The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Al Jazeera"
 All Comments / On "Al Jazeera"
    One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle...
  • @Incitatus

    “…how do you reconcile the $3.5M figure for pro-Israel funding and the $77.9M Sheldon Adelson has contributed?”
     
    Far be it from me to reconcile anything without an OpenSecrets paycheck.

    The original comparison was lobbying leverage over sector spending. $414 million lobbying yields $3.2 trillion Health spending. Without mega donor contributions. $3.5 million lobbying yields $3.8 billion aid to Israel. Without mega donor contributions. The point, if you recall, was to illustrate special interest distortion larger than just ‘the Lobby’. Distortion that inflates drug prices 300% for Americans (up 8.5% in 2015 to $310 billion).

    “Why isn’t Adelson’s contribution included as part of the pro-Israel funding?”
     
    Good question – why not ask them? Another is how OS defines ‘Pro-Israel’ when listing organizations with diametrically opposed agendas. Would J Street or AIPAC regard each-other as ‘pro-Israel’? Who’s view of Israel?

    Adelson’s contribution is ‘pro-Israel’, but who’s view of Israel? His own? Isn’t his donation more ‘pro-Adelson’? To enhance his ego, his stature as kingmaker?

    Good question – why not ask them?

    Cuz I got a feeling someone might be cooking the books… and you probably know who I suspect is doing the cooking. That’s why I prefer the top down numbers of 50% and 25% for Jewish donations. My sense is these numbers might more accurately reflect tye actual dollar amounts of pro-Israel funding.

    Adelson’s contribution is ‘pro-Israel’, but who’s view of Israel? His own? Isn’t his donation more ‘pro-Adelson’? To enhance his ego, his stature as kingmaker?

    No need to distinguish. Same argument can be made for mega-donors of other lobbies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    The $3.8 billion is US annual aid to Israel, required to be spent on US weapons.
     
    I thought so. So, now that this has finally been clarified, how do you reconcile the $3.5M figure for pro-Israel funding and the $77.9M Sheldon Adelson has contributed? Why isn’t Adelson’s contribution included as part of the pro-Israel funding?

    “…how do you reconcile the $3.5M figure for pro-Israel funding and the $77.9M Sheldon Adelson has contributed?”

    Far be it from me to reconcile anything without an OpenSecrets paycheck.

    The original comparison was lobbying leverage over sector spending. $414 million lobbying yields $3.2 trillion Health spending. Without mega donor contributions. $3.5 million lobbying yields $3.8 billion aid to Israel. Without mega donor contributions. The point, if you recall, was to illustrate special interest distortion larger than just ‘the Lobby’. Distortion that inflates drug prices 300% for Americans (up 8.5% in 2015 to $310 billion).

    “Why isn’t Adelson’s contribution included as part of the pro-Israel funding?”

    Good question – why not ask them? Another is how OS defines ‘Pro-Israel’ when listing organizations with diametrically opposed agendas. Would J Street or AIPAC regard each-other as ‘pro-Israel’? Who’s view of Israel?

    Adelson’s contribution is ‘pro-Israel’, but who’s view of Israel? His own? Isn’t his donation more ‘pro-Adelson’? To enhance his ego, his stature as kingmaker?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Good question – why not ask them?
     
    Cuz I got a feeling someone might be cooking the books... and you probably know who I suspect is doing the cooking. That's why I prefer the top down numbers of 50% and 25% for Jewish donations. My sense is these numbers might more accurately reflect tye actual dollar amounts of pro-Israel funding.

    Adelson’s contribution is ‘pro-Israel’, but who’s view of Israel? His own? Isn’t his donation more ‘pro-Adelson’? To enhance his ego, his stature as kingmaker?
     
    No need to distinguish. Same argument can be made for mega-donors of other lobbies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    The $3.8 billion is US annual aid to Israel, required to be spent on US weapons.
     
    I thought so. So, now that this has finally been clarified, how do you reconcile the $3.5M figure for pro-Israel funding and the $77.9M Sheldon Adelson has contributed? Why isn’t Adelson’s contribution included as part of the pro-Israel funding?

    Only part of the $3.8 billion must be spent on US weapons and the Israelis have set up subsidiaries based in the US which permit them to function as US companies and, in effect, sell to themselves using the military assistance money.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The $3.8 billion is US annual aid to Israel, required to be spent on US weapons.

    I thought so. So, now that this has finally been clarified, how do you reconcile the $3.5M figure for pro-Israel funding and the $77.9M Sheldon Adelson has contributed? Why isn’t Adelson’s contribution included as part of the pro-Israel funding?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    Only part of the $3.8 billion must be spent on US weapons and the Israelis have set up subsidiaries based in the US which permit them to function as US companies and, in effect, sell to themselves using the military assistance money.
    , @Incitatus

    “…how do you reconcile the $3.5M figure for pro-Israel funding and the $77.9M Sheldon Adelson has contributed?”
     
    Far be it from me to reconcile anything without an OpenSecrets paycheck.

    The original comparison was lobbying leverage over sector spending. $414 million lobbying yields $3.2 trillion Health spending. Without mega donor contributions. $3.5 million lobbying yields $3.8 billion aid to Israel. Without mega donor contributions. The point, if you recall, was to illustrate special interest distortion larger than just ‘the Lobby’. Distortion that inflates drug prices 300% for Americans (up 8.5% in 2015 to $310 billion).

    “Why isn’t Adelson’s contribution included as part of the pro-Israel funding?”
     
    Good question – why not ask them? Another is how OS defines ‘Pro-Israel’ when listing organizations with diametrically opposed agendas. Would J Street or AIPAC regard each-other as ‘pro-Israel’? Who’s view of Israel?

    Adelson’s contribution is ‘pro-Israel’, but who’s view of Israel? His own? Isn’t his donation more ‘pro-Adelson’? To enhance his ego, his stature as kingmaker?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62
    Hey, Incy. I followed all of your links but I still could not find anything remotely close to $3.8B you quoted for Pro-Israel Outside Spending.

    Are you sure this number is legit?

    Geo,

    The $3.8 billion is US annual aid to Israel, required to be spent on US weapons.

    You might be interested in Ha’aretz’s 7 Nov take on Adelson’s IAC, which he hopes will supplant AIPAC: ‘Adelson Has Hijacked the Israeli-American Community for His Hard-right Agenda’

    https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.821317

    Listened to C-Span hearings this am on moving the US embassy to Jerusalem – John Bolten is all for it!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    “…a direct link that shows the Pro-Israel Outside Spending of $3,800,000,000…”
     
    Lobbying-Ranked Sectors [2017] is:
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2017&indexType=c

    Pro-Israel is listed under Ideology/Single-Issue [double-click]:
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=Q&year=2017

    Double-click Pro-Israel and you get totals for lobbying organizations [2017]: AIPAC $2.56 million, IAC $390k, J Street $200k etc. You can search totals for any years.
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=Q05&year=2017

    “…Adelson pulled a Koch Bros move and reduced his contribution to Trump…”
     
    Mega donors seem prone to ‘exaggeration’. There’s probably an appropriate medical term for acutely inflated self-importance.

    “…it comes down to ranking.”
     
    The moneyed system allows special interests (including Pro-Israel) disproportional influence. Sclerosis preventing rational discourse. Shut it down and we might have a chance of recovery. From ‘the Lobby’ and every other shill.

    According to Steven Brill, the US spent $280 billion for drugs in 2012. If we paid what Big Pharma charges other nations, it’d total $94 billion. One third! Why the ridiculously inflated bill? Congress. The moneyed system.

    Want to see sausage made? C-Span’s broadcasting the Ways and Means Tax Reform Bill Markup. Special interests at work. The more complexity, the more corruption. An infinite variety of ways to buy influence and evade comprehensive reporting requirements.

    A favorite is the Leadership PAC. Slush funds for politicians. Donors contribute money to an elected official’s PAC, he/she buys peer votes on specific legislation donors favor. Once a novelty, now most senators and representatives have them. Some have several. OpenSecrets lists them, with donors and recipients. Blatant corruption.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=Q03&cycle=2018

    “The only way one cannot have a dog in this fight is if they are neither Jew nor Goy… another example of the tailless dog, I guess?”
     
