By David Hardy
Posted: 4/2/07
Last week saw much dialogue responding to Salil Puri's March 28 column urging us to question the patriotism of the far-left.
However, I would like to point out two groups who explicitly represent foreign interests and who have caused far more damage than any of the groups Puri mentions. They are the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee and the Iraqi National Congress.
AIPAC purports to represent the mutual interests of America and Israel, but in fact pushes support of Israel at the expense of American reputation, dollars and lives. They are consistently listed among one of the three most powerful lobbying groups in the country and, in 2005, was ranked the second-most powerful by The National Journal - ahead of the AFL-CIO and National Rifle Association.
They have made criticism of Israel the death knell for any member of Congress. Their biggest lobbying coup arguably came in 1967, when they successfully occulted outrage over Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty.
Today, one of their top priorities is a presidential pardon for Jonathon Pollard, convicted in 1986 of spying for Israel. Last year, two of their lobbyists were convicted of passing American defense secrets to Israel. John Mearshimer and Stephen Walt of the University of Chicago and Harvard University respectively recently detailed the group's extraordinary influence and detrimental effects in their essay "The Israel Lobby."
The result of their stranglehold on Congress is Middle East policy that has ruined our reputation in the region. Far from being seen as an honest broker, we are viewed as an agent of Israel, supplying them with weapons and money ad infinitum.
When necessary, the United States has provided a reliable veto in the United Nations, as witnessed in last summer's war in Lebanon. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton admitted on March 23 what everyone knew: The United States was stalling for time, holding back the U.N. to give Israel a free hand in Lebanon. Following a far right-wing Israeli policy, AIPAC was one of the strongest proponents of invading Iraq and pushes a similarly hawkish line on Iran.
Worse than AIPAC is the Iraqi National Congress, the source of some of the most damning (and flawed) evidence for an existing Iraqi WMD program. Because Saddam Hussein was simply assumed to have these programs, intelligence was fit to this conclusion and intelligence or experts that questioned this conclusion were ignored.
The CIA struggled to find satisfactory evidence, but when their professionalism got in the way, the war's architects turned to the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella group of Iraqi dissidents and ex-patriots. The INC claimed to have contacts with defectors willing to tell Washington what they wanted to hear - for a small fee of around $500,000 a month. They told stories of mobile weapons labs and gallons of anthrax, some of which ended up in Colin Powell's 2003 address to the United Nations.
We know now that nearly all of it was fabricated by agents with a specific political agenda, including one aptly code-named "Curveball." The Washington Post revealed last year that Curveball was actually a taxi-driving con-artist with a lot to gain from a U.S. invasion. This shouldn't come as a surprise, as the INC was led by convicted-fraudster Ahmad Chalabi, who saw himself as Iraq's post-Saddam leader despite having never set foot in the country for 25 years.
The INC has been thoroughly discredited, in no small part because their intelligence collapsed like the house of cards it was. The man appointed as the Deputy Prime Minister during the occupation won just 0.5 percent of the vote in Iraq's 2005 elections. Chalabi's offices have been raided by American forces suspecting him of ties to Iran.
AIPAC, however, has avoided most of the fall-out that has hit proponents of the Iraq War, and continues to push Middle East policies of which only the Israeli far-right would approve
The United States must be vigilant that a similar nexus does not come together to attack Iran: a militaristic administration, a group of dissidents with "the missing link" information claiming to speak for a whole nation and AIPAC, one of the most powerful interest groups in the country.
Hardy is a government, geography and history junior.
Monday, April 2, 2007
McCain Strolls Through Baghdad Market, Accompanied By 100 Soldiers, 3 Blackhawks, 2 Apache Gunships
Sen. John McCain strolled briefly through an open-air market in Baghdad today in an effort to prove that Americans are “not getting the full picture” of what’s going on in Iraq. 
