The American Century: Neoconservatism

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Unlike Their “Leaders,” Most American Jews Oppose Bush’s Neocon Agenda

There have been rumblings of late about American Jewish organizations not representing the views of the American Jewish community. In a Jan. 7 Nation magazine column entitled “‘Bad for the Jews,’” Eric Alterman cites poll figures that bear out this concept. A majority of American Jews oppose almost every aspect of the Bush administration’s agenda, as advanced by Bush’s neocon advisers. For example, Jews disapprove of Bush’s handling of its campaign against terrorism by 59 to 31 percent. As for the invasion of Iraq, Jews oppose that by 67 to 27 percent, and 68 percent say the “surge” made no difference or made matters worse. By a margin of 57 to 35 percent, a majority of American Jews oppose attacking Iran, even if the attack were to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. One area where Jewish organizations have succeeded in convincing American Jews is the 80 percent who believe the goal of Muslim countries is to destroy Israel. But still, by 46 to 43 percent, Jews support the creation of a Palestinian state.

All this is evidence of the vast chasm that separates Jews from the organizations who purport to represent them. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), for example, really represents hard-right politicians in Israel—those who want to keep the Middle East in a constant state of war. Alterman also points out that the great majority of people who are asked by television producers and newspaper editors to speak for the Jewish community are extreme right-wing Jews who make a living either spreading hate against Muslims and Arabs as a whole, or who exhibit their strong bias for anything Israel wants, to the detriment of U.S. interests. Included in the group named by Alterman are familiar names such as Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle, David Horowitz, David Frum, William Kristol, Mort Zuckerman and Alan Dershowitz.

These are people who have as their microphone either newspaper or magazine columns (indeed, The New York Times has added Kristol to its stable of op-ed columnists), or who are constantly invited to express their views on television talk shows. Only rarely are we allowed to see spokespeople for the Palestinian side of the story. It is Fouad Ajami who is given television time to explain away Shi’ism, or to discuss what is happening in south Lebanon. Because Uncle Toms come in all races and sizes, the nickname given to him of “Uncle Fouad” is most accurate, as he’s found a home in criticism of Shi’i and Arabs on television.

A majority of American Jews oppose attacking Iran.

The person most trotted out on NBC is Steven Emerson, the “terrorism expert,” who discredited himself by immediately blaming Arab terrorists for the Oklahoma City federal building bombing. Not deterred for a minute by that massive gaffe, MSNBC has named Emerson its “terrorism expert.” Watching him make his pronouncements about Arab terrorism, one cannot help but notice that all he does is regurgitate what is currently in the newspapers or on television, but he makes it sound as though he has sources in the intelligence community that are peculiar only to him. NBC is not getting its money’s worth from Emerson, but he does manage to keep the fires of fear stoked, despite his apparent bias as a pro-Israel propagandist. What is at work with the press here is part pro-Israel bias, and part massive ignorance of what is happening in the Middle East. Americans see very little coverage of the effect of the displacement of Iraqis who have had to leave their country for fear of their lives. The refugees are suffering tremendously in countries to which they’ve escaped—Syria and Jordan. They are prevented from suffering in this country by George Bush’s policy of not allowing them to enter here, so they are left to add to the tremendous burdens of Syria and of Jordan.

As well, there is almost no coverage of the daily depredations Israel commits against the Palestinians whose land and lives they occupy. The American press completely ignores the near starvation in the Gaza Strip, the humiliation Palestinians are faced with at the myriad checkpoints in the West Bank, as well as the daily killings of Palestinians who happen to find themselves in the way of Israeli weapons. Given the lack of coverage of what Israel is doing to those they occupy, it’s most amazing that American Jews appear to think the way they do. If only they could convince their leadership to pay attention.

Source: http://www.wrmea.com/archives/April_2008/0804025.html

[Armanen]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

America is gone to dogs, she's gone for good.

And Germany isn't? They have been so brainwashed by their own government that there is as much restrictions on freedom of speech in Germany as there are in turkey.

[crusader1492]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Joos have completely achieved in America what they have almost achieved in Russia and Germany, namely mutating themselfs into the host society to such degree that on the surface the difference between them and their hosts becomes non existent. They couldn't achieve a complete trasnformation in Russia and Germany for only one reason: The strong Christian, Nationalist and Ethnic foundations of those two countries. These countries stood firm despite being erodet within, but they didn't crumble and fall. America is gone to dogs, she's gone for good. Forget America. The world's hope is Russia!

Being life-long American citizen, I sadly have to agree with your assessment. I have witnessed, throughout my generation, the cultural and ecomonic meltown this country is going through. In short, the USA is not the country it was 20-30-40 years ago (far from it).