    What can I say? Equines eschew categories.

    Hey, Incy. I followed all of your links but I still could not find anything remotely close to $3.8B you quoted for Pro-Israel Outside Spending.

    Are you sure this number is legit?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Geo,

    The $3.8 billion is US annual aid to Israel, required to be spent on US weapons.

    You might be interested in Ha'aretz's 7 Nov take on Adelson's IAC, which he hopes will supplant AIPAC: 'Adelson Has Hijacked the Israeli-American Community for His Hard-right Agenda'

    https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.821317

    Listened to C-Span hearings this am on moving the US embassy to Jerusalem - John Bolten is all for it!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    One figure is for Lobbying, the other for Outside Spending.
     
    Thanks for the distinction. I wasn't aware of it. btw, do you have a direct link that shows the Pro-Israel Outside Spending of $3,800,000,000, as I couldn't find it?

    Source please. WP says $52.7 million; OS $77.9 million to (all) conservatives.
     
    It was published in the Times of Israel:

    American Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson is reportedly set to give presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump a campaign donation that could exceed $100 million, making it the largest contribution the casino magnate would have given to a GOP candidate.

    According to two Republicans with direct knowledge of the commitment to Trump who spoke to the New York Times, Adelson has told Trump “that he was willing to contribute more to help elect him than he has to any previous campaign, a sum that could exceed $100 million.”

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/adelson-set-to-give-over-100-million-to-israel-supporting-trump/
     
    That said, after digging into this a little more, it appears Adelson pulled a Koch Bros move and reduced his contribution to Trump.

    Geo, I agree ‘the Lobby’ is a problem.
     
    So, I guess it comes down to ranking. You put it near the bottom of your list and I put it on the very top of mine. I think this must reflect how differently we prioritize things (for another comment)?

    I don’t have a dog in the Jew-Goy fight. Whad’ya want me to say?
     
    That's what confuses me, Incy. The only way one cannot have a dog in this fight is if they are neither Jew nor Goy... another example of the tailless dog, I guess?

    “…a direct link that shows the Pro-Israel Outside Spending of $3,800,000,000…”

    Lobbying-Ranked Sectors [2017] is:

    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2017&indexType=c

    Pro-Israel is listed under Ideology/Single-Issue [double-click]:

    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=Q&year=2017

    Double-click Pro-Israel and you get totals for lobbying organizations [2017]: AIPAC $2.56 million, IAC $390k, J Street $200k etc. You can search totals for any years.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=Q05&year=2017

    “…Adelson pulled a Koch Bros move and reduced his contribution to Trump…”

    Mega donors seem prone to ‘exaggeration’. There’s probably an appropriate medical term for acutely inflated self-importance.

    “…it comes down to ranking.”

    The moneyed system allows special interests (including Pro-Israel) disproportional influence. Sclerosis preventing rational discourse. Shut it down and we might have a chance of recovery. From ‘the Lobby’ and every other shill.

    According to Steven Brill, the US spent $280 billion for drugs in 2012. If we paid what Big Pharma charges other nations, it’d total $94 billion. One third! Why the ridiculously inflated bill? Congress. The moneyed system.

    Want to see sausage made? C-Span’s broadcasting the Ways and Means Tax Reform Bill Markup. Special interests at work. The more complexity, the more corruption. An infinite variety of ways to buy influence and evade comprehensive reporting requirements.

    A favorite is the Leadership PAC. Slush funds for politicians. Donors contribute money to an elected official’s PAC, he/she buys peer votes on specific legislation donors favor. Once a novelty, now most senators and representatives have them. Some have several. OpenSecrets lists them, with donors and recipients. Blatant corruption.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=Q03&cycle=2018

    “The only way one cannot have a dog in this fight is if they are neither Jew nor Goy… another example of the tailless dog, I guess?”

    What can I say? Equines eschew categories.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Hey, Incy. I followed all of your links but I still could not find anything remotely close to $3.8B you quoted for Pro-Israel Outside Spending.

    Are you sure this number is legit?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    “…explain how OpenSecrets arrives at a figure of $3.5 M (or $4.5M for 2016) for pro-Israel funding when Sheldon Adelson (a one issue guy whose issue is Israel) alone donated $100M to the Donald Trump campaign..."
     
    One figure is for Lobbying, the other for Outside Spending. The former attracts targeted issue spending by industries and special interests year round. The latter is oligarchs’ deafening ‘free speech’ in major election years.

    Both are problematic, as are other vehicles (some opaque) of buying influence. Complexity and unrestrained ‘uncoordinated’ spending (thanks SCOTUS) produce a system more like an auction. Quicksand for genuine representative politics.

    From your WP link:

    “Wealthy donors are giving record sums this cycle to super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations…”
    1. Steyer: $66.3 million
    2. Adelson: $52.7 million”
     
    The WP article was published 2 Nov 2016 – prior to final quarter reports. OS lists 2016 final numbers [Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups]. Steyer $89.7 million, Adelson $77.9 million. WP’s source: Federal Election Commission. OS is more comprehensive:
    “Campaign finance data comes from the Federal Election Commission. Information on 527 committees comes from the Internal Revenue Service. Lobbying data comes from the Senate Office of Public Records. Travel and personal financial disclosures come from various information-collectors in Congress. The Revolving Door database is, at this point, largely updated using press reports and official announcements about individuals' movements in and out of the public and private sectors.”

    “…Adelson…alone donated $100M to the Donald Trump…”
     
    Source please. WP says $52.7 million; OS $77.9 million to (all) conservatives.

    “…your source “OpenSecrets” has a bit of an issue with compiling accurate data regarding this information – i.e., you need to find a more reliable source, as OpenSecrets is more like OpenGarbage…”
     
    Data doesn’t fully support your faith? Feel free to name a better source.

    “Since you struggle to see 800 lb gorillas…”
     
    Geo, I agree ‘the Lobby’ is a problem. One of many, all dwarfed by a corrupt system. That’s the elephant, gorilla, or whatever. Numbers prove it. Time for a vision check?

    Menendez is part of the disease. $8.9 million from Medicare in exchange for free private jet flights and gifts? No surprise Adelson sees him as an easy mark, someone whose vote might be available. Unlike more sophisticated donors, Shelly openly buys influence. He cares more about being a kingmaker than his ‘causes’.

    I’m for taking all the money out of the system. Shelly, Tom, and other oligarchs. Conservatives, liberals. Banks, insurance, RE, etc.

    “…I already admitted I’m just a dumb goy… just a dumb goy’s two cents…”
     
    I don’t have a dog in the Jew-Goy fight. Whad’ya want me to say?

    One figure is for Lobbying, the other for Outside Spending.

    Thanks for the distinction. I wasn’t aware of it. btw, do you have a direct link that shows the Pro-Israel Outside Spending of $3,800,000,000, as I couldn’t find it?

    Source please. WP says $52.7 million; OS $77.9 million to (all) conservatives.

    It was published in the Times of Israel:

    American Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson is reportedly set to give presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump a campaign donation that could exceed $100 million, making it the largest contribution the casino magnate would have given to a GOP candidate.

    According to two Republicans with direct knowledge of the commitment to Trump who spoke to the New York Times, Adelson has told Trump “that he was willing to contribute more to help elect him than he has to any previous campaign, a sum that could exceed $100 million.”

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/adelson-set-to-give-over-100-million-to-israel-supporting-trump/

    That said, after digging into this a little more, it appears Adelson pulled a Koch Bros move and reduced his contribution to Trump.

    Geo, I agree ‘the Lobby’ is a problem.

    So, I guess it comes down to ranking. You put it near the bottom of your list and I put it on the very top of mine. I think this must reflect how differently we prioritize things (for another comment)?

    I don’t have a dog in the Jew-Goy fight. Whad’ya want me to say?