NBC’s Nightly News provided further details about McCain’s one-hour guided tour. He was accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” Still photographs provided by the military to NBC News seemed to show McCain wearing a bulletproof vest during his visit. Watch it:
McCain recently claimed that there “are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today.” In a press conference after his Baghdad tour, McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market today was proof that you could indeed “walk freely” in some areas of Baghdad.
Filed under: Iraq
Posted by Faiz April 1, 2007 7:35 pm
Israel pits US against Iran, then ducks when the SH*T hits the fan
As usual, israelis get US to do their dirty work while they avoid casualties by keeping a low profile.
When will Americans learn that it doesn't 'pay' to be a zionist hitman?
Israel’s chief of military intelligence warned on Sunday that Hezbollah, Syria and Iran were preparing for a possible attack on Teheran by Israel’s main ally the United States as early as this summer.Amos Yadlin told the weekly cabinet meeting that Israel’s three principal foes were steeling their defences because they feared a US attack on Iran, a senior official who attended the meeting told AFP.
‘Their preparation is defensive ahead of war,’ the official quoted Yadlin as saying on condition of anonymity. ‘They fear a war initiated by the Americans because they understand that there might be an attack against Iran over the summer, but not by Israel.’
Although Yadlin insisted Israel had no intention of becoming embroiled in such a conflict, he warned that any moves by the Jewish state could be wrongly interpreted by its neighbours as a sign of hostile intent.
‘If the Americans launch an offensive in Iran, Hezbollah and Syria will think the move had been coordinated with Israel and would expect Israel to strike them too,’ another government official at the meeting told AFP.
Yadlin said he feared a repeat of 1967 when sabre-rattling, brinkmanship and miscalculations upset a fragile calm and plunged the region into war.
‘We might again find ourselves in a war no one wanted,’ Yadlin told ministers.
What Chutzpah!
Zionists have been DEMANDING war for over four years, yet when everyone around them is dead and buried they will deny they ever wanted it.
‘Israel must be prepared and make sure its steps will not lead to any miscalculation on the other side.’‘Israel is closely following developments on this front out of a concern that the three players might misinterpret certain steps taken by Israel,’ Yadlin was quoted as saying.
Unbelievable.
israelis never cease to amaze me with their treachery and their cowardice as they meticulously plan to sit it out, while Americans and Iranians duke it out.
Yadlin said Hezbollah was abiding by a UN-brokered ceasefire in southern Lebanon, but alleged the Shia militants were busily rearming north of the Litani river -- out of the jurisdiction of UN peacekeepers.* * * ‘Hezbollah has no intention of getting into a second round of conflict,’ Yadlin was quoted as saying. ‘But it is busy rebuilding its forces and has accelerated those efforts for fear of a summer attack.’
On Saturday, Iran’s joint chief of staff warned Arab states neighbouring Israel against what he called a ‘Zionist suicide attack’ this year.
‘The Zionists plan to carry out a suicide plot in the summer,’ the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Major General Hassan Firouzabadi as saying.
He predicted that an Israeli attack would start from Lebanon and Syria and proceed to Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
It will begin in May when the third US aircraft carrier is scheduled to arrive in the Gulf.
We have very little time to stop them.
Posted in Submitted by qrswave on Mon, 2007-04-02 00:48. qrswave's blog
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): "The Democrats' honeymoon is fixing to end. It's going to explode like an IED."
America has had it with Republican treachery. Soon they will see through the Democrats' betrayal as well.
Related
Obama to Bush: Yassa Massa
Congress will fund Iraq war if Bush uses veto, Obama says
---
Democrats To Widen Conflict With Bush
Some on Both Sides See Plans as Risky
Related
Obama to Bush: Yassa Massa
"If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday."
Congress will fund Iraq war if Bush uses veto, Obama says
---
Democrats To Widen Conflict With Bush
Some on Both Sides See Plans as Risky
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 2, 2007; A01
Even as their confrontation with President Bush over Iraq escalates, emboldened congressional Democrats are challenging the White House on a range of issues -- such as unionization of airport security workers and the loosening of presidential secrecy orders -- with even more dramatic showdowns coming soon.
