At the height of her wailings, one of my guests, who happens to be of Armenian background, asked her, very politely, if the slaughter of huge numbers of Armenians by the Turks was a holocaust?
This set her off and she screamed that there were all lies; that only the Jews had a holocaust and we couldn't talk about anything else. My friend then told her, very solemnly, that his uncle had died in Auschwitz.
She became hyper at this information. She wanted to know if the uncle was a Jew? Had he been gassed?
My friend replied that no, his uncle was not a Jew and that he had gotten drunk on Hitler's birthday, fallen out of a guard tower and broken his neck!
My God, what a reaction! She screeched like a parrot on fire, jumped up from the table and fled from the room, howling "Nazi, Nazi!" at the top of her lungs.
Everyone in the room was staring at her but we were too busy laughing to notice.
It seems that one Gideon Arnoff, the DC rep for the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society said that "Mr. Dobbs has crossed the line between responsible television commentary and hate-speech propaganda of his own. Keeping him on the air is essentially sanctioning by CNN — which is why we're asking CNN to remove Dobbs from his very public platform."
This rant is absolutely typical and we here in Washington hear it every day. There is a swelling mantra coming from Jewish groups and their allies that they have been the victims, millennia long, of suffering and persecution.
Because of this, they cry, they must be given special consideration and, above all, Israel, their Very Own Sacred Country, has to be given anything it wants.
In spite of the think tank garbage and the many books and magazine articles, we here all know exactly what the actual cause of the disastrous Iraqi was -- the repeated and imperious demands on the part of the Israeli government and their well-organized, very well-funded and fanatic American supporters.
Israel hated Saddam Hussein. During the Gulf War, he had fired rockets at Israel and killed a number of Jews. For this, they ordered, Saddam must be destroyed.
The famous "yellowcake" uranium story is an acknowledged Mossad plant and a very crude one at that (Names were misspelled and dates were years off) but the pro-Israeli neocons (many of whom are Israeli citizens) gleefully used this to prod the willing Bush administration into a war that has destroyed the power of the Republican party, energized the Arab world against us and caused thousands of dead Americans.
As if this successful, bloody ploy were not enough, now Israel is eagerly poking at the administration to bomb Tehran flat because that country might have an atomic weapons which, if it had, could well be used against Tel Aviv ( and not as the weird Russian-hating Cheney insists, against "all of Europe."
Cheney, who ought to seek counseling, has been doing everything he can to attack Russian President Putin because Cheney, with extensive oil industry holdings, views Putin as having thwarted a U.S.-takeover of Russian oil properties after the fall of the Soviet Union. )
It is a matter of firm historical fact that the current Jewish citizens of Israel have no ethnic or historical ties to Jerusalem.
They are Ashkenazi Jews, which means their roots are Turkic/Mongolian and not Semitic.
The Sephardim Jews, who are descendents of the original occupiers of the Holy Land, do not like their converted brothers and there are very few of them in Israel today.
It is the Ashkenazi who poured into Poland and Russia and then tried to infiltrate into Europe in the 1920s.
It is the Ashkenazi who then flooded into Jerusalem, inflicting a wave of terror on the British military stationed there and on the Arabs who had lived there for two thousand years.
It is the Ashkenazi who have spied on and betrayed America, first to Soviet Russia, where they ran the country until recently, and then to Israel.
This offshoot of Judaism is loyal only to itself and to the state of Israel and will do anything in her behalf, including treason and, in the case of 9/11, to support and encourage the Arab terrorists who blew up the WTC and the Pentagon.
As cases in point, we could consider the Rosenbergs or Pollard but instead, let us look at one Lawrence Anthony Franklin, who was employed by the United States government at the Department of Defense (DoD) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), International Security Affairs (ISA), Office of Near East and South Asia, Office of Northern Gulf Affairs, Iran desk, and held a Top Secret security clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). FRANKLIN'S office was located within the Pentagon, in the Eastern District of Virginia.
FRANKLIN was also a Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR).
(Note: This material comes directly from the official Federal indictment of Franklin, which is public record, though not easily located. We will publish it in a future edition. ed.)
