U.S. Officials Sell Nuclear Secrets to Israel, Turkey

It never ends with this "moral" crew, does it? From Raw Story (and mind you, Bushies happily slip two countries "not supposed to have" nukes such secrets, while everytime a doctor in Iran orders a chest x-ray, Bush claims Ahmadinejad's about to nuke The Mickey Mouse Club, Chucky Cheese, and other vital symbols of American uh... brilliance, superiority, and patriotism). Want to bet NONE of these officials is charged, much less convicted, of treason - which is WHAT this act would mean to anyone else.

The Sunday Times has obtained a document that confirms that a file, which the FBI denied existed, could contain information about American officials stealing nuclear secrets for Turkish and Israeli spies, who would then sell the secrets to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Earlier, FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, 37, approached the Times about "explosive" communications she discovered between high-up American officials and Turkish and Israeli spies. A FOIA request to the FBI, for case number 203A-WF-210023, was answered with a claim that the case number did not exist.

"I can tell you that that file and the operations it refers to did exist from 1996 to February 2002," says Edmonds.

One high-ranking official, identified by RAW STORY's Larisa Alexandrovna as Marc Grossman, Ambassador to Turkey from 1994 to 1997. Grossman is said to have warned his cohorts not to do business with Brewster Jennings, a front company set up by the CIA. Brewster Jennings was also the "employer" of CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose cover, with Grossman's help, was blown in what is widely believed to be a political hit job by the Bush Administration on her husband, Ambassador and Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson.

The entire Sunday Times article can be read HERE.

Strange that, if completely accurate, American media ignores the story while a paper most Americans have never heard of, much less read reports on it.

Is treason no longer a punishable offense? Only, under Bush, could THAT happen. And the GOP crew angling for his job sure won't guard "the flame" any better. Some, quite terrifyingly, could be much worse.

Iran: The Bushies' Deadliest Game Ever

I talk with many progressive, moderate and increasingly, well right of center Republicans who these days not just readily admit but rant and rave themselves that the Bush Administration's logic on almost everything it does is so very bad as to be criminal (meaning: OK, we gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but you can't fuck this much up without a PLAN!). On Iran, even some of the neocon fans, however, are reeling from this administration's latest approach.

The IAEA studied Iran's capabilities for some time and said that Iran is not ready to do any real damage with nuclear power to anyone (even Israel, which is often the greatest fear though Israel's got MUCH bigger ones and a penchant to use their weaponry with some abandon). Major U.S. intel on Iran determined Iran really poses no threat and, because the intel determined this, it's sat hidden for a year.

NOW, the day AFTER other national intelligence tells us Iran is in no position to do us or anyone else much damage for some years to come, what do the Bushies do?

Why, they scream louder that we need to attack Iran ... you know, before they attack us. Then, in a few years and several trillion dollars (not to mention untold numbers of lives lost, because Iran DOES have enough of a military to hurt us in ways Iraqis could not organize while we're being told that the U.S., perhaps with Israel, could go after Iran's so-called nuclear reactors which would kill millions of Iran citizens), Karl Rove can come out again, like he did this past weekend, and claim Congress made Bush do it.

I'm a pretty compassionate person. But when it comes to the Bushies, I'd take a page out of the great lyrics for "Sweeney Todd" (for a pacifist, this is my all time FAVORITE musical oddly enough), the fantastic musical turned into a Tim Burton film for Christmas release with Johnny Depp:

Never forget. Never forgive.

Rice/Other Bushies Subpoenaed to Testify

Secrets passed to pro-Israel lobbyists? Hmmm.

Our media pays little attention to this, but you can bet it's getting noticed elsewhere.

Republican Leaders: Pray For Another Terrorist Attack On U.S. So We Can Win

I noticed some people - including at least a few Republicans I spoke with - were quite taken aback when the head of the Arkansas state GOP said the other day that (to paraphrase):

What we need in America is another September 11th, another horrific terrorist attack
on our home soil, because that is what the GOP needs to win all the seats it wants
in the 2008 presidential election.

Excuse me? Really? We need another 9-11-01?

Unbelievably, this Arkansas ass is hardly the first rightwinger to state something like this. There are an endless number of examples, almost all of which come from the far red right.

For example, Newt Gingrich (who remains an undeclared contender for the GOP race for President) said last summer that America needed to do whatever it could to help Israel turn the war they were waging on Lebanon (one often called a proxy war fought by Israel for America to put the fear of God into other Arab/Muslim heavy countries like Iran and Syria.