For his part, Bush, who also finds himself under assault for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the conduct of the Iraq war and alleged abuses in government surveillance by the FBI, is holding firm. Though he has vetoed only one piece of legislation since taking office, he has vowed to veto 16 bills that have passed either the House or the Senate in the three months since Democrats took control of Congress.
Despite the threats, Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess, including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.
"I suppose there's always a risk of going too far," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), "but the risk of not going is far greater."
Backed by a unified party and fresh from a slew of legislative victories, Democratic leaders appear to believe there is hardly any territory they cannot stray onto, a development that has Republican political operatives gleeful and some Democrats worried. Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a "political price" at the polls: "If they let their constituents and their ideology drive them past the point where the American people are comfortable, they will find how quickly the voters will react."
Leon E. Panetta, who was a top White House aide when President Bill Clinton pulled himself off the mat through repeated confrontations with Congress, sees the same risk. He urged Democrats to stick to their turf on such issues as immigration, health care and popular social programs, and to prove they can govern.
"That's where their strength is," Panetta said. "If they go into total confrontation mode on these other things, where they just pass bills and the president vetoes them, that's a recipe for losing seats in the next election."
But even conservative Democrats insist their party is in no danger of overreaching its mandate from the November elections. Rep. Baron P. Hill (Ind.), a conservative Democrat who squeaked out a victory in November against the Republican who had taken the seat from him two years earlier, said he was concerned early on that Democratic leaders would mount a "witch hunt" against Bush and his policies. But, he said, they are far from any witch hunts.
The view is decidedly different from the White House. In three months, Democrats have pushed back hard on the Bush legacy. A House-passed bill would require the government to negotiate prices for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries, highlighting what Democrats consider a shortcoming of the president's landmark Medicare prescription drug law. Bush has promised a veto.
A Senate-approved measure would allow screeners at the Transportation Security Administration to unionize, prompting a veto threat. White House opposition to that in 2002 led to a legislative standoff over the creation of the Department of Homeland Security that proved devastating to Democrats, who were painted as soft on terrorism.
A bill to ease the public release of official papers from presidential libraries also yielded a veto promise, although it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The measure would reverse one of Bush's executive orders, which has helped keep reams of presidential documents under lock and key.
Budgets passed by the House and Senate assume the expiration of most of Bush's tax cuts in 2012, and Democrats are demanding tough new standards for labor rights and environmental regulations as a condition of extending the president's authority to expedite trade negotiations.
The White House has also vowed to block two separate House bills that would extend whistle-blower protections to national security and rail security workers.
But it is the legislation coming down the pike that promises the real fireworks. Most Republicans are convinced the president will win his veto standoff over House and Senate war spending bills that would impose mandatory troop withdrawals from Iraq.
"It's going to be like the government shutdowns" of 1995 and 1996, predicted Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). "The Democrats' honeymoon is fixing to end. It's going to explode like an IED."
That would slow their momentum as they challenge Bush on the territory he has made his political fortune on: terrorism. But Democrats are undaunted in their demands to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. They also want to reopen last year's law creating military commissions to restore the right of habeas corpus to terrorism suspects and to revise rules that allow convictions to be based in part on evidence yielded by interrogation methods that critics call torture.
"We have a very consequential and just system of justice. To create a system that is a dual system but not just is not acceptable, and that's Guantanamo," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
Democratic leadership aides are most skittish about the Patriot Act, saying they would only temper it by eliminating a provision that allows the indefinite appointment of U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation and by tightening the FBI's use of "national security letters" to obtain private information about U.S. citizens.
For Republicans, such legislative gambits could prove to be a political gift. When reports first surfaced of plans to close Guantanamo Bay and send terrorism suspects to military prisons in the United States, Republicans accused Democrats of planning to import terrorists to U.S. soil. Even after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates suggested he could support the idea, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) pressed the attack Friday.