Between on or about August I S, 2002 and continuing until on or about June 30, 2004, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, defendant LAWRENCE ANTHONY FRANKLIN, an employee of the United States, did unlawfully and knowingly conspire, confederate, and agree, with persons known and unknown iv the Grand jury, to commit the following offense against the United States: to communicate in a manner and by a means, to a person whom defendant FRANKLIN knew and had reason to believe was an agent and representative of a foreign government, information of a kind which had been classified by the head of a United States agency with the approval of the President, as affecting the security of the United States, said defendant having known and having had reason to know that such information had been so classified, a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 783(a).
On January. 20, 2006, a federal judge sentenced former Defense Department analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, to more than 12 years in prison after Mr. Franklin admitted passing classified military information to two pro-Israel lobbyists and an Israeli diplomat.
This critique is not aimed at the bulk of America's Jewish population but at the so-called Likudists and Zionists. Most of America’s Jewish community are Reformed Jews and there is no love lost between the two but unfortunately, the majority often suffers the consequences of the actions of the minority.
The Zionists are personified by the rabid so-called neocons who have basically taken over control of America’s foreign policy and whose sole goal is to guarantee full and unconditional American support for the state of Israel.
Their loyalty is only to that state and to date they have embroiled this country in a series of confrontations with their enemies that has cost America billions of dollars and the lives of thousands of her young soldiers.
If this is not checked, and checked immediately, in the end, Israel will cheerfully drag everyone into a series of violent conflicts with ultimately fatal results for all the participants.
We can always learn from history. I dug this quote from Benjamin Franklin: out of my files. It sums the matter up very cogently but I doubt if you can find it in any public school history book or even on Wikipedia. Under the circumstances, especially on Wikipedia.
"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.
"In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.
"For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race.
"If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty.
"If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.
"Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American’s, and will not even though they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots.
"Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention."
(Statement made in "Chit chat around the table during intermission", at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.”
Bush's approval rating falls to 28%, an all-time low: Newsweek
May 6, 2007
A Newsweek poll released today shows President George W Bush's approval rating has fallen to 28 per cent, an all-time low for the President in that survey.
Sixty-two per cent of Americans believe Mr Bush's recent actions in Iraq show he is "stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes," Newsweek reported.
Just 30 per cent think Mr Bush's execution of the Iraq war demonstrates he is "willing to take political risks" to do what is right.
Mr Bush's unpopularity may also be casting a dark shadow over Republican chances for keeping the White House in 2008. Democratic front-runners lead potential Republican contenders in head-to-head match-ups across the board, the poll suggests.
Illinois Senator Barack Obama fares best against the lead Republicans so far in the race.
Senator Obama bested Republican front-runner and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani by 50 per cent to 43 per cent among registered voters who responded to the poll.
Senator Obama topped Arizona Senator John McCain by 52 per cent to 39 per cent and defeated former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney by 58 per cent to 29 per cent, Newsweek reported.
New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the front-runner among Democratic voters, topped Mayor Giuliani by 49 per cent to 46 per cent, Senator McCain 50 per cent to 44 per cent and Mr Romney 57 per cent to 35 per cent, the poll found.
The poll, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International on Wednesday and Thursday (local time), interviewed 1,001 adults aged 18 and older.
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
May 06, 2007
One of the enduring myths sedulously cultivated by apologists of American foreign policy is that America, the land of the free and the brave, is besieged by malevolent foreign powers. In the realm of pure thought unsullied by empiric evidence the lone superpower bravely battles rogue states to prevent free societies from nuclear extinction. As Michael Howard, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford says “For 200 years the United States has preserved almost unsullied the original ideals of the enlightenment: the belief in the God-given rights of the individual, the inherent rights of free assembly and free speech, the blessings of free enterprise, the perfectibility of man, and, above all, the universality of these values”.
But is the record of the ‘defender of freedom’ in contemporary history unblemished? “Two hundred years (of US history) is illustrated by a century of literal human slavery” writes Chomsky in Deterring Democracy, “and effective disenfranchisement of Blacks for another century, genocidal assaults on native population, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos at the turn of the century, of millions of Indochinese, of some 200,000 Central Americans in the past decade.”
