a group that was also very vulnerable. A similar scenario could take place on an international scale, when a weaker and less confident United States would be under pressure at home and abroad to reduce its global commitments. This would leave Israel — its weakest link — vulnerable to attacks not only from Arab and Muslim nations, but from other new anti-status quo powers.

The Globalist

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Not Wiped Off the Map

How many times have you heard that the Iranian President called for Israel to be "wiped off the map?" Many times, no doubt.

It looks like that is an inaccurate translation:

The neocons had been successfully making the "wiped" quote accepted by the mainstream media as undisputed fact. Yet there were differing translations from the get-go. The NY Times provided the "wiped" translation. But MEMRI (no fans of Juan Cole) translated the line nearly exactly as Cole had it: "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."

You would think our media could at least check something like this. And who first put forth the innaccurate translation?

Someone with an agenda to place the US in conflict with Iran.

Bill Scher

Juan Cole

Israel Impatient with Iran, US

The AJC ran the map of "Nuclear" Iran in the NYT. Israel follows up by continuing to demand for US action.

If the visit to Washington last week by the head of Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, was not enough to communicate Israel's growing impatience with the international community's failure to deal with Tehran's unchecked development of nuclear technology and bellicose threats to wipe the Jewish state "off the map," Ehud Olmert, prime minister designate, made it clear yesterday by denouncing Iran's president as a "psychopath" and comparing him to Hitler.

Mossad chief Meir Dagan, in Washington last week in preparation for a visit to the U.S. by Olmert on May 23, held secret meetings with U.S. officials to discuss Iran's nuclear program, reports the London Times. While details of the meetings were not revealed, it is believed Dagan met with his counterparts at the CIA, the Pentagon and the National Security Council.


Friday, May 05, 2006

Lou Dobbs on Rumsfeld Questioning by McGovern

From Lou Dobbs on CNN:

A retired CIA officer [Ray McGovern] today refused to back down when he challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on prewar intelligence on Iraq and the defense secretary's statements leading up to the war. The former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, accused Rumsfeld of lying. Rumsfeld was repeatedly heckled during his speech in Atlanta. Jamie McIntyre has the report tonight from the Pentagon -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, it's a symbol of how Rumsfeld has become a lightning rod for criticism about the Iraq war. Protesters at his speech in Atlanta interrupted him several times, one holding a banner saying "guilty of war crimes."

And as you said, that retired CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, challenged Rumsfeld directly, accusing him of misrepresenting, of lying about the prewar intelligence. Here's a little of the exchange.


DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The president spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence people, and he went to the American people and made a presentation.

I'm not in the intelligence business. They gave the world their honest opinion. It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said you knew where they were.

RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were, and we were...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said you knew where they were, near Tikrit, near Baghdad, and north, east, south and west of there. Those are your words.

RUMSFELD: My words -- my words were that...

No, no, no. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is America, huh?


RUMSFELD: You're getting plenty of play, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd just like an honest answer.

RUMSFELD: I'm giving it to you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're talking about lies and your allegation that there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. Was that a lie or were you misled?

RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Zarqawi? He was in the north of Iraq in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule.

RUMSFELD: He was also. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's where he was.

RUMSFELD: He was also in Baghdad.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital. Come on. These people aren't idiots. They know the story.


MCINTYRE: All right. Well Rumsfeld there, usually very careful not to say anything that could come back to haunt him, but Ray McGovern, the CIA agent, was right when he referred to that quote which was a direct quote that Rumsfeld made on the ABC weekend show "This Week," in which an answer to a question about why they hadn't discovered weapons of mass destruction yet back in March of 2003, Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, west, south and north somewhat."

He also said that, it's one of the sites where the U.S. had gone. They'd seen trucks coming in and out and said some of the WMDs were probably moved. Although, he quickly again qualified it and said, "I don't know that. We'll have to see."

But one thing about Rumsfeld is he is loathe to admit that he was wrong about anything. And this is another case where he was not only going to insist that he didn't lie, but he wouldn't even admit that the quote he gave at the time turned out to be incorrect -- Lou.

DOBBS: So, Ray McDonald (sic), in point of fact, pointed him out, pointed -- I'm sorry, Ray McGovern...

MCINTYRE: McGovern, right.

DOBBS: ... pointed out successfully to the defense secretary that he did, in fact, lie.

MCINTYRE: Well, lying means intentionally deceiving. You can certainly say something that turns out later to be inaccurate, and it may not have been an intentional lie. But the interesting thing about Rumsfeld he rarely even concedes that anything he said has turned out to be incorrect.

DOBBS: Well, let me ask you if he intentionally meant to say this or not, because I noticed as the defense secretary was speaking today he said, "I am not in the intelligence business."

MCINTYRE: Well, he is technically a consumer of intelligence.

DOBBS: Technically a consumer? Jamie, he has the preponderance of the budget for intelligence in this country. [Way to go Dobbs!]

MCINTYRE: Well, there is a debate about the Pentagon's own intelligence shop and to the extent that they either analyze existing intelligence or went out looking for their own intelligence. But again, Rumsfeld a difficult guy to pin down today.

DOBBS: Well, I'm going to pin this down.


DOBBS: When the secretary of defense says he is not in the intelligence business, that's a -- that's absolutely wrong!

DOBBS: Well, technically, he's one of the consumers of intelligence. He's supposed to...

DOBBS: Excuse me. Is he in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency?

MCINTYRE: He is. And that agency is supposed to serve him by providing him with the intelligence that he can act on it.

DOBBS: oh, OK. I think I understand the distinction, Jamie, but it's one that I don't think is much of a difference, if you will. I think the -- I think the defense secretary utterly misspoke because he has the preponderance of the intelligence budget of the United States government.

MCINTYRE: Well, it will be interesting to hear what he says tomorrow, because one of the things he said in that was that he didn't say he knew where the weapons were, only where the suspect sites were. And as we know, that's clearly not what he said.

DOBBS: Right.

MCINTYRE: So, it will be interesting to see if he admits at least that much tomorrow.

DOBBS: You got it. And fascinating. And you know what? It's great to be in America, where folks can challenge our officials and do so successfully.

MCINTYRE: Well, give Rumsfeld credit, because they were about to remove this guy from the hall, and Rumsfeld did say, as you said, this is America and not do that that.

DOBBS: Yes, absolutely. And I think that, at least is -- leaves us reason, room to be buoyant.

Thank you very much.


Thursday, May 04, 2006

Ray McGovern is a Hero

Former CIA analyist Ray McGovern has made many brave statements about the Iraq war in the past, and he continues to hunt for the truth.

Anti-war protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him in a question-and-answer session of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence.

"Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?" asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst.

"I did not lie," shot back Rumsfeld, who waved off security guards ready to remove McGovern from the hall at the Southern Center for International Studies.


Round Up.

I am a little sick this week. Here are some good links.

Bush man booed by the AJC - they don't like him telling everyong the war in Iran is for Israel:

The vast right wing conspiracy - it's a close knit community indeed: Xymphora

More Tony Judt on Israel:Xymphora

War with Iran: Antiwar