When I contemplate this situation, I find it to be ironic...on both my mother's and father's sides of the family, my grandparents were refugees from the Genocide.
For example, my grandfather (my father's farther) came to the US in 1913 to make some money working on the railroads in order to better his families life in Mush. Due to the Genocide, he stayed here (there was nothing to go back to), married my grandmother (another Genodcide survivor) and had 4 children who grew up in the height of America's ecomomic and nationalistic pinicle.

All his children were successful and lived the "American dream". Now, with the realization of America's deterioration, I find myself (2 generations removed from my grandfather, whom I never knew) making plans to move to Armenia in order to provide a better life for my wife and child.

Back to the irony...Like my grandparents, I am, in a sense, a refugee too. The situation has come full circle.

[Armanen]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Like my grandparents, I am, in a sense, a refugee too

However, you are Armenian and Armenia is as much yours as it is any Hayastanci's

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Barack Obama supporter accuses xxxish lobby members of McCarthyism

A foreign policy expert consulted by Senator Barack Obama, the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, has accused members of the American xxxish establishment of "McCarthyism" in its attitude towards critics of Israel. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser, said that the pro-Israel lobby in the US was too powerful, while the slur of anti-Semitism was too readily used whenever its power was called into question. Presenting a solution for the Middle East, he listed historical compromises that had to be made by Israelis and Palestinians but accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) – the largest and most influential xxxish lobby group – of obstructing peace efforts.

He said: "Aipac has consistently opposed a two-state solution and a lot of members of Congress have been intimidated and I don't think that's healthy." He added that other country-specific lobbies, such as the Cuban-Americans, the Armenians and the Irish, had also exerted undue influence in Washington. Mr Brzezinski, who served under President Jimmy Carter, was a key player in the 1978 Camp David Accords and remains an important voice in the US foreign policy establishment. An active author and analyst at 80, he is close enough to Mr Obama that his remarks may feed fears in the American-xxxish community that the senator would soften America's traditional strong pro-Israeli stance if he became president. This perception has been created in part by Mr Obama's professed willingness to talk to Iran and partly by other foreign policy associates.

In recent weeks, Mr Obama has courted the xxxish vote and, on Israel's 60th anniversary, underlined the need for the US to show "unshakeable" support. Mr Brzezinski has been accused of being "anti-Israel" by some xxxish academics, writers and bloggers after criticising Israel for excessive use of force and unwillingness to compromise. Last year, censure of him reached new heights when he defended John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, two academics who had criticised the pro-Israel lobby and were accused of questioning the right of the state of Israel to exist. Mr Brzezinski said "it's not unique to the xxxish community – but there is a McCarthyite tendency among some people in the xxxish community", referring to the Republican senator who led the anti-Communist witch hunt in the 1950s.

"They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonising. They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel."

Although Mr Brzezinski is not a formal day-to-day adviser and stressed he doesn't speak for the campaign, he said that he "talks to" Mr Obama. He endorsed the Illinois senator, lauding him as "head and shoulders" above his opponents. He said that he was the only candidate who understood "what is new and distinctive about our age". In turn, Mr Obama has praised Mr Brzezinski as "someone I have learned an immense amount from" and "one of our most outstanding scholars and thinkers". They share very similar views on the folly of the Iraq war. Robert Malley, a Middle East expert, recently quit as an Obama adviser after it emerged that he was talking to Hamas, the militant Palestinian group, as part of his work for the International Crisis Group.

Senator John McCain, who would be Mr Obama's Republican opponent for the White House, is expected to focus on the 46-year-old senator's lack of foreign policy experience and supposed weakness towards enemies. But as president, he will need the support of Aipac and other groups, which may be hard to achieve given his associations. In Mr Brzezinski’s view, whoever is the next US leader must persuasively propose the following dramatic steps to peace: a) Palestinians give up the right of return from Jordan b) demilitarise of the Palestinian state c) Israel share Jerusalem d) Israel return to its pre-1967 war borders with “equitable adjustments”. If this agenda is pursued, in time “Israel and Palestine could be the Singapore of the Middle East and that is in the interests of the US”, he said.

Source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/2033694/Barack-Obama%27s-consultant-accuses-xxxish-lobby-members-of-McCarthyism.html

[Azad]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

No comment .....

[Azad]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

"And the winner is ... the Israel lobby
By Pepe Escobar

WASHINGTON - They're all here - and they're all ready to party. The three United States presidential candidates - John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Madam House speaker Nancy Pelosi. Most US senators and virtually half of the US Congress. Vice President xxxx Cheney's wife, Lynne. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. And a host of xxxish and non-xxxish political and academic heavy-hitters among the 7,000 participants.