    That’s what confuses me, Incy. The only way one cannot have a dog in this fight is if they are neither Jew nor Goy… another example of the tailless dog, I guess?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “…a direct link that shows the Pro-Israel Outside Spending of $3,800,000,000…”
     
    Lobbying-Ranked Sectors [2017] is:
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2017&indexType=c

    Pro-Israel is listed under Ideology/Single-Issue [double-click]:
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=Q&year=2017

    Double-click Pro-Israel and you get totals for lobbying organizations [2017]: AIPAC $2.56 million, IAC $390k, J Street $200k etc. You can search totals for any years.
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=Q05&year=2017

    “…Adelson pulled a Koch Bros move and reduced his contribution to Trump…”
     
    Mega donors seem prone to ‘exaggeration’. There’s probably an appropriate medical term for acutely inflated self-importance.

    “…it comes down to ranking.”
     
    The moneyed system allows special interests (including Pro-Israel) disproportional influence. Sclerosis preventing rational discourse. Shut it down and we might have a chance of recovery. From ‘the Lobby’ and every other shill.

    According to Steven Brill, the US spent $280 billion for drugs in 2012. If we paid what Big Pharma charges other nations, it’d total $94 billion. One third! Why the ridiculously inflated bill? Congress. The moneyed system.

    Want to see sausage made? C-Span’s broadcasting the Ways and Means Tax Reform Bill Markup. Special interests at work. The more complexity, the more corruption. An infinite variety of ways to buy influence and evade comprehensive reporting requirements.

    A favorite is the Leadership PAC. Slush funds for politicians. Donors contribute money to an elected official’s PAC, he/she buys peer votes on specific legislation donors favor. Once a novelty, now most senators and representatives have them. Some have several. OpenSecrets lists them, with donors and recipients. Blatant corruption.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=Q03&cycle=2018

    “The only way one cannot have a dog in this fight is if they are neither Jew nor Goy… another example of the tailless dog, I guess?”
     
    What can I say? Equines eschew categories.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    Again, reading comprehension not your strong point? Suffer from ostrich buried-head disorder, otherwise known as ignore-disagreeable-fact syndrome?
     
    I thought I already admitted I'm just a dumb goy. Perhaps you could help a dumb goy out and explain how OpenSecrets arrives at a figure of $3.5 M(or $4.5M for 2016) for pro-Israel funding when Sheldon Adelson (a one issue guy whose issue is Israel) alone donated $100M to the Donald Trump campaign, not to mention the other one issue people on this top 10 list of wealthy donors?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/superpac-donors-2016/

    My sense is your source "OpenSecrets" has a bit of an issue with compiling accurate data regarding this information - i.e., you need to find a more reliable source, as OpenSecrets is more like OpenGarbage.

    Again, just a dumb goy's two cents.

    P.S. Since you struggle to see 800 lb gorillas, perhaps you'll have more luck spotting pink elephants in the room?

    Excerpt from 'NYT’ discovers elephant in living room: ‘Pro-Israel billionaires’

    The piece by Alexander Burns says that embattled NJ Senator Robert Menendez is getting support from Republican Sheldon Adelson, who wants to nuke Iran, and Democrat Haim Saban, who wants to bomb the living daylights out of Iran, along with assorted other billionaires. (What do you think Menendez’s position is on Iran?).

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/discovers-elephant-billionaires/
     

    “…explain how OpenSecrets arrives at a figure of $3.5 M (or $4.5M for 2016) for pro-Israel funding when Sheldon Adelson (a one issue guy whose issue is Israel) alone donated $100M to the Donald Trump campaign…”

    One figure is for Lobbying, the other for Outside Spending. The former attracts targeted issue spending by industries and special interests year round. The latter is oligarchs’ deafening ‘free speech’ in major election years.

    Both are problematic, as are other vehicles (some opaque) of buying influence. Complexity and unrestrained ‘uncoordinated’ spending (thanks SCOTUS) produce a system more like an auction. Quicksand for genuine representative politics.

    From your WP link:

    “Wealthy donors are giving record sums this cycle to super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations…”
    1. Steyer: $66.3 million
    2. Adelson: $52.7 million”

    The WP article was published 2 Nov 2016 – prior to final quarter reports. OS lists 2016 final numbers [Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups]. Steyer $89.7 million, Adelson $77.9 million. WP’s source: Federal Election Commission. OS is more comprehensive:
    “Campaign finance data comes from the Federal Election Commission. Information on 527 committees comes from the Internal Revenue Service. Lobbying data comes from the Senate Office of Public Records. Travel and personal financial disclosures come from various information-collectors in Congress. The Revolving Door database is, at this point, largely updated using press reports and official announcements about individuals’ movements in and out of the public and private sectors.”

    “…Adelson…alone donated $100M to the Donald Trump…”

    Source please. WP says $52.7 million; OS $77.9 million to (all) conservatives.

    “…your source “OpenSecrets” has a bit of an issue with compiling accurate data regarding this information – i.e., you need to find a more reliable source, as OpenSecrets is more like OpenGarbage…”

    Data doesn’t fully support your faith? Feel free to name a better source.

    “Since you struggle to see 800 lb gorillas…”

    Geo, I agree ‘the Lobby’ is a problem. One of many, all dwarfed by a corrupt system. That’s the elephant, gorilla, or whatever. Numbers prove it. Time for a vision check?

    Menendez is part of the disease. $8.9 million from Medicare in exchange for free private jet flights and gifts? No surprise Adelson sees him as an easy mark, someone whose vote might be available. Unlike more sophisticated donors, Shelly openly buys influence. He cares more about being a kingmaker than his ‘causes’.

    I’m for taking all the money out of the system. Shelly, Tom, and other oligarchs. Conservatives, liberals. Banks, insurance, RE, etc.

    “…I already admitted I’m just a dumb goy… just a dumb goy’s two cents…”

    I don’t have a dog in the Jew-Goy fight. Whad’ya want me to say?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    One figure is for Lobbying, the other for Outside Spending.
     
    Thanks for the distinction. I wasn't aware of it. btw, do you have a direct link that shows the Pro-Israel Outside Spending of $3,800,000,000, as I couldn't find it?

    Source please. WP says $52.7 million; OS $77.9 million to (all) conservatives.
     
    It was published in the Times of Israel:

    American Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson is reportedly set to give presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump a campaign donation that could exceed $100 million, making it the largest contribution the casino magnate would have given to a GOP candidate.

    According to two Republicans with direct knowledge of the commitment to Trump who spoke to the New York Times, Adelson has told Trump “that he was willing to contribute more to help elect him than he has to any previous campaign, a sum that could exceed $100 million.”

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/adelson-set-to-give-over-100-million-to-israel-supporting-trump/
     
    That said, after digging into this a little more, it appears Adelson pulled a Koch Bros move and reduced his contribution to Trump.

    Geo, I agree ‘the Lobby’ is a problem.
     
    So, I guess it comes down to ranking. You put it near the bottom of your list and I put it on the very top of mine. I think this must reflect how differently we prioritize things (for another comment)?

    I don’t have a dog in the Jew-Goy fight. Whad’ya want me to say?
     
    That's what confuses me, Incy. The only way one cannot have a dog in this fight is if they are neither Jew nor Goy... another example of the tailless dog, I guess?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    “How can you have a rational argument with someone who claims pro-Israel funding is a whopping $3.5M?”
     
    OpenSecrets links for the figures, and the year significant [2017] were provided in #452 this thread:
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-lobby-british-style/#comment-2059158

    Again, reading comprehension not your strong point? Suffer from ostrich buried-head disorder, otherwise known as ignore-disagreeable-fact syndrome?

    “How can you have a rational argument…”
     
    Indeed. Is lynching ‘rational’?

    Again, reading comprehension not your strong point? Suffer from ostrich buried-head disorder, otherwise known as ignore-disagreeable-fact syndrome?

    I thought I already admitted I’m just a dumb goy. Perhaps you could help a dumb goy out and explain how OpenSecrets arrives at a figure of $3.5 M(or $4.5M for 2016) for pro-Israel funding when Sheldon Adelson (a one issue guy whose issue is Israel) alone donated $100M to the Donald Trump campaign, not to mention the other one issue people on this top 10 list of wealthy donors?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/superpac-donors-2016/

    My sense is your source “OpenSecrets” has a bit of an issue with compiling accurate data regarding this information – i.e., you need to find a more reliable source, as OpenSecrets is more like OpenGarbage.