"The idea that we would import dangerous terrorists, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, into American communities is dangerous," Hunter said at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, of which he is the ranking GOP member.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) has already raised the specter of justice grinding to a halt as terrorists use their access to federal courts under the right of habeas corpus to blitz the judicial system with lawsuits.
And Cole, the Oklahoma Republican, warned Democrats not to tamper with the national security laws that Bush secured after the 2001 terrorist attacks. "Americans don't want to reopen the programs that have protected them since 9/11," he said.
The Fake Fight Over the Iraq War
March 31 / April 1, 2007
That Was an Antiwar Vote?
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
Has the end of America's war on Iraq been brought closer by the recent vote in the House of Representatives? On March 23, the full House voted 218 to 212 to set a timeline on the withdrawal of US troops, with September 1, 2008, as the putative date after which war funding might be restricted to withdrawal purposes only. It's not exactly a stringent deadline. It only requires Bush to seek Congressional approval before extending the occupation and spending new funds to do so.
On Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi's website we find her portrait of what US troops will be doing in Iraq following this withdrawal or "redeployment," should it occur late next year on the bill's schedule. "US troops remaining in Iraq may only be used for diplomatic protection, counterterrorism operations and training of Iraqi Security Forces." But does this not bear an eerie resemblance to Bush's presurge war plan? Will the troops being redeployed out of Iraq even come home? No, says Pelosi, as does Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. These troops will go to Afghanistan to battle al Qaeda.
So the bill essentially adopts and enforces Bush's war plan and attendant "benchmarks" as spelled out in his January 10 speech. On March 27, the Senate voted 50-48 to start withdrawal in March 2008, said schedule being nonbinding on the President. At any rate, Bush has promised to veto all schedules for withdrawal coming out of Congress. Meanwhile the war goes on, with a supplemental, Democrat-approved $124 billion, more than Bush himself requested. As Congress considers the half trillion dollar FY 2008 Pentagon budget, there is no sign that the Democratic leadership will permit any serious attack on further war funding.
Thus when it comes to the actual war, which has led to the bloody disintegration of Iraqi society, the deaths of up to 5,000 Iraqis a month, the death and mutilation of US soldiers every day, nothing at all has happened since the Democrats rode to victory in November courtesy of popular revulsion in America against the war. Bush's reaction to this censure at the polls was to appoint a new commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, to oversee the troop surge in Baghdad and Anbar province. The Democrats voted unanimously to approve Petraeus and now they have okayed the money for the surge. Bush hinted that he would like to widen the war to Iran. Nancy Pelosi, chastened by catcalls at the annual AIPAC convention, swiftly abandoned all talk of compelling Bush to seek congressional authorization to make war on Iran.
Although nothing of any significance actually happened on March 23, to read liberal commentators one would think we'd witnessed some profound upheaval, courtesy of Nancy Pelosi's skillful uniting of the various Democratic factions. What she accomplished in practice was the neutering of the antiwar faction. In the end only eight Democrats (plus two Republicans) voted against the Supplemental Appropriation out of opposition to the war. The balance of 202 no votes came from Republicans who opposed Pelosi's bill as anti-Bush and antiwar. So, in Congress 420 representatives officially have no problem with the war in Iraq continuing until the eve of the next election. Ten are foursquare against it, which is more or less where Congress has always been, in terms of committed naysayers.
Antiwar forces in Congress are now weaker. Take Sam Farr of Santa Cruz and Peter DeFazio of Eugene, both Congressmen with large progressive constituencies. In the last Republican-controlled Congress they were stout opponents of the war, voting against authorization to invade and money for the war thereafter. No longer. Pelosi handed Farr bailout money for his district's spinach growers and DeFazio got funding for schools and libraries. Who knows? Perhaps a few dollars of the latter will go to wheelchair access for the paraplegics who will come home from Iraq over the next sixteen months, maimed in the war for which DeFazio just voted more money.