Specifically, Gingrich said (and I am not engaging in hyperbole) that it was in the very BEST interests of the GOP to help Israel morph the Lebanon situation into World War III SINCE Americans would flock to embrace Bush's war-as-the-answer-to-everything doctine as they did after 9-11. He said this publicly and repeatedly. Virtually none of the press called him on that, or demanded to know why taxpayer money and U.S. soldiers' lives were completely and utterly expendable so long as Republicans not only retained power, but they also got MORE power.

On This Memorial Day Weekend...

Let us appreciate America's 25 million living veterans (one in every dozen citizens), demand we stop unnecessary aggression against other countries, and begin to worry about our own massive problems. At the same time, think about all the many wars this Republican chickenhawk vice president (Dick Cheney) and chickenshit commander in chief, Mr. Bush, have started since they used corrupt court processes to take the White House in December 2000:

Besides those declared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the proxy war Israel waged for Bush to break the spine of Lebanon in proxy:

• War on the military and our veterans (asking so much while cutting services to them every damned day)
• War on basic human rights
• War on individual privacy
• War not on poverty but against the poor
• War on families (you have to be the "right" kind of family not to feel "intruded" upon
• War on science
• War on reason
• War on truth and accountability as well as the whistleblowers who try to make the Bushies honest
• War on public education and against the best conditions for our kids
• War on young minds, trying to lure them away from high school or college with lies
• War on drugs (which got rolled into the War on Terror which, as they say, is a bumper sticker motto but hardly a game plan) which includes the ability for Americans to afford them, to get them for their most urgent needs (ex: contraception, pain relief, and yes, even decongestants in cold formulas), and to make decisions about their own bodies
• War on anyone who isn't of the Fascist Fundamentalist Christian "faith" (Muslims, especially)
• War on America's honor, its reputation, its compassion
• War on the sick (remember Terri Schiavo, kept alive when there was little brain left in her while the Bushies had no trouble discontinuing treatment to the ultra poor minority babies)
• War on journalism
• War on the United Nations, NATO, and other worldly agencies

Care to name some other wars?

Excuse Me? Cheney Thinks Bush Takes Diplomacy With Iran TOO Far?

I must have read this story through seven times on Cernig's Newshog (aka The Newshoggers) before I could get my jaw up from my toes (yeah, I'm short, but not THAT short it doesn't hurt). It still has me speechless, which I've already been at least five times today just in pol reading.

Steve Soto has a tale for you - a tale of dumb and dumber...or more like crazy and crazier.

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

Wait!

Let me picture this.

George "Nuke 'em first, then we'll see if they're the enemy!" Bush is just TOO willing to let diplomacy take its course. The same man, we're told, who's been upset with Condi Rice because (allegedly) she tells the president he should not have this "give Israel anything it wants, damn the criticism" because it's messy up the entire Middle East and hurting the U.S. [And if true, the only true "reason" we have ever heard from this Secretary of State.]

Red Cross: Israel Violates Humanitarian Rights

Sadly, this latest report - the conclusions of which have been echoed elsewhere for years, such as with Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others - is no surprise. And, as long as Israel continues its inhumane treatment of Palestinians (and the U.S. keeps making certain Israel has the money and military might to do that), there will be no peace in the Middle East.

Bolton, Bush, And The Middle East Meltdown

Worthy of note from Buck at Pensito Review:

Lest we forget: The Bush administration’s hard-on for Israel has a name: John Bolton. The former U.S. envoy to the United Nations has spilled the beans to the BBC in an interview where he pretty much says that U.S. interests were best served by Israel dropping shitloads of cluster bombs on Lebanon during last summer’s dust-up.

Please either read the whole thing or at least drop down to the end where it gets into the disparate casualties on the Lebanese side versus the Israeli side, keeping in mind that whole thing was supposedly over a couple of Israeli soldiers who were kidnapped.

Mr. Bolton, a controversial and blunt-speaking figure, said he was ‘damned proud of what we did’ to prevent an early ceasefire.(Emphasis added)

Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the BBC that before any ceasefire Washington wanted Israel to eliminate Hezbollah’s military capability.

Mr Bolton said an early ceasefire would have been “dangerous and misguided”.
He said the US decided to join efforts to end the conflict only when it was clear Israel’s campaign wasn’t working.

Israel was reacting in its own self-defence and if that meant the defeat of the enemy, that was perfectly legitimate under international law. The former envoy, who stepped down in December 2006, was interviewed for a BBC radio documentary, The Summer War in Lebanon, to be broadcast in April.

Mr Bolton said the US was deeply disappointed at Israel’s failure to remove the threat from Hezbollah and the subsequent lack of any attempt to disarm its forces.