    Again, just a dumb goy’s two cents.

    P.S. Since you struggle to see 800 lb gorillas, perhaps you’ll have more luck spotting pink elephants in the room?

    Excerpt from ‘NYT’ discovers elephant in living room: ‘Pro-Israel billionaires’

    The piece by Alexander Burns says that embattled NJ Senator Robert Menendez is getting support from Republican Sheldon Adelson, who wants to nuke Iran, and Democrat Haim Saban, who wants to bomb the living daylights out of Iran, along with assorted other billionaires. (What do you think Menendez’s position is on Iran?).

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/discovers-elephant-billionaires/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “…explain how OpenSecrets arrives at a figure of $3.5 M (or $4.5M for 2016) for pro-Israel funding when Sheldon Adelson (a one issue guy whose issue is Israel) alone donated $100M to the Donald Trump campaign..."
     
    One figure is for Lobbying, the other for Outside Spending. The former attracts targeted issue spending by industries and special interests year round. The latter is oligarchs’ deafening ‘free speech’ in major election years.

    Both are problematic, as are other vehicles (some opaque) of buying influence. Complexity and unrestrained ‘uncoordinated’ spending (thanks SCOTUS) produce a system more like an auction. Quicksand for genuine representative politics.

    From your WP link:

    “Wealthy donors are giving record sums this cycle to super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations…”
    1. Steyer: $66.3 million
    2. Adelson: $52.7 million”
     
    The WP article was published 2 Nov 2016 – prior to final quarter reports. OS lists 2016 final numbers [Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups]. Steyer $89.7 million, Adelson $77.9 million. WP’s source: Federal Election Commission. OS is more comprehensive:
    “Campaign finance data comes from the Federal Election Commission. Information on 527 committees comes from the Internal Revenue Service. Lobbying data comes from the Senate Office of Public Records. Travel and personal financial disclosures come from various information-collectors in Congress. The Revolving Door database is, at this point, largely updated using press reports and official announcements about individuals' movements in and out of the public and private sectors.”

    “…Adelson…alone donated $100M to the Donald Trump…”
     
    Source please. WP says $52.7 million; OS $77.9 million to (all) conservatives.

    “…your source “OpenSecrets” has a bit of an issue with compiling accurate data regarding this information – i.e., you need to find a more reliable source, as OpenSecrets is more like OpenGarbage…”
     
    Data doesn’t fully support your faith? Feel free to name a better source.

    “Since you struggle to see 800 lb gorillas…”
     
    Geo, I agree ‘the Lobby’ is a problem. One of many, all dwarfed by a corrupt system. That’s the elephant, gorilla, or whatever. Numbers prove it. Time for a vision check?

    Menendez is part of the disease. $8.9 million from Medicare in exchange for free private jet flights and gifts? No surprise Adelson sees him as an easy mark, someone whose vote might be available. Unlike more sophisticated donors, Shelly openly buys influence. He cares more about being a kingmaker than his ‘causes’.

    I’m for taking all the money out of the system. Shelly, Tom, and other oligarchs. Conservatives, liberals. Banks, insurance, RE, etc.

    “…I already admitted I’m just a dumb goy… just a dumb goy’s two cents…”
     
    I don’t have a dog in the Jew-Goy fight. Whad’ya want me to say?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AnOn

    Does ‘the Lobby’ control the Saud family?
     
    2017
    The Saudi-Israeli Alliance
    Posted on August 19, 2017 by Eric Zuesse.
    Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/08/saudi-israeli-alliance.html

    "Two of the U.S. government’s supposed allies are supposedly not allies of each other but enemies of each other, but, away from the glare of the ‘news’media, they actually work together with each other to control, by means of their secret actual alliance with one-another, a substantial, if not the major, part of U.S. foreign policies — especially regarding Iran, Russia, Syria, Israel, Palestinians, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Turkey, but much else besides. These two secret allies of each other, who largely determine U.S. foreign policies, are the Saud family, and the government of Israel."

    2017
    There’s an alliance growing between Saudi Arabia and Israel — and Iran should be worried
    Reuters
    John Irish and Andrea Shalal, Reuters
    Feb. 19, 2017
    http://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-and-israel-anti-iran-alliance-2017-2
    "Saudi Arabia and Israel both called on Sunday for a new push against Iran, signaling a growing alignment in their interests, while U.S. lawmakers promised to seek new sanctions on the Shi'ite Muslim power."


    2016
    Jerusalem Post
    IRAN WAS THE ALLY ISRAEL WANTED. IT GOT SAUDI ARABIA
    BY SETH J. FRANTZMAN JANUARY 24, 2016
    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Iran-was-the-ally-Israel-wanted-It-got-Saudi-Arabia-442626
    "The courting of Israel comes against the backdrop of the rise and fall of IS in the region and the frustration of Sunni regimes with their inability to topple Bashar Assad in Syria."

    2015
    Did Money Seal Israeli-Saudi Alliance?
    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/15/did-money-seal-israeli-saudi-alliance/
    "The odd-couple relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel may have been sealed with more than a mutual desire to kiss-off Iran. According to an intelligence source, there was a dowry involved, too, with the Saudis reportedly giving Israel some $16 billion, "

    2014
    UNDERSTANDING THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN-SAUDI ALLIANCE
    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/COLUMN-ONE-Understanding-the-Israeli-Egyptian-Saudi-alliance-371891
    BY CAROLINE B. GLICK AUGUST 21, 2014
    "The partnership that has emerged . . . between Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a direct consequence of Obama’s abandonment of the US’s traditional allies."

    Does ‘the Lobby’ control the Saud family?

    My guess is Israel thinks it controls KSA, and KSA thinks it’s bought Israel. When two scorpions are left in the bottle we’ll see how friendly they are.

    As to who really manages the love fest, my money’s on USA.

    Yemeni missiles, Saudi purges, and the recent $15 billion THAAD sale to KSA are very worrisome developments. Especially with President Bone-Spur and the generals at the helm.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    Incitatus appears to think s/he has a slam dunk argument based on sums expended by I lobby vs larger sums paid by other lobbies.
     
    Just as slam dunk as George Tenet's argument that Saddam possessed WMD?

    How can you have a rational argument with someone who claims pro-Israel funding is a whopping $3.5M?

    Am I misintinterpreting the data, or do you read it the same way:


    Health Sector Lobbying: $413,776,411 (117 times Pro-Israel).
    Health Sector Spending: $3,200,000,000,000+ (842 times Pro-Israel).

    Pro-Israel Lobbying: $3,536,663;
    Pro-Israel Spending: $3,800,000,000.
     

    “How can you have a rational argument with someone who claims pro-Israel funding is a whopping $3.5M?”

    OpenSecrets links for the figures, and the year significant [2017] were provided in #452 this thread:

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-lobby-british-style/#comment-2059158

    Again, reading comprehension not your strong point? Suffer from ostrich buried-head disorder, otherwise known as ignore-disagreeable-fact syndrome?

    “How can you have a rational argument…”

    Indeed. Is lynching ‘rational’?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Again, reading comprehension not your strong point? Suffer from ostrich buried-head disorder, otherwise known as ignore-disagreeable-fact syndrome?
     
    I thought I already admitted I'm just a dumb goy. Perhaps you could help a dumb goy out and explain how OpenSecrets arrives at a figure of $3.5 M(or $4.5M for 2016) for pro-Israel funding when Sheldon Adelson (a one issue guy whose issue is Israel) alone donated $100M to the Donald Trump campaign, not to mention the other one issue people on this top 10 list of wealthy donors?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/superpac-donors-2016/

    My sense is your source "OpenSecrets" has a bit of an issue with compiling accurate data regarding this information - i.e., you need to find a more reliable source, as OpenSecrets is more like OpenGarbage.

    Again, just a dumb goy's two cents.

    P.S. Since you struggle to see 800 lb gorillas, perhaps you'll have more luck spotting pink elephants in the room?