Such star power wattage, a Washington version of the Oscars, is the stock in trade of AIPAC - the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the crucial player in what is generally known as the Israel lobby and which holds its annual Policy Conference this week in Washington at which most of the heavyweights will deliver lectures.

Few books in recent years have been as explosive or controversial as The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, written by Stephen Walt from Harvard University and John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago, published in 2007. In it, professors Walt and Mearsheimer argued the case of the Israeli lobby not as "a cabal or conspiracy that 'controls' US foreign policy", but as an extremely powerful interest group made up of xxxs and non-xxxs, a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations tirelessly working to move US foreign policy in Israel's direction".

Walt and Mearsheimer also made the key point that "anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle East policy stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite". Anyone for that matter who "says that there is an Israeli lobby" also runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism.

All the candidates in the House say yeah Republican presidential candidate McCain is opening this year's AIPAC jamboree; Clinton and Obama are closing it on Wednesday. Walt and Mearsheimer's verdict on the dangerous liaisons between presidential candidates and AIPAC remains unimpeachable: "None of the candidates is likely to criticize Israel in any significant way or suggest that the US ought to pursue a more evenhanded policy in the region. And those who do will probably fall by the wayside."

Take what Clinton said in February at an AIPAC meeting in New York: "Israel is a beacon of what's right in a neighborhood overshadowed by the wrongs of radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism." A year before, Clinton was in favor of sitting and talking to Iran's leadership.

And take what Obama said in March at an AIPAC meeting in Chicago; no reference at all to Palestinian "suffering", as he had done on the campaign trail in March 2007. Obama also made it clear he would do nothing to alter the US-Israeli relationship.

No wonder AIPAC is considered by most members of the US Congress as more powerful than the National Rifle Association or the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

AIPAC has explicit Zionist roots. The founder, "Si" Kenen, was head of the American Zionist Council in 1951. The body was reorganized as a US lobby - the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs - in 1953-4, and then renamed AIPAC in 1959. Under Tom Dine, in the 1970s, it was turned into a mass organization with more than 150 employees and a budget of up to US$60 million today. Dine was later ousted because he was considered not hawkish enough.

The top leadership - mostly former AIPAC presidents - is always more hawkish on the Middle East than most xxxish Americans. AIPAC only dropped its opposition to a Palestinian state - without endorsing it - when Ehud Barak became Israeli prime minister in 1999.

AIPAC keeps a very close relationship with an array of influential think-tanks, like the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, the Hudson Institute, the xxxish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Middle East Forum, the The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Sprinkled neo-cons in these think-tanks can be regarded as a microcosm of the larger Israel lobby - xxxs and non-xxxs (It's important to remember that Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and five other neo-cons drafted the infamous "A Clean Break" document to Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 - the ultimate road map for hardcore regime change all over the Middle East.)

The house that AIPAC built
AIPAC in the US Congress is a rough beast indeed. Former president Bill Clinton defined it as "stunningly effective". Former speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich called it "the most effective general-interest group across the entire planet". The New York Times as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel". Embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, before his involvement in a corruption scandal, said. "Thank God we have AIPAC, the greatest supporter and friend we have in the whole world."

AIPAC maintains a virtual stranglehold over the US Congress. Critics of the Israel lobby other than Walt and Mearsheimer also contend that AIPAC essentially prevents any possibility of open debate on US policy towards Israel. Compare it with a 2004 report by the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, according to which "Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies".

AIPAC should not be crossed. It rewards those who support its agenda, and punishes those who don't. In the end, it's all about money - specifically campaign contributions. From 2000 to 2004, according to the Washington Post, AIPAC honchos contributed an average of $72,000 each to campaigns and political committees. For pro-AIPAC politicians, money simply pours from all over the US.

Every member of the US Congress receives AIPAC's bi-weekly newsletter, the Near East Report. Walt and Mearsheimer stress that Congressmen and their staff "usually turn to AIPAC when they need info; AIPAC is called upon to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes".

Hillary Clinton has learned long ago she should not cross AIPAC. Clinton used to support a Palestinian state in 1998. She even embraced Suha Arafat, Yasser's wife, in 1999. After much scolding, she suddenly became a vigorous defender of Israel, and years later wholeheartedly supported the 2006 Israeli war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Clinton may have gotten the bulk of xxxish American donations for her 2008 presidential campaign.