Since September Eleventh, criticism of the Empire has attained respectability. The word Empire has appeared in mainstream newspapers and books critical of American foreign Policy have been resurrected. One such book is Blowback written by Chalmers Johnson. Interestingly, this book, which was written during the year 1998-99, received little attention in the mainstream press. Philip Zelikowin, a former member of the National Security staff of President Bush Senior, dismissed Blowback as a comic book. The terrorist attack on the WTC changed all that and the book was reprinted seven times in less than two months.
Unintended negative Consequences
Johnson who is the president of the Japan Policy Research Institute and professor emeritus at the University of California views the events of September 11 not with hysteria but with scholarly detachment. “The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not attack America,” he writes in his preface, “as political and news media in the United States have tried to maintain; they attacked American Foreign Policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders who became enemies only because they (assassins) had already become victims.” With refreshing candour he admits, “Many aspects of what the American government had done abroad virtually invited retaliatory attacks from nations and peoples who had been victimized.”
Recent events only confirm this. The massive bombing of Afghanistan which the US launched on October 7, 2001, killed many innocent people and inflicted untold misery on men women and children of an already war torn country. The deployment of overwhelming military force on the peasants of Vietnam in the recent decades and military action in Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Serbia and Kosovo only produce ‘unintended negative consequences throughout the Islamic and underdeveloped worlds.’
The casual arrogance with which President Clinton ordered the firing of nearly eighty cruise missiles (at a cost of $750,000 each) into a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, and an old mujahideen camp site in Afghanistan is another instance of its imperial hauteur. The military response was in retaliation to the bombings of American embassy buildings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. The grudging admission of error in intelligence reports came on September 2, 1998, when the US secretary of defense said he was unaware that the plant made medicines and not nerve gas. The fact that the plant made affordable medicines for the poor people of Sudan went largely unnoticed in the US media. No word of sympathy was uttered by Clinton who justified the military action on the ground of repelling ‘imminent threat to our national security’.
Clinton’s abrasive secretary of state Madeline Albright made matters worse by her tactless remark that Sudan was a viper’s nest of terrorists. In the streets of Sudan tempers ran high and street protesters waved placards accusing Clinton of diverting public opinion from his sexual misadventures with his White House subordinate. The memories of injustice linger on and the image of an arrogant superpower using disproportionate military force on small defenseless countries evokes moral outrage among the victims. The situation is ripe for terrorist attacks on the Empire leading to the endless cycle of violence and retaliation.
Johnson explains that the word Blowback was coined by the CIA. The word was originally used in poison gas warfare ‘to refer to the likelihood of battlefield gasses blowing back on the forces that have released them.’ In its political sense it first appeared in a CIA’s post-action report on the secret overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953. The CIA helped to install the brutal regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who ruled Iran with an iron hand for twenty-five years. The overthrow of the Shah regime by the Islamic clerics and the persistent anti –American sentiments in the region are rooted in recent history.
In CIA argot, blowback simply means the ‘unintended and unexpected consequences of covert operations of the CIA which have been kept secret from the American public and, in most cases, from the elected representatives.’ Such covert operations are illegal, ill conceived and short term aimed at overthrowing foreign governments or helping launch state terrorist operations against target populations.
The Soviet Afghan War
One example that comes to mind is the American involvement in the Soviet Afghan war. The official version has it that US helped the mujahideen after the Russians invaded Afghanistan in Dec 24, 1979. If the memoirs of Robert Gates, former CIA Director, (From the shadow: The ultimate Insider’s story of five Presidents and how they won the cold war) are to be believed then a different picture emerges: It was on July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to be given to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul, i.e., six months before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The French weekly magazine Nouvel Observateur pursued this extraordinary story. The weekly interviewed Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski who confirmed Gates' account. The Nouvel Observateur put the following question to Brzezinski: ‘You don’t regret any of this today?’ Brzezinski replied: ‘regret what? The secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want to regret it?’ The Nouvel Observateur posed another question to Brzezinski: ‘And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which had given arms and advice to future terrorists?’ Brzezinski disdainfully answered: ‘what is more important in world history? The Taliban or collapse of the Soviet empire?’