    Excerpt from 'NYT’ discovers elephant in living room: ‘Pro-Israel billionaires’

    The piece by Alexander Burns says that embattled NJ Senator Robert Menendez is getting support from Republican Sheldon Adelson, who wants to nuke Iran, and Democrat Haim Saban, who wants to bomb the living daylights out of Iran, along with assorted other billionaires. (What do you think Menendez’s position is on Iran?).

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/discovers-elephant-billionaires/
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    I've been eavesdropping just a little on your conversation w/ Incitatus, Geokat62; mind if I jump in?

    Incitatus appears to think s/he has a slam dunk argument based on sums expended by I lobby vs larger sums paid by other lobbies.

    That's an interesting piece of the argument pie, but it lacks a crust:

    How many major US government institutions -- funded by US taxpayers -- are under control of persons loyal to Israeli interests or that are coerced to disseminate Israel-centric or Jewish-centric doctrine?

    A partial list would include:

    Wilson Center
    National Constitution Center
    U S Holocaust Memorial Museum

    US public (and many private) elementary and secondary schools are required to incorporate into their curriculum doctrine developed by Jewish groups that tell an exclusively Jewish-centric version of certain events. Critical analysis of that doctrine is vigorously opposed and suppressed.

    How many hundreds of thousands of people, especially young, impressionable persons -- are influenced -- lobbied -- through those institutions that US taxpayers support, but that are run by and for Jewish interests. That's a far more significant metric than Incitatus's list of $ spent.

    As has been mentioned on UF, Israelis hate to be freiers -- suckers; spending your own money is the equivalent of being a sucker, better to spend Uncle Sam's money, which is US taxpayer money, to get US Congress to do the bidding of Israel firsters.

    S2C!

    “Incitatus appears to think s/he has a slam dunk argument based on sums expended by I lobby vs larger sums paid by other lobbies.”

    Putting words in my mouth? That desperate? Or just bored with the same old echo-chamber regulars?

    “How many major US government institutions — funded by US taxpayers — are under control of persons loyal to Israeli interests or that are coerced to disseminate Israel-centric or Jewish-centric doctrine?”

    Interesting question. Look forward to tangible comparative analysis. USD contributions to the political process, media, etc. Loyalty percentage may be hard to enumerate. Maybe you can come up with a HebrewMeter scoring system in the best tradition of Senator McCarthy, Roy Cohn, and “I have here a [unshown] list…” Art can help with frequency of ‘Jew’ in texts. And why not measure library shelf space while you’re at it? X feet of Shoah divided by Y feet of Italian orphans?

    “How many hundreds of thousands of people, especially young, impressionable persons — are influenced — lobbied — through those institutions that US taxpayers support, but that are run by and for Jewish interests.”

    Indeed. Why not quantify through universal metrics? Don’t be shy. The young bit is easy (hint: age ranges). How about an ‘impresionable’ scale? Comatose-asleep-slumbering-naïve-ambivalent-impressionable-gullible-pushover-parrot? Good start so far? A percent Jewish control metric? This may be more difficult, but you’ll find a way. You could even include Jewish sounding names and hearsay for partial credit.

    Look forward to your results S2C. You’re absolutely right to disbelieve political money significant. Kind of puts you out of business, after all.

    Hate to ask how you’re doing on these long-standing questions:

    • When starting WW1 shouldn’t Austrian and German leaders have planned against blockades and famine?
    • Why, in principle, is the WW1 Allied naval blockade worse than German blockade?
    • Why is the WW1 German loss of 800,000 (1.18%) worse than 800,000 Serbs (17.8%)?
    • Why is Versailles 1919 condemnable, when the harsher Brest-Litovsk 1917 is not?
    • Why is Wise at fault for a Jewish boycott in 1933, when Hitler declared “we must necessarily…be anti-Semites…” in 1920?
    • If Hitler defended Christian Europe against Bolshevism, why did he sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in ’39?
    • Does ’23 Putsch-mate and early Nazi Ludendorff bear any blame for Bolshevism after giving Lenin 40 million gold marks ($100 million) and transporting him to Russia in 1917?
    • Why did Italy and Germany invade Greece in WW2? Why did Italy invade France for sloppy seconds?
    • Why do few (if any) books in US libraries record the fate of Italy’s WW2 victims? Orphans?
    • Why are Mendelsohn’s 1943 unpeopled bomb tests worse than Nazi bombing of peopled Guernica ‘37, Warsaw ‘39, Rotterdam ’40? The German airship bombing campaign 1915-18?
    • If the French owe Nazis for protecting them from WW2 Allied bombing, why aren’t there French monuments saying same?
    • Why did Hitler pass a death sentence on Germany exceeding Morgenthau’s fondest wish in late 1944?
    • Why did Hitler, paragon of honor and bravery, poison his new Frau and blow his brains out in ’45?
    • Three independent, scholarly published sources for torture used at Nüremberg?
    • Hitler believed strength confers legitimacy. By his reasoning, isn’t Nazi Germany’s fate unworthy of sympathy?
    • How does one honor a WW2 Vet father by championing those he fought?
    • How does one worship fascists when they dispossessed his Italian mother?

    You’ve been stricken with acute commentus-interruptus when thus questioned in past. You’re still grinding away on evil Rabbi Wise. Any progress on answers? No? Didn’t think so.

    Inclined to agree with Kilner, since there seem at least three S2C writing styles. Or maybe you’re in agriculture? Cultivating a nut farm with loads of manure?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • AnOn • Disclaimer says:
    @Incitatus

    "What we’re trying to determine here is which of the two countries is dictating policy in that part of the world. In other words is
    1) Israel an asset of the US which is using it to promote US imperialist objectives in the region? DWT; or
    2) The US an asset of The Lobby (which represents Israel) which is using it to promote Israel’s objectives in the region? TWD"
     
    Or:
    3. US considers securing regional energy sources essential to remaining ‘sole-superpower’. Maintaining global trade (cheap labor venues, duty-free imports into US), patent protection, intellectual property rights, USD currency basis, extending finance, insurance, etc. Israel's along for the ride. Sometimes proxy, sometime inconvenient. The US uses local hostility for Israel in a good-cop, bad-cop mime for Arab submission.

    “I think what clinches the veracity of this reality [TWD] is what candidate Mitt Romney once said in the 2012 primaries…”
     
    Is that why Mitt was elected?

    “Another piece of evidence that proves the TWD hypothesis…[support for] domestic pieces of legislation [is]…split 50/50 down the middle…foreign policy legislation…is almost always nearly unanimous in favour of the resolution?”
     
    It proves Americans don’t really care about foreign affairs. Partisan domestic issues (health care, tax reform, abortion, etc.) usually attract the biggest donations. The more hotly contested, the better. It’s like shaking a money tree for both parties.

    “Finally, why are terms like ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government), Knesset West, 800 lb gorilla, and 51st state becoming more and more prevalent? I think it’s obvious why?”
     
    Why indeed? Where? Internet blogs? Same places featuring the ever-popular grassy knoll and 9/11 inside job? Fringe opinion proves fact? Now you’re really stretching.

    Health Sector Lobbying: $413,776,411 (117 times Pro-Israel).
    Health Sector Spending: $3,200,000,000,000+ (842 times Pro-Israel).
    Pro-Israel Lobbying: $3,536,663;
    Pro-Israel Spending: $3,800,000,000.
    “I had to do a double take when I saw the figure you used for Pro-Israel Lobbying, $3.5M? You’ve got to be kidding me? I don’t know where you got these numbers from…”
     
    Figures are for 2017. Center for Responsive Politics at OpenSecrets.org. See Ranked Lobbying Sectors:
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2017&indexType=c
    and Ideological/Single-Issue breakdown:
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=Q&year=2017

    Elections and ongoing lobbying cost billions. Party Money, Dark Money, Soft Money, Independent Spending, Lobbying, PACs, Super PACs, Leadership PACs, Foreign-connected PACs, etc. See my response #254 on the MAD thread.


    “Sheldon Adelson alone is known to have contributed $100M to the Trump campaign.”
     