Rice also learned about facts on the ground. She tried to restart the eternally moribund "peace process" when visiting the Middle East in March 2007. Before the trip, she got an AIPAC letter signed by no less than 79 US senators telling her not to talk to the new Palestinian unity government until it "recognized Israel, renounced terror and agreed to abide by Palestinian-Israeli agreements".

AIPAC and Iraq
It has become relatively fashionable for some members of the Israeli lobby to deny any involvement in the build-up towards the war on Iraq. But few remember what AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr told the New York Sun in January 2003: "Quietly lobbying Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq was one of AIPAC's successes over the past year."

And in a New Yorker profile of Steven Rosen, AIPAC's policy director during the run-up to the war on Iraqi, it was stated that "AIPAC lobbied Congress in favor of the Iraqi war".

Compare it with a 2007 Gallup study based on 13 different polls, according to which 77% of American xxxs were opposed to the Iraq war, compared to 52% of Americans.

Walt and Mearsheimer contend "the war was due in large part to the lobby's influence, and especially its neo-con wing. The lobby is not always representative of the larger community for which it often claims to speak."

AIPAC and Iran
Now it is Iran time. Walt and Mearsheimer contend "the lobby is fighting to prevent the US from reversing course and seeking a rapprochement with Tehran. They continue to promote an increasingly confrontational and counterproductive policy instead". Not much different from the embattled Olmert, who told Germany's Focus magazine in April 2007 that "it would take 10 days ... and 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles" to set back Iran's nuclear program.

A measure of Walt and Mearsheimer's power to rattle reputations is that the Zionist establishment had to bring out all its big guns to refute their argument, again and again.

Walt and Mearsheimer are no ideologues. They are realpolitik practitioners - very much at ease in the top circles of US foreign policy establishment. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of their book is that they argued four points that the establishment never mentions in public. Essentially these are:
The US has already won its major wars in the Middle East, against Arab secular nationalism and against communism, and does not need Israel quite as much.
Israel is now so much more powerful than all Arab nations combined that it can take care of itself.
The unconditional support for Israel, regardless of its outrageous deeds, does harm US interests, destabilizes pro-US regimes like Hosi Mubarak's Egypt and King Abdullah's Jordan, and plays into the hands of Salafi-jihadi radicals.
Fighting Israel's wars on its behalf is the surefire way to lead to the collapse of US power in the Middle East.

Walt and Mearsheimer also seem not to accept that oil, and rivalry with Russia and China, have also played a crucial part in why the US went to war in Iraq and may attack Iran in the near future. Anyway only insiders as themselves - with unassailable establishment credentials - could have started, at the highest levels of public debate, a serious discussion of extreme pro-Zionism in the public and political life of the US.

Meanwhile, the power of the lobby seems unassailable. In March 2007, the US Congress was trying to attach a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would have required President George W Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. AIPAC was strongly against it - because it viewed the legislation as taking the military option "off the table". The provision was killed. Congressman Dennis Kucinich said this was due to AIPAC.

AIPAC made a lot of waves in 2002, when the theme of the annual meeting was "America and Israel standing against terror". Everyone bashed Arafat, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria at the same time - just as in PNAC's letter to Bush in April 2002 claiming that Israel was also fighting an "axis of evil" alongside the US.

During AIPAC's jamboree in 2004, Bush received 23 standing ovations defending his Iraq policy. Last year, the star was Cheney, making the case for the troop "surge" in Iraq. Pelosi was dutifully present. But it was pastor John Hagee, whose endorsement McCain recently refused, who really made a killing - even though Hagee maintains that "anti-Semitism is the result of the xxxs' rebellion against God".

On Iran, Hagee definitely set the tone: "It is 1938; Iran is Germany and [President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad is the new [Adolf] Hitler. We must stop Iran's nuclear threat and stand boldly with Israel." He received multiple standing ovations. McCain may be sure to get the same treatment this year - and he'll certainly have no trouble remaining on message. "

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF03Ak01.html

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

One would think they are running for the presidency of Israel... Well, perhaps in sense they are - The United States of Israel.

*************************************

Rice Calls Dialogue With Iran Pointless

By HELENE COOPER and ISABEL KERSHNER

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice escalated the Bush administration’s anti-Iran rhetoric on Tuesday, accusing its government of pursuing nuclear weapons and calling any dialogue with its leaders pointless until they suspend the country’s enrichment of uranium. While Ms. Rice’s message was familiar, the tone of her speech, before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was unusually sharp, taking oblique aim at Senator Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders who have called for the United States to engage Iran diplomatically. “We would be willing to meet with them but not while they continue to inch toward nuclear weapons under the cover of talks,” she told the group, a pro-Israel lobby known by its acronym, Aipac. “The real question isn’t why won’t the Bush administration talk to Iran. The real question is why won’t Iran talk to us.”