What was hidden from the American public is the loss of 1.8 million Afghan lives, some 2.6 million refugees and ten million land mines left in Afghanistan as a result of US secret operation. The bombing of the WTC on 9/11 was a blowback from the same organisation, which US helped to build in Afghanistan.
What is concealed from the American public is that the US government trains the police/ military of repressive regimes. In 1991, the US Congress passed a law authorising Joint Combined Exchange Training Programme (JCET). Though the law permitted the Special Forces to have overseas joint military exercises with foreign governments to train US soldiers, in actuality, the US Special forces are engaged in espionage activities. Under the guise of military exercises the Special Forces collect extensive information about the whole range of military capability of the foreign country they visit.
The Special Forces also train repressive foreign regimes friendly to US interests in lethal skills such as advance sniper techniques, psychological warfare, close quarters combat, torture techniques to elicit confessions from suspects. Evidence is slowly emerging that the Turkish Mountain Commandos were trained by the Special Forces who used the skills against the rebellious Kurdish population killing at least twenty-two thousand of them. According to the manual entitled Doctrine for Special Forces Operations the main activity of the Special Forces is to give foreign military units instructions in Foreign Internal Defense (FID). The disastrous impact of such training programmes were felt in nineteen countries of Latin America, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Rwanda to name a few.
A Muscle-Bound Crackpot
Tom Plate, a columnist for the Los Angles Times once described United States as ‘a muscle bound crackpot with little more than cruise missiles for brains.” US media glorify the warrior roles and justify the use of military force in world affairs. The reported statement of Madeleine Albright best exemplifies this: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future.” Echoing his concern Johnson observes “In the decade following the end of the cold war, the US largely abandoned a reliance on diplomacy, economic aid, international law, and multilateral institutions in carrying out its foreign policies and resorted much of the time to bluster, military force, and financial manipulation.” In pursuit of its imperial dreams US maintains its elaborate military bases all over the world. Its military expenditure dwarfs imagination. Conservative estimate places the US military expenditure in the region of four hundred billion dollars a year. According to Brookings Institution study, it costs US $5.5 trillion to build and maintain its nuclear arsenal. The Pentagon Industrial Complex sets its own agenda and it has a voracious appetite for more and more resources. The military system has become an autonomous system. With corporate interests permeating the military, the civilian control over the military is at best tenuous. Policymaking is dominated by militarism, ‘a vast array of customs, interests, prestige, actions, and thought associated with armies and wars and yet transcending true military purpose’ which is the defense of its realm.
Negative Economic Policies
The economic policies dictated by imperial ambition expose the US to blowback. The classic example of this is its relationship with East Asian client states. In the case of Japan, in order to further its cold war strategy of proving to the world that free market capitalism is the only mode of economic development, the US ‘treated Japan as a beloved ward, indulging its every economic need and proudly patronising it as a star pupil.’ The US used its influence to admit Japan into many International Institutions. The US transferred its crucial technology to Japan on concessionary terms and opened its markets to Japanese goods while tolerating Japan’s protection of its domestic market. This led to the hollowing out of key American Industries such as steel, consumer electronics, robotics, automotive, camera, and semi-conductor industries. This suicidal economic policy was also continued as a trade off to maintain US military bases in Japan. The long-term impact was that soon the American industries became uncompetitive vis-à-vis Japanese industries.
With the huge US export market made available to them, Japan, becoming a five trillion-dollar economy, pursued an aggressive export led growth. It followed its own brand of state guided capitalism steering clear of market capitalism and the command economy of the Soviets. Increasingly, it expanded its production capacity. What was hidden from economic planners was that Japan generated industrial over capacity that threatened the health of the economy. The over capacity reached crisis point when other Asian countries such as South Korea, Hong-Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, emulated the fast catch up strategy of Japan. ‘There were too many factories,’ writes Johnson, ‘turning out athletic shoes, automobiles, television sets, semi-conductors, petrochemicals, steel and ships for too few buyers.’ The ripple effect of the over capacity is the increased competition between American and European MNC. This has resulted in corporations cutting costs by transferring the high paid jobs from the advanced economy to low wage developing countries. The global demand is on the verge of collapse, as rich countries do not generate demand on account of market saturation or stagnant or falling income of its people. In countries like China, Vietnam and Indonesia the workers who earn low wages cannot buy the goods produced by them.