Seeking to explain his yes vote for Pelosi's war-funding bill, Farr issued a press release saying, "This bill brings our troops home." But he also told the San Francisco Chronicle, "They want to go gung-ho. They want to escalate in Iraq. So what would our 'no' votes mean?"
Mr. Farr, they would have meant more votes against the war, and had there been four more holdouts against Pelosi's palm-greasing, these no votes would have monkey-wrenched her bill, thus demonstrating that it is impossible to get a majority in the House of Representatives to endorse a piece of fakery designed to deceive the very people who put the Democrats back in power.
The real antiwar movement proved itself incapable of pressuring House Democrats to hold out. The January 27 demonstration organized by United for Peace and Justice did involve active lobbying of Democrats to hold their feet to the fire, but the demo itself was really a Bush-bashing session, with scant reminders that Bush's war has been and continues to be a bipartisan project.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, said after the March 23 vote, "Bush is our worst enemy and our best ally." In other words, when Bush savaged Pelosi's bill with accusations that it gives aid and comfort to the enemy, he cemented Democratic support for it. The focus stays always on Bush, over whom MoveOn will never have influence, as opposed to Democrats, whom MoveOn could have pressured with its three millionstrong email list. But rather than rousing its members to accuse Pelosi of enabling the war, MoveOn carefully limited the available options in polling its members. It only asked whether they were for, against or not sure about war funding as dealt with in her bill.
MoveOn could have phrased it another way: Do you support the Pelosi plan (fully describing it); do you support the Barbara Lee plan (funding exclusively for gradual withdrawal of US troops); do you reject war funding altogether?
Will Congressional opposition to the war now get stronger, anchored by Pelosi's bill? Not likely. The window of opportunity for that flew open right after the election, when antiwar forces roared in outrage after being snubbed by Pelosi and Reid, who omitted the war and the Patriot Act from their must-do agenda. Instead, the Democratic leadership chose merely to appear to oppose the war while continuing to fund it. This they have now achieved, amid the satisfied cheers of the progressive sector.
And Now a Word of Clarification from Senator Joe Biden
Chris Matthews, Hardball, March 28, 2007
MATTHEWS: Thank you, David.
Letes go now to Senator Joe Biden, Democratic presidential candidate and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Biden, can Congress stop the war or just help start one?
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It can help stop one. It can help start one, but it can also help stop one, and it can help change the direction, Chris. And what people donet read about the Senate resolution, the Senate bill we passed, it sets a goal just as the same goal set out by the Baker-Hamilton commission, the Iraq Study Group, to have combat troops out by March of e08, except for those left behind to protect the borders, to protect our troops, train Iraqis and go after al Qaeda. It is not as the president portrays it.
MATTHEWS: Well, you say a guideline. I thought it was an exit date.
BIDEN: It is a goal. It says thates the date picked, assuming military commanders believe it can be met. Thates what the Senate side says. The House side sets an absolute date.
The bottom line here is, Chris, that the presidentes policy, the Bush-McCain doctrine, just will not function. Think of what the basic premise is. Ites theyere going to establish a strong central government thates a democracy. Thates not going to happen in your lifetime or mine. Weere trying to redefine the mission to enable us to get to the point where we have a political solution everybody calls for, but no one but me and Les Gelb have offered a specific political solution. Give local control over the local fabric of their daily lives with a weak central government. Until we move toward that direction, there is no possibility of us doing anything but trading a dictator for chaos.
MATTHEWS: If the president were to sign some compromise between the House and the Senate versions of these exit dates, would we pull our troops out by next summer? If the president signed a bill, somewhereothat would effectuate a date of somewhere between March and August, somewhere like July or June, would that mean that we would have to leaveoin other words, does this measure really offer an alternative policy, which is, Weere coming out?