Ms. Rice stopped short of calling for consideration of military strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear targets, as some national security conservatives in Vice President xxxx Cheney’s office have advised. But, in a pointed nod to her pro-Israel audience, Ms. Rice called on America’s allies in Europe to look for ways to further press the Iranian government. “For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” she said. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel, on the other hand, put all options on the table. “The Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means,” he said Tuesday evening, speaking to the same group. “The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating.” Mr. Olmert also called for international sanctions against Iran to be toughened. He did not specifically mention military strikes, but did say that “Israel will not tolerate the possibility of a nuclear Iran, and neither should any country in the free world.”

Mr. Olmert is scheduled to meet with President Bush at the White House on Wednesday. The issue of opening high-level diplomatic talks with Iran has come under the spotlight this political season, and that has played out at Aipac’s 2008 policy conference here. On Monday, Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, allied himself firmly with the Bush administration and charged that Mr. Obama’s calls for diplomacy with Iran were misguided and insufficient. And on Tuesday, Howard Friedman, Aipac’s president, used his introduction of Ms. Rice to implore her “to use your remaining time in office to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.” Mr. Obama, who is seeking the Democratic nomination, will have the opportunity to defend his position on Wednesday when he, along with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent, is scheduled to address the group.

Ms. Rice’s speech was also notable for what it did not contain; she did not say that the Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that the Bush administration has been pursuing could be achieved by the end of the year. “We still believe that we have a chance to reach an agreement on the basic contours of a peaceful Palestinian state,” Ms. Rice said. “But if we can pursue this goal by the end of the year, it will be an historic breakthrough.” The difference seems small, but in the past President Bush and Ms. Rice have both spoken of sealing a deal by the end of the year, rather than simply pursuing one. While Mr. Olmert was in Washington, in Israel, two senior members of his Kadima Party, both contenders to replace him as party leader in the event of his downfall over corruption charges, spoke out on national security issues.

Shaul Mofaz, the minister of transportation and a deputy prime minister, toured the Golan Heights on Tuesday and, in apparent contradiction with Mr. Olmert’s policy, declared his opposition to returning that territory to Syria, which lost it to Israel in the 1967 war. Mr. Mofaz said that it was possible to achieve peace with Syria without giving up the heights, and that “the significance of handing the Golan to the Syrians is Iranians in the Golan.” Mr. Mofaz, born in Tehran, was referring to the alliance between Syria and Iran.

Although Mr. Olmert is widely believed to support Mr. Mofaz as a possible successor, Mr. Mofaz’s message was a surprise. Israel and Syria recently resumed talks through Turkish mediation, and while Mr. Olmert denies having made any prior commitment to the Syrians regarding a withdrawal from the Golan, he says he is fully aware of Syria’s expectations, as Syria is of Israel’s. Syria demands full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan while Israel expects Damascus to move out of the Iranian sphere and cease its support for militant anti-Israel organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel’s foreign minister and vice prime minister, Tzipi Livni, another Kadima Party leader who may one day replace Mr. Olmert, told Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday that it was important to keep the threat of a military option on the table for stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/wa...html?ref=world

Obama Reaches Out to Pro-Israel Group

Introduced as the nominee of the Democratic Party, Senator Barack Obama drew several standing ovations from a vastly xxxish crowd at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference in Washington on Wednesday, talking tough on the Iranian threat to Israel while also promising that he would lead in pursuing a peace settlement in Israel. Mr. Obama endorsed a two-state, Israel-Palestine settlement, and took an implicit poke at President Bush. He was speaking, as did John McCain before him on Monday, to a policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major lobbying organization for Israel. “I won’t wait until the waning days of my presidency,” Mr. Obama said. “I will take an active role and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my administration.”

As president, he added: “I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a xxxish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.” Shortly after he spoke, his former rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton came a touch closer than she did last night to acknowledging that he is the nominee of the party. She vouched for Mr. Obama’s friendship and concern for Israel, but did not call him the nominee. “Let me be very clear,” she said, “I know Senator Obama will be a good friend of Israel.” Mr. Obama defended his stance that he would negotiate with the nation’s enemies, but coupled that with a pledge of unstinting support for Israel’s security. He also promised to send military hardware to Israel under the same conditions governing NATO nations.

He talked tough on Iran, describing it in terms suggestive of a rogue nation. He made clear that he would place the military might of the United States behind Israel in the event of an Iranian attack on the xxxish state. But he stopped short of explicitly echoing Mrs. Clinton, who earlier in the primary campaign threatened to obliterate Iran if it used nuclear weapons against Israel. Some more conservative xxxish Democrats have sought a similar declaration from Mr. Obama, which he did not deliver. “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he said, adding for emphasis: “Everything. “That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests.”