Britain joined the US in refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire.The war began when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, but it quickly escalated into a full-scale conflict.
BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall says the US-UK refusal to join calls for a ceasefire was one of the most controversial aspects of the diplomacy.

British, US and Israeli ambassadors at the UN, August 2006
The UK, US and Israeli were alone in resisting an early ceasefireAt the time US officials argued a ceasefire was insufficient and agreement was needed to address the underlying tensions and balance of power in the region.

Mr Bolton now describes it as “perfectly legitimate… and good politics” for the Israelis to seek to defeat their enemy militarily, especially as Hezbollah had attacked Israel first and it was acting “in its own self-defence”.

Keep reading here.

"What 'Israel's Right To Exist' Means to Palestinians

Although I read the Christian Science Monitor online several times a week, thebhc, posting here in comments, points out an excellent summary of what we "miss" in the way Palestinians and their Arab/Muslim sympathizers interpret "Israel's Right to Exist" vs. "Recognizing Israel's Existence."

It's quite smart analysis; I highly recommend it.

We really must look behind the rhetoric used by lawmakers and others regarding the Middle East problem, where Israel is always the good guy and anyone we looks like a Muslim the bad guy. In truth, both Jews and Muslims in the Middle East have the right to exist and the U.S. and Great Britain, among others, have made the situation since we established (carved out) the state of Israel much worse, almost guaranteeing the hatred and bloodshed we've seen for years.

Until America can stop taking sides, we help guarantee there will be no Middle East peace.

Israel Refuses To Work With Palestinian Coalition

I hear what Israel says about the Palestinian groups not fully recognizing the Jewish state, but at the same time, Israel does not recognize them so we'll continue to see the same cycle of violence. From AP:

The Islamic militant Hamas and its Fatah rivals forged a unity government Thursday to end a year of political wrangling, isolation and bloodshed. Israel quickly rejected it, saying it failed to recognize the Jewish state.

Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said he hoped the new government would "launch a new era" for the Palestinians, putting an end to bloody infighting while satisfying international demands ahead of a crucial Arab summit in Saudi Arabia at the end of the month and a visit to the region this weekend by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Israel urged its Western allies to maintain an aid embargo imposed after Hamas won election in January 2006 and set up a government by itself.

Initial U.S. and European reaction to the new Palestinian team was cool, while Russia was relatively upbeat.

The West cut off aid to the Palestinians a year ago, labeling Hamas a terror group and forcing it to agree to bring Fatah, the movement of moderate President Mahmoud Abbas, back as a junior partner. Both sides said the main goal was to stop clashes that have taken more than 140 lives in recent months, but restoration of aid and resumption of the peace dialogue with Israel remained high priorities.

A dormant Saudi peace plan from 2002 is expected to resurface at the March 28-29 Riyadh summit, putting pressure on Israel to respond. The plan offers Israel recognition if it withdraws from the West Bank and east Jerusalem and refers to the right of Palestinian refugees from the 1948-49 Mideast war and their descendants to return to their homes.

We've heard rumblings that Condi Rice is having her first real fight with George Bush because she supposedly feels that Israel is deliberately blocking peace efforts while Bush just says, "Anything Israel does is great with me, no matter how extreme!"

With Friends Like "Friends of Israel", Does Israel Need Any More Enemies?

The previous post re: Israel and civil rights reminds me of this scary story in Talk2Action, one of those evangelical fanatical rightwing groups "dedicated" to the Israeli state in a way that only sees Israel as a necessary component in their rush to "End Times/Rapture":

"Christians United For Israel" founder John Hagee blames Jews for the Holocaust, says the Nazis worked for God, and warns of an "Illuminati", international banker "One World Order" conspiracy. "Friend of Israel" Hagee got a standing ovation from Senators and Congress members at AIPAC last Sunday. Here's what some of his allies envision for Jews.

So senators and congressmen just love this "final holocaust" scenario as they brown nose for votes and donations? Doesn't matter that in the "Friends of Israel" scenario, they don't want any Jew left standing; all must convert to Christianity or perish forever.

Sickening. Beyond sickening.

"Civil Rights Under Siege In Israel"

This letter from Mark Hage of Montpelier in the Time Argus, I believe, states some excellent points:

Thank you for your editorial ("Israel's Dilemma," Feb. 23) on the controversy in Israel over a manifesto that calls for the country, officially a "Jewish state," to become a bi-national state with full equality for all citizens.