BIDEN: Well, it actually does offeroit says we are going to come out unless we have to leave troops a little longer in order to do one of four thingsoone, protect the troops that are there as they are getting out, two, train Iraqi troops, three, provide for taking on al Qaeda in Anbar province, where theyere trying to set up control.
What it really says is, Get out of the civil war. Change the mission, Mr. President. As long as you have us in this middle of a civil war, there is no prospect for success. None.
And youere going to hear from Barry McCaffrey very soon on your program. Iell be dumbfounded if he says anything else.
MATTHEWS: But he also said in the article today in iThe Washington Postioweell hear from him in a few moments, but he said that ites so dangerous for the government officials in Iraq, the people we put up there in that new governmentoweeve stood up that new governmentothat they canet walk the streets. Theyell be picked up and killed. And ifoand if...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... canet walk the streets of its own capital, how can we step aside and say, Carry on, boys?
BIDEN: Put it another way. How can we stay if they canet even, after four years, provide enough security in the over 180,000 people weeve trained in their army to protect their members of parliament as they walk around? Thates the other side of the question.
MATTHEWS: Well, let me get this straight...
BIDEN: So the question is here...
MATTHEWS: Hillary Clinton has saidoSenator Clinton, your colleague, has said that she thinks we should remain, keep some troops in there after we pull our troops out. I donet understand that. Are we going to get out of that country or are we going to have a permanent base in that country?
BIDEN: What weere talking about doing...
MATTHEWS: Whates your policy?
BIDEN: My policy is what I set out a year-and-a-half ago, which is to set a goal of getting out by March of e08. Make it a local referendum. Let the Iraqi constitution work. Give that Shia control over their areas, the Sunnis over theirs, and the Kurds over theirs in terms of their local police forces. Have a weak central government that controls the army, the distribution of resources and their borders. And thates the way in which you begin to separate the parties.
Never in history has there been a case, Chris, when therees been a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence that anything other than a dictator, an occupation or a federal system has ended it. We need a federal system here.
MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you so much, Senator Joe Biden, whoes the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a candidate for president.
Those Laptop Bombardiers
From: "Stephen Zielinski"
Date: March 24, 2007 8:35:16 AM PDT
To:
Subject: Re: Where are the Laptop Bombardiers Now?
To the Editors,
Alexander Cockburn wrote:
"Sometimes I dream of them, - Friedman, Hitchens, Berman - like characters in a Beckett play, buried up to their necks in a rubbish dump on the edge of Baghdad, reciting their columns to each other as the local women turn over the corpses to see if one of them is her husband or her son."
I believe Cockburn credits that lot with too much good sense. They'd never notice those women if they were reciting their prose. Expecting them to notice would be akin to asking a Diva to turn away from her vanity mirror.
Keep up the good work!
Regards,
Stephen Zielinski
From:
Subject: laptop bombardiers
Date: March 24, 2007 5:39:13 PM PDT
To:
hi alex, good article, buto you noted in your lead, apropos adverswe deeds wrought by US on that day in history, that the U.S. rejected the Treaty of Versailles? yes, of course it did. but the whole reason we're in this mess is because of the Treaty of Versailles. i mean maybe you have a different interpretation of world war one than io but that was a slave treaty put on a country germany who had a gun put to its head to accept full guilt for a war where others took no responsibility for the role they played. it was a war that never had to take place except for the machinations of france and russia with great britain tagging along into a mindless hideous onslaught. (america's entry into it, only prolonged the slaughter). the versailles treaty which was then imposed on germany by GB and France and some minor allies led to world war II which was also a mindless, needless slaughter. the whole shebang that we are going through can be directly related to the treaty of versailles if one wanted to make a narrow argument. that old historian
Note: a version of the first item in this column ran in the print edition of the Nation that went to press last Wednesday.
Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair are the authors of End Times: the Death of the Fourth Estate (CP/AK Press).