    Adelson is a disclosed donor in Outside Spending. In 2016 Thomas Steyer (hedge fund manager, Farallon Capital) was #1, giving $89.8 million to liberals. Adelson was #2 at $77.9 million to conservatives. If memory serves, Adelson spread his money to several candidates in the contentious primary process, not just Trump.
    https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&disp=D&type=V&superonly=N

    The disease is narrow special interest control of the country. Parties, primaries, media, advertising, funding, spending, elections, etc. GOP efforts on Health Insurance and Tax reform prove it. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), Ways and Means chair, is an example. He’s doing very well in the money department:

    1. Finance/Insurance/Real Estate: $1,003,350
    2. Health: $957,451
    3. Energy/Nat Resource: $545,700
    4. Misc Business: $533,191
    5. Lawyers & Lobbyists: $364,229
    6. Agribusiness: $217,904
    7. Communications/Electronics: $212,184
    8. Ideology/Single-Issue: $191,397
    9. Construction: $190,850
    10. Transportation: $183,090
    11. Other: $67,290
    12. Defense: $51,000
    13. Labor: $15,000

    https://www.opensecrets.org/cong-cmtes/profiles?cmte=HWAY&cmtename=Ways+and+Means&cong=115&cycle=2016

    An average self-employed family of four will pay $3,100/month = $37,200/year in health insurance premiums. Up 50% (Hartford Courant: http://www.courant.com/business/hc-biz-health-care-open-enrollment-20171101-story.html). Deductibles $8,000-13,000. Median household income? $59,039/yr. QED 63% of income devoured by premiums. Deductibles – if used - add another 13.5% minimum. Total? 77% of gross median income for Health Care.

    Kevin’s priority in the first Health reform mark-up session? Ending subsidies (23 million lose coverage) and unlimited tax deductibility of Insurance CEO salaries (they already get a break on stock options, the bulk of compensation).

    The GOP Tax proposal eliminates medical expense deductibility. End of life expense (nursing home room and board, double occupancy) costs $425 to $625 per day = $155,125 to $228,125 per year. NIC medical procedures or drug expense. Two thirds in nursing homes are paupers on Medicaid, which is rapidly running out of funds. $700+ billion Defense budget? No problem!

    Meanwhile Aetna, prohibited from merging with Humana last year due to anti-trust concerns, is about to marry CVS for $66,000,000,000. Millions for Aetna’s CEO in inflated stock price? Cigna’s CEO made $49 million in a proposed Anthem merger three years ago. Think the US over-medicated and over-charged now? Just wait!

    Americans should march to protest 'the Lobby'? Can they afford bus fare to DC?


    “you do a splendid job in proposing remedies to whatever ails the US…”
     
    Isn’t that the important thing? Curing what ails the US?

    “…but by diminishing the role of The Lobby, which is primarily responsible for putting the country in this mess by adding another $6 trillion to the nation’s debt to fight the bogus GWOT, you do a disservice to the American people.”
     
    Spoken like a true Greco-Canadian with health care. Proving ‘the Lobby’ solely responsible for all evil seems your only interest. A religion. Never mind facts and figures. Never mind proving it. Episodic text proves your creed, even when it doesn’t. Anything to sustain desperate faith.

    I’d follow recent developments in KSA very closely. Yemeni missile(s) aimed at Riyadh airport intercepted by anti-missile systems? Purge of corrupt royals? Steps towards war with Iran? For Israel or KSA? Does ‘the Lobby’ control the Saud family?

    Does ‘the Lobby’ control the Saud family?

    2017
    The Saudi-Israeli Alliance
    Posted on August 19, 2017 by Eric Zuesse.
    Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/08/saudi-israeli-alliance.html

    “Two of the U.S. government’s supposed allies are supposedly not allies of each other but enemies of each other, but, away from the glare of the ‘news’media, they actually work together with each other to control, by means of their secret actual alliance with one-another, a substantial, if not the major, part of U.S. foreign policies — especially regarding Iran, Russia, Syria, Israel, Palestinians, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Turkey, but much else besides. These two secret allies of each other, who largely determine U.S. foreign policies, are the Saud family, and the government of Israel.”

    2017
    There’s an alliance growing between Saudi Arabia and Israel — and Iran should be worried
    Reuters
    John Irish and Andrea Shalal, Reuters
    Feb. 19, 2017

    http://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-and-israel-anti-iran-alliance-2017-2

    “Saudi Arabia and Israel both called on Sunday for a new push against Iran, signaling a growing alignment in their interests, while U.S. lawmakers promised to seek new sanctions on the Shi’ite Muslim power.”

    2016
    Jerusalem Post
    IRAN WAS THE ALLY ISRAEL WANTED. IT GOT SAUDI ARABIA
    BY SETH J. FRANTZMAN JANUARY 24, 2016

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Iran-was-the-ally-Israel-wanted-It-got-Saudi-Arabia-442626

    “The courting of Israel comes against the backdrop of the rise and fall of IS in the region and the frustration of Sunni regimes with their inability to topple Bashar Assad in Syria.”

    2015
    Did Money Seal Israeli-Saudi Alliance?

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/15/did-money-seal-israeli-saudi-alliance/

    “The odd-couple relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel may have been sealed with more than a mutual desire to kiss-off Iran. According to an intelligence source, there was a dowry involved, too, with the Saudis reportedly giving Israel some $16 billion, “

    2014
    UNDERSTANDING THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN-SAUDI ALLIANCE

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/COLUMN-ONE-Understanding-the-Israeli-Egyptian-Saudi-alliance-371891

    BY CAROLINE B. GLICK AUGUST 21, 2014
    “The partnership that has emerged . . . between Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a direct consequence of Obama’s abandonment of the US’s traditional allies.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    Does ‘the Lobby’ control the Saud family?
     
    My guess is Israel thinks it controls KSA, and KSA thinks it’s bought Israel. When two scorpions are left in the bottle we’ll see how friendly they are.

    As to who really manages the love fest, my money’s on USA.

    Yemeni missiles, Saudi purges, and the recent $15 billion THAAD sale to KSA are very worrisome developments. Especially with President Bone-Spur and the generals at the helm.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    You can polish your tail-dog metaphor all you like. I don’t buy the Manichean either/or gambit. Life’s not black or white. It’s gray. Lobbies operate with varying degrees of effort and success.
     
    The tailless dog it is. While the final sentence of this statement is very true, it unfortunately, is completely irrelevant. What we're trying to determine here is which of the two countries is dictating policy in that part of the world. In other words is

    1) Israel an asset of the US which is using it to promote US imperialist objectives in the region? DWT; or
    2) The US an asset of The Lobby (which represents Israel) which is using it to promote Israel's objectives in the region? TWD

    While you can refuse to pick one of these two options, I think the evidence is piling high that TWD is what we're witnessing.

    I think what clinches the veracity of this reality is what candidate Mitt Romney once said in the 2012 primaries:

    “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’ “

    Sensing he may have gone too far pulling the curtain back, one of The Lobby’s key gatekeepers was quick to reassure the American people that their POTUS is truly the one in charge of US Foreign Policy in the region:

    "whether intentional or not, Mr. Romney’s statement implied that he would 'subcontract Middle East policy to Israel.' That, of course, would be inappropriate."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-benjamin-netanyahu-are-old-friends.html

    Another piece of evidence that proves the TWD hypothesis. Why is it that when domestic pieces of legislation, like health care, come before the congress, the vote is nearly split 50/50 down the middle? Whereas, when foreign policy legislation, like sanctions on Russia, NK, and Iran, are voted on, the vote is almost always nearly unanimous in favour of the resolution?

    Finally, why are terms like ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government), Knesset West, 800 lb gorilla, and 51st state becoming more and more prevalent? I think it's obvious why?


    Health Sector Lobbying: $413,776,411 (117 times Pro-Israel).
    Health Sector Spending: $3,200,000,000,000+ (842 times Pro-Israel).

    Pro-Israel Lobbying: $3,536,663;
    Pro-Israel Spending: $3,800,000,000.
     

    I had to do a double take when I saw the figure you used for Pro-Israel Lobbying, $3.5M? You've got to be kidding me? I don't know where you got these numbers from, but Sheldon Adelson alone is known to have contributed $100M to the Trump campaign.