Since the mid-90s, Palestinian citizens have intensified their political and legal efforts to achieve the same rights as Jews. There are more than one million Palestinian citizens in Israel, and they live under apartheid-like conditions. Hundreds of rural communities have been established since Israel was created in 1948, but are closed to Arab citizens. For 60 years, vast tracts of private Arab landholdings have been confiscated by government authorities to benefit Jews exclusively.

Most Palestinian children, prior to the university level, attend segregated, inferior and under-funded schools. Arab towns, the poorest in the country, are short-changed annually when it comes to municipal budgets and funding infrastructure projects.

Palestinians are no strangers to police brutality, and Israeli cops, like Jewish soldiers, are prone to being trigger-happy when their weapons are aimed at Arabs. In October, 2000, police shot dead 12 unarmed Palestinians and a man from Gaza during protests against Israel's repressive measures in the occupied territories. No Jewish officers were indicted for this atrocity.

Job discrimination against Palestinian workers is widespread, and substantial sectors of the Israeli economy are off-limits to them. The civil service is the country' largest employer, but in 2004, just 5 percent of its 55,000 workers were Palestinian. Islamic and Christian holy sites get a pittance of their funding from public coffers, and according to English journalist Jonathan Cook, "almost all of the Muslim and Christian holy places that existed in Israel before 1948 have been destroyed, fenced off, locked up or converted for the use of Jewish communities."

Israel is confronting a civil rights movement within its 1967 borders, and a national liberation struggle in the West Bank and Gaza. Both challenge the fundamental tenets and structures of Zionism, which elevate Jewish blood, privilege and religion over democracy, equality and the rule of law.

Mark Hage

Montpelier

It's Official: Israel All But Demands U.S. Pay For Its War on Lebanon

[Ed. update: Senators just went to Israel in an effort pushed by the Bushies, with the express purpose - stated by Jon Kyl for the Bushies - of indoctrinating them into feeling "an obligation" to Israel. I'm for helping... but obligation considering what we already fund? And I almost guarantee you the subject of Iran came up.]

Although I predicted this would happen, it took until this week for Israel to expressly demand that American taxpayers reimburse them in large part for the war they waged in Lebanon last summer. Before I tell you why this is outrageous - and I don't blame Israel entirely for this outrage; the Bushies' filthy fingerprints are all over Lebanon - let's get a little perspective on how generously we already fund one of the world's smallest nations.

You may not realize this, but we give more financial aid to Israel every year (starting at around $4-6 Billion - yes, that's with a B, folks) than we do most other countries put together. A minimum of $2.5 Billion of this directly funds Israel's military, one of the largest and most sophisticated in the world for a nation that is one of the smallest. Some analysts say the amount that goes to fund Israel from the U.S. actually probably is closer to $10-15 billion per year because we do a lot of "under the table" stuff for them. And this is separate from private funding that goes on not just from Jewish communities in America, but from defense contractors and a host of others.

As I've stated a multitude of times, I do believe it is very appropriate for us to help Israel. First, we allowed the Nazi atrocities to go on for years before we acknowledged any of what was going on. Second, the U.S. helped carve what is today Israel from what was, to both Jews and Westerners, a very inhospital region (I'm still not sure we did the right thing there, in terms of location, but.. what's done is done). Third, obviously, Israel is a strategic partner for the U.S. in the Middle East; granted, however, it's an oft-times unholy alliance but that is also a long story. But fourth, and in my thinking, most important: everyone should have a place to call home. Four million Jews are in Israel and we should help them survive there. [The far-right Christians would tender a fifth reason they consider almighty: that the Bible tells them that Israel has to be in place in its current configuration for the "end of times" to happen the way they want. This, to me, is both madness and something far worse than crazy. But that's also a battle for another day.]

Here's where I - and many others - have problems with the level of funding and "strategic partnership" that flows from our country to Israel. At the most basic level, it's way out of proportion to Israel's size. Divide 4-15 Billion dollars into 4 Million people and... let's just say that Americans don't get that much from their own government for their health and welfare.

Well beyond that, the degree of assistance causes us untold "blowback" - to use Chalmers Johnson's apt phrase. Because Israel has a rabid appetite for military stuff, everytime Israel launches an attack on a Palestinian refugee camp, on its neighbors, et al, those being attacked can see the U.S. logo on the big guns like the helicopter gunships swooping in. We give far less in aid to much larger Muslim-majority nations with a much, much, much lower quality of life circumstance.