In East Asian economies financial capitalism spearheaded by the US played an important role in destabilising the economies. US played an aggressive role in making the East Asian economies to deregulate the capital market. The Wall Street Treasury Complex thrust the concept of capital mobility upon the East Asian countries. The nature of money pumped into the economy of South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, and Philippines was hot money. The financial inflows were short term, speculative, highly liquid and could easily leave the economy. The US accumulated vast funds (around 3 trillion dollars) especially in the mutual funds. These pools of capital were invested and transferred out of the Asian economies. The result was catastrophic: East Asian economies collapsed. Big American companies bought factories and businesses for a song. Proctor & Gamble picked up several South Korean state of art Companies at a fraction of the price.
In Thailand, American Investment firms bought service, steel, and energy companies at throw away prices. The Carlyle Group sent Bush senior to Bangkok to evaluate opportunities to buy real estate at low prices. The economic meltdown resulted in the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. The smoldering anger of East Asians against US predatory capitalism is a potential source of retaliatory strikes against US interests in the region.
There are worrying signs that the US is not able to pay for its huge military deployments and its military adventurism. The US uses its political clout to cajole its satellite countries to pay for its wars. For instance, Japan paid $13 billion to the US for the first gulf war against Iraq. According to Michael Hudson, author of Super Imperialism, the ballooning US balance of payments deficit is financed by the central banks of the world, which plough back the surplus dollars to buy US Treasury bonds. Blinded by its overwhelming military power the Empire hurtles relentlessly towards the future in pursuit of its hegemonic goals. Its inept elected representatives have surrendered their judgment to a cabal of unelected military experts.
The unraveling of the Empire would have the same inevitability of a Greek tragedy: the hamartia of an inflexible empire bereft of adjustment and compromise colliding against the forces of blowback and imperial overstretch. The danger of the US alienating Europe, Russia East Asia and China politically cannot be ruled out. The threat of the dollars not flowing back into the American economy is a real possibility. The scenario is dangerous for the US economy as it may financially implode if foreign investment dries up.
“The two great tests which challenge the longevity of every major power,” wrote Paul Kennedy in his magisterial survey The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, “whether in the military /strategical realm, it can preserve a reasonable balance between the nation’s perceived defense requirements and the means it possesses to maintain those commitments; and whether it can preserve the technological and economic bases of its power from relative erosion in the face of ever-shifting patterns of production.” Kennedy holds the view that this test of American abilities will be greater because it, like imperial Spain around 1600 or the British Empire around 1900, is the inheritor of a vast array of strategic commitments which had been made decades earlier when the nation’s political, economic, and military capacity to influence world affairs seemed so much more assured. ‘The United States now runs the risk of what might roughly called “imperial overstretch”: that is to say, decision-makers in Washington must face the awkward and enduring fact that the sum total of the United States’ global interests and obligation are far larger than the country’s power to defend them simultaneously.’
Johnson believes that America is in a state of decline. The signs are there for all to see: increasing estrangement between the population and their government, loss of moral authority among the elite, the appearance of militarism and the separation of military from the society it is supposed to serve. He quotes with approval David Calleo, professor of international politics, ‘The international system breaks down not only because unbalanced and aggressive new powers seek to dominate their neighbors, but also because declining powers, rather than adjusting and accommodating, try to cement their slipping preeminence into exploitative hegemony.’
Has the bell then begun to toll for the behemoth? Johnson answers the question with scholarly sangfroid: “The danger I foresee is that we are embarked on the same path as the former Soviet Union a decade ago. It collapsed for three reasons — internal economic contradictions, imperial overstretch, and an inability to reform. The United States has always been richer so it might take us longer for similar afflictions to do their work. But it is nowhere written that the United States, in its guise as an empire dominating the world, must go on for ever.” Prophetic words?
Only time will tell.