    I think most people would agree, it no longer takes millions to run a successful election campaign... it takes billions.

    According to this WaPo article, the Clinton campaign raised &1.4B while the Trump campaign raised just under $1.0B.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

    So, if we apply the staggering statistics that half of all contributions to the Democratic Party and one quarter of all contributions to the Republican Party were made by Jewish donors, we end up with $700M and almost $500M, respectively.

    Your rebuttal to these staggering statistics is to mock the source of the information, the Jerusalem Post, that it is "a parochial source kind to Likud Israel."

    And you claim that I cherry picked the information. Not sure how someone can cherry pick the amount of money contributed to campaigns?

    And what did you base your cherry picking accusation on? Polling data, of course:

    "... according to polling data, the overwhelming majority of US Jews do not base their vote on Israeli interests.”

    Ah, yes. Hasn't the accuracy of polling data taken a bit of a hit lately? Didn't polling data suggest that there would be no Brexit or that Donald Trump was a heavy underdog in the previous election? So, what this demonstrates is that people may not be completely truthful when responding to polling questions.

    What do you make of what Brother Nathaneal said to Phil Giraldi, when he urged him not to rewrite his article:


    I grew up in an upper-middle class B’nai B’rith synagogue and believe me, MOST American Jews support the warmongering program of the establishment Jewish Lobbies and think tanks.

    I speak with authority here having grown up INSIDE the Jewish community. Oh, many Jews might say to the goyim, ‘I’m against all this war talk.’ BUT with their fellow Jewish ‘lantsmen’ BEHIND CLOSED DOORS they’re ALL for war against Israel’s perceived enemies.

    Every Sabbath Shacharit (morning) service growing up in the 50′s we sang Hatikvah, the Israeli National Anthem. It was part of our ‘religion’ that what’s bad for Israel is bad for all Jews.

    Today that would include all the nations that oppose and/or countering the Zionist project: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and now Russia.
     

    When your buddy Sam Shama was challenged to refute what Brother Nat had said about the singing of the Israeli national anthem at every sabbath service, he blinked.

    Koch Brothers with $880 million for 2016 vs. $340± million for all Jewish mega-donors combined (refer to my prior response).
     
    Not true. The Kock Brothers were planning to spend $880 million for 2016, but the ended up having a change of heart:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/the_koch_brothers_were_supposed_to_buy_the_2016_election_what_happened.html


    I’d like all money out of the system, limited duration elections, no dark money, AIPAC registered as a foreign lobbyist, an end to aid to Israel, an end to the wars, reduced defense spending, and many other reforms... The Lobby’s important, but a tiny part of the problem.
     
    I have to say, Incy, you do a splendid job in proposing remedies to whatever ails the US, but by diminishing the role of The Lobby, which is primarily responsible for putting the country in this mess by adding another $6 trillion to the nation's debt to fight the bogus GWOT, you do a disservice to the American people.

    You seem eager to compel a very narrow view. All or nothing. White or black. God’s mission. No questions permitted. On to the “million-man march on Washington DC demanding…liberation from Zionist rule.” Utopia awaits! Angels will sing, lions will sit down with lambs.
     
    While I never claimed utopia would soon follow, the defeat of The Lobby would represent the removal of a major impediment that is preventing the American ship from being steered out of the dire straights it has found itself in ever since it launched the bogus GWOT, and returning it to more calm waters.

    “What we’re trying to determine here is which of the two countries is dictating policy in that part of the world. In other words is
    1) Israel an asset of the US which is using it to promote US imperialist objectives in the region? DWT; or
    2) The US an asset of The Lobby (which represents Israel) which is using it to promote Israel’s objectives in the region? TWD”

    Or:
    3. US considers securing regional energy sources essential to remaining ‘sole-superpower’. Maintaining global trade (cheap labor venues, duty-free imports into US), patent protection, intellectual property rights, USD currency basis, extending finance, insurance, etc. Israel’s along for the ride. Sometimes proxy, sometime inconvenient. The US uses local hostility for Israel in a good-cop, bad-cop mime for Arab submission.

    “I think what clinches the veracity of this reality [TWD] is what candidate Mitt Romney once said in the 2012 primaries…”

    Is that why Mitt was elected?

    “Another piece of evidence that proves the TWD hypothesis…[support for] domestic pieces of legislation [is]…split 50/50 down the middle…foreign policy legislation…is almost always nearly unanimous in favour of the resolution?”

    It proves Americans don’t really care about foreign affairs. Partisan domestic issues (health care, tax reform, abortion, etc.) usually attract the biggest donations. The more hotly contested, the better. It’s like shaking a money tree for both parties.

    “Finally, why are terms like ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government), Knesset West, 800 lb gorilla, and 51st state becoming more and more prevalent? I think it’s obvious why?”

    Why indeed? Where? Internet blogs? Same places featuring the ever-popular grassy knoll and 9/11 inside job? Fringe opinion proves fact? Now you’re really stretching.

    Health Sector Lobbying: $413,776,411 (117 times Pro-Israel).
    Health Sector Spending: $3,200,000,000,000+ (842 times Pro-Israel).
    Pro-Israel Lobbying: $3,536,663;
    Pro-Israel Spending: $3,800,000,000.
    “I had to do a double take when I saw the figure you used for Pro-Israel Lobbying, $3.5M? You’ve got to be kidding me? I don’t know where you got these numbers from…”

    Figures are for 2017. Center for Responsive Politics at OpenSecrets.org. See Ranked Lobbying Sectors:

    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2017&indexType=c

    and Ideological/Single-Issue breakdown:

    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=Q&year=2017

    Elections and ongoing lobbying cost billions. Party Money, Dark Money, Soft Money, Independent Spending, Lobbying, PACs, Super PACs, Leadership PACs, Foreign-connected PACs, etc. See my response #254 on the MAD thread.

    “Sheldon Adelson alone is known to have contributed $100M to the Trump campaign.”

    Adelson is a disclosed donor in Outside Spending. In 2016 Thomas Steyer (hedge fund manager, Farallon Capital) was #1, giving $89.8 million to liberals. Adelson was #2 at $77.9 million to conservatives. If memory serves, Adelson spread his money to several candidates in the contentious primary process, not just Trump.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&disp=D&type=V&superonly=N

    The disease is narrow special interest control of the country. Parties, primaries, media, advertising, funding, spending, elections, etc. GOP efforts on Health Insurance and Tax reform prove it. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), Ways and Means chair, is an example. He’s doing very well in the money department:

    1. Finance/Insurance/Real Estate: $1,003,350
    2. Health: $957,451
    3. Energy/Nat Resource: $545,700
    4. Misc Business: $533,191
    5. Lawyers & Lobbyists: $364,229
    6. Agribusiness: $217,904
    7. Communications/Electronics: $212,184
    8. Ideology/Single-Issue: $191,397
    9. Construction: $190,850
    10. Transportation: $183,090
    11. Other: $67,290
    12. Defense: $51,000
    13. Labor: $15,000

    https://www.opensecrets.org/cong-cmtes/profiles?cmte=HWAY&cmtename=Ways+and+Means&cong=115&cycle=2016

    An average self-employed family of four will pay $3,100/month = $37,200/year in health insurance premiums. Up 50% (Hartford Courant: http://www.courant.com/business/hc-biz-health-care-open-enrollment-20171101-story.html). Deductibles $8,000-13,000. Median household income? $59,039/yr. QED 63% of income devoured by premiums. Deductibles – if used – add another 13.5% minimum. Total? 77% of gross median income for Health Care.

    Kevin’s priority in the first Health reform mark-up session? Ending subsidies (23 million lose coverage) and unlimited tax deductibility of Insurance CEO salaries (they already get a break on stock options, the bulk of compensation).

    The GOP Tax proposal eliminates medical expense deductibility. End of life expense (nursing home room and board, double occupancy) costs $425 to $625 per day = $155,125 to $228,125 per year. NIC medical procedures or drug expense. Two thirds in nursing homes are paupers on Medicaid, which is rapidly running out of funds. $700+ billion Defense budget? No problem!