THE GATES ARE LOCKED FOR PASSOVER
Sunday, April 01, 2007
As the Jews in Israel and throughout the world celebrate Passover, the Festival of FREEDOM... the very thing that is celebrated is denied to an entire nation. Palesinians will be welcome to stay at home... or wander if they wish... but only within their own villages and only behind the wall that separates them from family and friends.
Christian Palestinians will be able to attend Easter services and visit family members, again creating an apartheid within apartheid by distinguishing between the Christian and Muslim residents.
And yet Israel talks peace.... promises to end closures.... promises to remove roadblocks.... WHEN????
As I said above, Passover is the Festival of Freedom.... to the Palestinians it has become the Festival of Continued Suffering.
Following is a report from Ynet about the closure...
Closure on territories
Full closure imposed on West Bank ahead of Passover. IDF to allow Christians to enter Israel for family visits during Easter holiday
A full closure has been imposed on the West Bank starting Saturday night, and will be in effect for the remainder of Passover. The closure will be lifted following another security assessment after the holiday is over.
Entry into Israel from the West Bank during Passover will only be permitted in humanitarian cases.
International organization workers, lawyers, medical professionals, clergymen, and other populations will also be permitted entry, under the coordination of Israeli security forces and the Palestinian Authority.
Security forces have also prepared for Easter which overlaps with Passover this year. Thousands of the West Bank’s Christian residents will be permitted entry into Israel to celebrate the Easter holiday with their families.
Israeli citizens will be allowed entry to Jericho, Bethlehem, and the Gaza Strip in order to participate in religious ceremonies and family visits.
In addition, hundreds of Gaza’s Christian resident will be permitted to leave the Strip in order to take part in religious ceremonies taking place in Israel.
Distract and Disenfranchise: PAUL KRUGMAN - Power Abuses
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Distract and Disenfranchise
By PAUL KRUGMANPublished: April 2, 2007
I have a theory about the Bush administration abuses of power that are now, finally, coming to light. Ultimately, I believe, they were driven by rising income inequality.
Let me explain.
In 1980, when Ronald Reagan won the White House, conservative ideas appealed to many, even most, Americans. At the time, we were truly a middle-class nation. To white voters, at least, the vast inequalities and social injustices of the past, which were what originally gave liberalism its appeal, seemed like ancient history. It was easy, in that nation, to convince many voters that Big Government was their enemy, that they were being taxed to provide social programs for other people.
Since then, however, we have once again become a deeply unequal society. Median income has risen only 17 percent since 1980, while the income of the richest 0.1 percent of the population has quadrupled. The gap between the rich and the middle class is as wide now as it was in the 1920s, when the political coalition that would eventually become the New Deal was taking shape.
And voters realize that society has changed. They may not pore over income distribution tables, but they do know that today’s rich are building themselves mansions bigger than those of the robber barons. They may not read labor statistics, but they know that wages aren’t going anywhere: according to the Pew Research Center, 59 percent of workers believe that it’s harder to earn a decent living today than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
You know that perceptions of rising inequality have become a political issue when even President Bush admits, as he did in January, that “some of our citizens worry about the fact that our dynamic economy is leaving working people behind.”
But today’s Republicans can’t respond in any meaningful way to rising inequality, because their activists won’t let them. You could see the dilemma just this past Friday and Saturday, when almost all the G.O.P. presidential hopefuls traveled to Palm Beach to make obeisance to the Club for Growth, a supply-side pressure group dedicated to tax cuts and privatization.
The Republican Party’s adherence to an outdated ideology leaves it with big problems. It can’t offer domestic policies that respond to the public’s real needs. So how can it win elections?
***
The good news is that all the G.O.P.’s abuses of power weren’t enough to win the 2006 elections. And 2008 may be even harder for the Republicans, because the Democrats — who spent most of the Clinton years trying to reassure rich people and corporations that they weren’t really populists — seem to be realizing that times have changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)