He gave a brief nod at his speech’s start to the Internet rumors that swirl about his commitment to the xxxish state. “Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative e-mails have been circulating throughout xxxish communities across the country,” he said. “A few of you may have gotten them. They’re filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for president. “All I want to say is, let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty scary.” This elicited some modest laughs from the audience, which throughout the first half of his speech seemed most intent on listening and drawing his measure. So he continued:

“But if anyone has been confused by these e-mails, I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel.” Characteristic of this politician, he then framed Israel’s struggle in the lens of his own experience and understanding of history. “I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was 11 years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the xxxish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, xxxs carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds.

“The story made a powerful impression on me. I had grown up without a sense of roots. My father was black, he was from Kenya, and he left when I was 2. My mother was white, she was from Kansas, and I’d moved with her to Indonesia and back to Hawaii. In many ways, I didn’t know where I came from. So I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.” He finished by invoking the legacy of the many xxxs who joined the civil rights struggle in this nation, and referenced the fraying of that alliance these past few decades. “Their legacy is our inheritance,” he said. “We must not allow the relationship between xxxs and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred.” Now, he said to loud applause and a standing ovation, “is the time to join together in the work of repairing this world.”

Source: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-israel-group/

McCain Sharpens His Foreign Policy Attacks on Obama

As the bitter Democratic presidential nomination battle was consumed by rancorous maneuverings, Senator John McCain honed his national security message before xxxish leaders on Monday, saying Senator Barack Obama’s policies toward Iraq and Iran would create chaos in the Middle East and endanger the United States and Israel. Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has been laying out a series of foreign policy attacks on Mr. Obama, his likely Democratic rival, questioning the wisdom of Mr. Obama’s call for making diplomatic overtures to enemies and repeatedly painting him as inexperienced. The McCain campaign has been trying to take advantage of divisions in the Democratic Party and define Mr. Obama, who is still largely unknown to many voters, before he can lock up the nomination, when most of Mr. McCain’s advisers expect him to get a significant bounce in the polls.

Speaking on Monday morning in Washington to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the influential pro-Israel lobby, Mr. McCain charged that Mr. Obama’s prescription for more diplomacy with Iran was misguided and insufficient, and that his proposal to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq would endanger Israel. Mr. McCain got several standing ovations from the group, which seemed receptive to some of his more hawkish statements, especially on Iran and the threat it poses to Israel. Some of Mr. McCain’s main points of attack on Mr. Obama — including criticism of Mr. Obama’s previous statement that he would meet with leaders of enemy nations without preconditions — were amplified, sharpened versions of attacks that have been leveled at Mr. Obama by his main Democratic rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mr. McCain’s voice seemed to drip with sarcasm at times, as when he spoke of Mr. Obama’s call for more diplomacy with Iran.

“We hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before,” Mr. McCain said. “Yet it’s hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another.”

The Obama campaign countered that Mr. McCain “stubbornly insists on continuing a dangerous and failed foreign policy that has clearly made the United States and Israel less secure,” and added that during the Bush administration Iran made gains with its nuclear program and expanded its influence in the region through groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Hari Sevugan, an Obama campaign spokesman, said, “The war in Iraq that John McCain supported and promises to continue indefinitely has done more to dramatically strengthen and embolden Iran than anything in a generation.” Polls show that Mr. McCain has an advantage over Mr. Obama on the questions of who has the most experience and who would be the most effective in dealing with terrorism. But it is unclear how much of an edge that will give him in November, because economic worries have surpassed national security as the top concern of voters.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/us...mccain.html?hp

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Remarks By John McCain at AIPAC

June 2, 2008

Thank you all very much. I appreciate the kind introduction, and the invitation to address you. I see we have some students here, including a few from Arizona, and I welcome you to Washington. It's a pleasure, as always, to be in the company of the men and women of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. And I know that all of us are proud to be in the company of the distinguished senator from the State of Connecticut, my friend Joe Lieberman.

All of you involved in the work of AIPAC have taken up a great and vital cause – and a cause set firmly in the American heart. When President Truman recognized the new State of Israel sixty years ago, he acted on the highest ideals and best instincts of our country. He was a man with courage and a sense of history, and he surely knew what great challenges the xxxish state would face in its early years. To his lasting credit, he resolved that the people of Israel would not face them alone, because they would always have a friend and ally in the United States of America.