But let's get to the Lebanon issue. I join a great many Israelis in believing that the war Israel waged on Lebanon last year was WRONG in every way, shape, and form. Many of those who originally supported the war and "bought" the propaganda that it was waged to weaken Hezbollah (Hizbollah with some spellings) have long since turned because they saw - much as we see with the ever-strengthening al Qaeda and Taliban after all the U.S. action - that what was done only empowered Hezbollah and made people who did not see Israel as their enemy into Hezbollah supporters. Why? Because Hezbollah was the closest thing to an army/aid organization the Lebanese saw.

Israeli sources last year were telling us that they were waging a war "in proxy" FOR the United States, attacking Lebanon to send a powerful message to Syria and Iran that Israel AND the U.S. would come after them next. While the Bushies smirked and insisted that wasn't true, the very fact that Bush WANTS to write a check to pay the Israeli government FOR the Lebanon war is just one more piece in an already sizeable pile of evidence that the war by proxy story is 99.9% accurate.

I encourage you to run, not walk, to your phone, call your elected reps, and tell them NO, you do NOT support paying Israel for the destruction of Lebanon (which, contrary to the pablum espoused by the far right, is a generally peaceful land that is far more Christian than Muslim). I also encourage you to do your own research and, if you agree that FAR too much money is flowing into Israel for its militaristic endeavors, to demand your legislators take a long and hard look at cutting the funding to Israel. I'm not saying cut it all because I don't think that would be right. But I don't want to fund the Israeli war machine anymore than I want to fund outs.

Think about it: between $4-15 billion for 4 million people, each and every year. Something is dangerously out of whack here.

Uh Oh: Israel Wants to Fly Over Iraq to Attack Iran

I, myself, would file this in the "oh, fuck!" department because whether Israel decides to attack Iran all alone means the U.S. will go to war with Iran in the next blink. Israel could devastate Lebanon in a "war by proxy" for America against Iran and Syria, but going after Iran means we'll be dragged along even if we didn't have the Bush-Sees-Nukes-As-Diplomacy Regime. Remember, too, that VP Dick Cheney has spent ALL week spewing increasingly heated rhetoric at Iran.

From the UK Daily Telegraph:

Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.

A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons.

Let me add that the Bushies keep calling Iraq its own country. I don't believe Iraq would like to be a "tool" for Israel's aggression against Iran which amounts to Israel (who isn't supposed to have the bomb but does) can attack Iran (because it doesn't have the bomb but someday could). So the Iraqis should be able to VOTE on whether to allow this shit. No?

If you think you have a headache now, well... just wait.

Of Israel and Iran - And U.S. "Cooking" Iran Intelligence (Again)

[Important note: Cernig's Newshog also reports that the IAEA has just announced that they have concluded the U.S. "evidence" against Iran is patently wrong.]

And no, it's not just because Israel is making noises about attacking Iran on its own (their argument: Iran's nuclear capability is a threat to them which ignores the fact that Israel is NOT supposed to have the bomb and has been fully a nuclear threat since at least the 1970s).

No, both these questions are posted by Cernig of Cernig's Newshog and they're excellent ones that I've wondered myself and don't much see the traditional press asking.

First, why are we told constantly that Europe is a hotbed of anti-semitic hatred when the vast majority of Israeli citizens (4 out of 5) are clamoring for EU status? Why would they want entry into the European Union if they felt so badly treated? Is this just Bush-U.S. spin?

Second, would the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, who said he doesn't buy all these bellicose rhetoric about "evidence" of Iranian complicity in the horrors of Iraq, be willing to attack Iran if Bush ordered it?

I was just debating this issue with someone last night; my question however was whether any military people here would ever take the extreme measure of open defiance of blatantly heinous and WRONG orders. I doubt America would easily recover from a military coup.

From Cernig's Newshog:

Gwynne Dyer, writing in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, poses an interesting question.

So would Pace attack Iran if Bush ordered him to? His only alternative would be to resign, but he does have that option. Senior officers like Pace, while still bound by the code of military discipline, acquire a political responsibility as well. Like Cabinet ministers, they cannot oppose a government decision while in office, but they have the right and even the duty to resign rather than carry out a decision that they believe to be disastrous.

...The resignation of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- and possibly several of the other chiefs as well -- would be an immensely powerful gesture. It could stop an attack on Iran dead in its tracks, for the White House would have to find other officers who would carry out its orders. It would doubtless find them, but such a shocking event might finally enable Congress to find its backbone and refuse support for another illegal and foredoomed war.

This is not a hypothetical discussion: My guess is that both the Joint Chiefs and the White House understand that the option of resignation is on the table. Consider the dance that was done around the question of Iran and "Explosively Formed Penetrators" in the past couple of weeks.