The cause of Israel, and of our common security, has always depended on men and women of courage, and I've been lucky enough to know quite a few of them. I think often of one in particular, the late Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. I got to know Senator Jackson when I was the Navy liaison to the Senate. In 1979, I traveled with him to Israel, where I knew he was considered a hero. But I had no idea just how admired he was until we landed in Tel Aviv, to find a crowd of seven or eight hundred Israelis calling out his name, waving signs that read "God Bless you, Scoop" and "Senator Jackson, thank you." Scoop Jackson had the special respect of the xxxish people, the kind of respect accorded to brave and faithful friends. He was and remains the model of what an American statesman should be.

The people of Israel reserve a special respect for courage, because so much courage has been required of them. In the record of history, sheer survival in the face of Israel's many trials would have been impressive enough. But Israel has achieved much more than that these past sixty years. Israel has endured, and thrived, and her people have built a nation that is an inspiration to free nations everywhere.

Yet no matter how successful the nation of Israel, or how far removed from the Holocaust, there are experiences that will never pass from memory. Not long ago I was in Jerusalem with Senator Lieberman and our colleague Lindsey Graham, and we went to the Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem. And for all the boundless examples of cruelty and inhumanity to be found there, for all the pain and grief remembered there, somehow I was especially moved by the story of the camp survivors who died from the very nourishment given to them by their liberators. They had starved and suffered so much that their bodies were too weak even for food. They endured it all, only to die at the moment of their deliverance.

These are the kind of experiences that the xxxish people carry in memory – and they are far from the worst experiences of the Holocaust. These are the kind of griefs and afflictions from which the State of Israel offered escape. And today, when we join in saying "never again," that is not a wish, a request, or a plea to the enemies of Israel. It is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us.

The threats to Israel's security are large and growing, and America's commitment must grow as well. I strongly support the increase in military aid to Israel, scheduled to begin in October. I am committed to making certain Israel maintains its qualitative military edge. Israel's enemies are too numerous, its margin of error too small, and our shared interests and values too great for us to follow any other policy.

Foremost in all our minds is the threat posed by the regime in Tehran. The Iranian president has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and suggested that Israel's xxxish population should return to Europe. He calls Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." But the Iranian leadership does far more than issue vile insults. It acts in ways directly detrimental to the security of Israel and the United States.

A sponsor of both Hamas and Hezbollah, the leadership of Iran has repeatedly used violence to undermine Israel and the Middle East peace process. It has trained, financed, and equipped extremists in Iraq who have killed American soldiers fighting to bring freedom to that country. It remains the world's chief sponsor of terrorism and threatens to destabilize the entire Middle East, from Basra to Beirut.

Tehran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an unacceptable risk, a danger we cannot allow. Emboldened by nuclear weapons, Iran would feel free to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy. Its flouting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would render that agreement obsolete and could induce Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others to join a nuclear arms race. The world would have to live, indefinitely, with the possibility that Tehran might pass nuclear materials or weapons to one of its allied terrorist networks. Armed as well with its ballistic missile arsenal, an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to the people of Israel.

European negotiators have proposed a peaceful endgame for Tehran, should it abandon its nuclear ambitions and comply with UN Security Council resolutions. The plan offers far-reaching economic incentives, external support for a civilian nuclear energy program, and integration into the international community. But Tehran has said no.

The Iranians have spent years working toward a nuclear program. And the idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refuse to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history. In reality, a series of administrations have tried to talk to Iran, and none tried harder than the Clinton administration. In 1998, the secretary of state made a public overture to the Iranians, laid out a roadmap to normal relations, and for two years tried to engage. The Clinton administration even lifted some sanctions, and Secretary Albright apologized for American actions going back to the 1950s. But even under President Khatami – a man by all accounts less radical than the current president – Iran rejected these overtures.

Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before. Yet it's hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another. Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.

Rather than sitting down unconditionally with the Iranian president or supreme leader in the hope that we can talk sense into them, we must create the real-world pressures that will peacefully but decisively change the path they are on. Essential to this strategy is the UN Security Council, which should impose progressively tougher political and economic sanctions. Should the Security Council continue to delay in this responsibility, the United States must lead like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework. I am proud to have been a leader on these issues for years, having coauthored the 1992 Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act. Over a year ago I proposed applying sanctions to restrict Iran's ability to import refined petroleum products, on which it is highly dependent, and the time has come for an international campaign to do just that. A severe limit on Iranian imports of gasoline would create immediate pressure on Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to change course, and to cease in the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

At the same time, we need the support of those in the region who are most concerned about Iran, and of our European partners as well. They can help by imposing targeted sanctions that will impose a heavy cost on the regime's leaders, including the denial of visas and freezing of assets.

As a further measure to contain and deter Iran, the United States should impose financial sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, which aids in Iran's terrorism and weapons proliferation. We must apply the full force of law to prevent business dealings with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. I was pleased to join Senators Lieberman and Kyl in backing an amendment calling for the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq. Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama. He opposed this resolution because its support for countering Iranian influence in Iraq was, he said, a "wrong message not only to the world, but also to the region." But here, too, he is mistaken. Holding Iran's influence in check, and holding a terrorist organization accountable, sends exactly the right message – to Iran, to the region and to the world.

We should privatize the sanctions against Iran by launching a worldwide divestment campaign. As more people, businesses, pension funds, and financial institutions across the world divest from companies doing business with Iran, the radical elite who run that country will become even more unpopular than they are already. Years ago, the moral clarity and conviction of civilized nations came together in a divestment campaign against South Africa, helping to rid that nation of the evil of apartheid. In our day, we must use that same power and moral conviction against the regime in Iran, and help to safeguard the people of Israel and the peace of the world.

In all of this, we will not only be defending our own safety and welfare, but also the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. They are a great and civilized people, with little sympathy for the terrorists their leaders finance, and no wish to threaten other nations with nuclear weapons. Iran's rulers would be very different if the people themselves had a choice in the matter, and American policy should always reflect their hopes for a freer and more just society. The same holds true for the Palestinian people, most of whom ask only for a better life in a less violent world.

They are badly served by the terrorist-led group in charge of Gaza. This is a group that still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, refuses to denounce violence, and refuses to acknowledge prior peace commitments. They deliberately target Israeli civilians, in an attempt to terrorize the xxxish population. They spread violence and hatred, and with every new bombing they set back the cause of their own people.

During my last visit to Israel in March, I saw for myself the work of Hamas in the town of Sderot, just across the border from Gaza. I saw the houses that have been hit by Hamas rockets. In the face of injuries, death, and destruction thousands of Israelis have fled the town. Many others have stayed, to carry on as best they can. I visited the home of a man named Pinhas Amar, who lives with his disabled wife, Aliza, and their children. One day, last year, the sirens sounded again to alert the town to incoming rocket fire. The rest of the family found cover. Aliza, on the other side of the house, was knocked out of her wheelchair and struck by shrapnel.

This occurred on December 13. And from that day until the day of my visit just some three months later, more than a thousand rockets had struck Sderot. Today, siren warnings are commonplace, the elementary schools are surrounded by concrete shelters and children walking the streets in costume for Purim celebrations did so in fear. No nation in the world would allow its population to be attacked so incessantly, to be killed and intimidated so mercilessly, without responding. And the nation of Israel is no exception.

Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are engaged in talks that all of us hope will yield progress toward peace. Yet while we encourage this process, we must also ensure that Israel's people can live in safety until there is a Palestinian leadership willing and able to deliver peace. A peace process that places faith in terrorists can never end in peace. And we do no favors to the Palestinian people by conferring approval upon the terrorist syndicate that has seized power in Gaza.

Likewise, Israel's chance for enduring peace with Lebanon depends on Lebanese government that has a monopoly on authority within its country's borders. That means no independent militias, no Hezbollah fighters, no weapons and equipment flowing to Hezbollah.

Hezbollah fighters recently took up arms against their fellow Lebanese, starting the worst internal fighting since the civil war ended in 1990. In the process, they extracted an agreement for a new political arrangement in which Hezbollah and its allies can veto any cabinet decision. As the leader of Hezbollah often reminds us, this group's mission is the defeat of Israel. The international community needs to more fully empower our allies in Lebanon – not only with military aid but also with the resources to undermine Hezbollah's appeal: better schools, hospitals, roads and power generation, and the like. We simply cannot afford to cede Lebanon's future to Syria and Iran.

And we have an additional task. In the summer of 2006, Hamas and Hezbollah kidnapped three young Israelis – Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser – and have held them ever since. I met with the families of two of these men in December 2006, and heard firsthand about their ordeal. I committed then to bring attention to their situation, to insist that the Geneva Conventions are observed, and to call for the swift release of these men. These men are being unlawfully held, and they must be set free and returned home to Israel.

[...]

Source: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...5-1ded14fc0b8a

[Azad]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Where are the low life "Neocons" today that put us in this mess? They should all be shot for treason or deported to israel including McCain ...

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some 27.88 million Americans received food stamps in March, up 1.5 million from a year earlier, according to the latest U.S. government figures which antihunger experts pointed to on Monday as a sign of economic distress."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080609/us_nm/food_usa_stamps_dc

Not to mention 40 million Americans without ANY health insurance...