    Meanwhile Aetna, prohibited from merging with Humana last year due to anti-trust concerns, is about to marry CVS for $66,000,000,000. Millions for Aetna’s CEO in inflated stock price? Cigna’s CEO made $49 million in a proposed Anthem merger three years ago. Think the US over-medicated and over-charged now? Just wait!

    Americans should march to protest ‘the Lobby’? Can they afford bus fare to DC?

    “you do a splendid job in proposing remedies to whatever ails the US…”

    Isn’t that the important thing? Curing what ails the US?

    “…but by diminishing the role of The Lobby, which is primarily responsible for putting the country in this mess by adding another $6 trillion to the nation’s debt to fight the bogus GWOT, you do a disservice to the American people.”

    Spoken like a true Greco-Canadian with health care. Proving ‘the Lobby’ solely responsible for all evil seems your only interest. A religion. Never mind facts and figures. Never mind proving it. Episodic text proves your creed, even when it doesn’t. Anything to sustain desperate faith.

    I’d follow recent developments in KSA very closely. Yemeni missile(s) aimed at Riyadh airport intercepted by anti-missile systems? Purge of corrupt royals? Steps towards war with Iran? For Israel or KSA? Does ‘the Lobby’ control the Saud family?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnOn

    Does ‘the Lobby’ control the Saud family?
     
    2017
    The Saudi-Israeli Alliance
    Posted on August 19, 2017 by Eric Zuesse.
    Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/08/saudi-israeli-alliance.html

    "Two of the U.S. government’s supposed allies are supposedly not allies of each other but enemies of each other, but, away from the glare of the ‘news’media, they actually work together with each other to control, by means of their secret actual alliance with one-another, a substantial, if not the major, part of U.S. foreign policies — especially regarding Iran, Russia, Syria, Israel, Palestinians, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Turkey, but much else besides. These two secret allies of each other, who largely determine U.S. foreign policies, are the Saud family, and the government of Israel."

    2017
    There’s an alliance growing between Saudi Arabia and Israel — and Iran should be worried
    Reuters
    John Irish and Andrea Shalal, Reuters
    Feb. 19, 2017
    http://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-and-israel-anti-iran-alliance-2017-2
    "Saudi Arabia and Israel both called on Sunday for a new push against Iran, signaling a growing alignment in their interests, while U.S. lawmakers promised to seek new sanctions on the Shi'ite Muslim power."


    2016
    Jerusalem Post
    IRAN WAS THE ALLY ISRAEL WANTED. IT GOT SAUDI ARABIA
    BY SETH J. FRANTZMAN JANUARY 24, 2016
    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Iran-was-the-ally-Israel-wanted-It-got-Saudi-Arabia-442626
    "The courting of Israel comes against the backdrop of the rise and fall of IS in the region and the frustration of Sunni regimes with their inability to topple Bashar Assad in Syria."

    2015
    Did Money Seal Israeli-Saudi Alliance?
    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/15/did-money-seal-israeli-saudi-alliance/
    "The odd-couple relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel may have been sealed with more than a mutual desire to kiss-off Iran. According to an intelligence source, there was a dowry involved, too, with the Saudis reportedly giving Israel some $16 billion, "

    2014
    UNDERSTANDING THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN-SAUDI ALLIANCE
    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/COLUMN-ONE-Understanding-the-Israeli-Egyptian-Saudi-alliance-371891
    BY CAROLINE B. GLICK AUGUST 21, 2014
    "The partnership that has emerged . . . between Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a direct consequence of Obama’s abandonment of the US’s traditional allies."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    I've been eavesdropping just a little on your conversation w/ Incitatus, Geokat62; mind if I jump in?

    Incitatus appears to think s/he has a slam dunk argument based on sums expended by I lobby vs larger sums paid by other lobbies.

    That's an interesting piece of the argument pie, but it lacks a crust:

    How many major US government institutions -- funded by US taxpayers -- are under control of persons loyal to Israeli interests or that are coerced to disseminate Israel-centric or Jewish-centric doctrine?

    A partial list would include:

    Wilson Center
    National Constitution Center
    U S Holocaust Memorial Museum

    US public (and many private) elementary and secondary schools are required to incorporate into their curriculum doctrine developed by Jewish groups that tell an exclusively Jewish-centric version of certain events. Critical analysis of that doctrine is vigorously opposed and suppressed.

    How many hundreds of thousands of people, especially young, impressionable persons -- are influenced -- lobbied -- through those institutions that US taxpayers support, but that are run by and for Jewish interests. That's a far more significant metric than Incitatus's list of $ spent.

    As has been mentioned on UF, Israelis hate to be freiers -- suckers; spending your own money is the equivalent of being a sucker, better to spend Uncle Sam's money, which is US taxpayer money, to get US Congress to do the bidding of Israel firsters.

    Incitatus appears to think s/he has a slam dunk argument based on sums expended by I lobby vs larger sums paid by other lobbies.

    Just as slam dunk as George Tenet’s argument that Saddam possessed WMD?

    How can you have a rational argument with someone who claims pro-Israel funding is a whopping $3.5M?

    Am I misintinterpreting the data, or do you read it the same way:

    Health Sector Lobbying: $413,776,411 (117 times Pro-Israel).
    Health Sector Spending: $3,200,000,000,000+ (842 times Pro-Israel).

    Pro-Israel Lobbying: $3,536,663;
    Pro-Israel Spending: $3,800,000,000.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “How can you have a rational argument with someone who claims pro-Israel funding is a whopping $3.5M?”
     
    OpenSecrets links for the figures, and the year significant [2017] were provided in #452 this thread:
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-lobby-british-style/#comment-2059158

    Again, reading comprehension not your strong point? Suffer from ostrich buried-head disorder, otherwise known as ignore-disagreeable-fact syndrome?

    “How can you have a rational argument…”
     
    Indeed. Is lynching ‘rational’?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    You can polish your tail-dog metaphor all you like. I don’t buy the Manichean either/or gambit. Life’s not black or white. It’s gray. Lobbies operate with varying degrees of effort and success.
     
    The tailless dog it is. While the final sentence of this statement is very true, it unfortunately, is completely irrelevant. What we're trying to determine here is which of the two countries is dictating policy in that part of the world. In other words is

    1) Israel an asset of the US which is using it to promote US imperialist objectives in the region? DWT; or
    2) The US an asset of The Lobby (which represents Israel) which is using it to promote Israel's objectives in the region? TWD

    While you can refuse to pick one of these two options, I think the evidence is piling high that TWD is what we're witnessing.

    I think what clinches the veracity of this reality is what candidate Mitt Romney once said in the 2012 primaries:

    “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’ “

    Sensing he may have gone too far pulling the curtain back, one of The Lobby’s key gatekeepers was quick to reassure the American people that their POTUS is truly the one in charge of US Foreign Policy in the region:

    "whether intentional or not, Mr. Romney’s statement implied that he would 'subcontract Middle East policy to Israel.' That, of course, would be inappropriate."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-benjamin-netanyahu-are-old-friends.html

    Another piece of evidence that proves the TWD hypothesis. Why is it that when domestic pieces of legislation, like health care, come before the congress, the vote is nearly split 50/50 down the middle? Whereas, when foreign policy legislation, like sanctions on Russia, NK, and Iran, are voted on, the vote is almost always nearly unanimous in favour of the resolution?

    Finally, why are terms like ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government), Knesset West, 800 lb gorilla, and 51st state becoming more and more prevalent? I think it's obvious why?


    Health Sector Lobbying: $413,776,411 (117 times Pro-Israel).
    Health Sector Spending: $3,200,000,000,000+ (842 times Pro-Israel).

    Pro-Israel Lobbying: $3,536,663;
    Pro-Israel Spending: $3,800,000,000.
     

    I had to do a double take when I saw the figure you used for Pro-Israel Lobbying, $3.5M? You've got to be kidding me? I don't know where you got these numbers from, but Sheldon Adelson alone is known to have contributed $100M to the Trump campaign.

    I think most people would agree, it no longer takes millions to run a successful election campaign... it takes billions.

    According to this WaPo article, the Clinton campaign raised &1.4B while the Trump campaign raised just under $1.0B.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

    So, if we apply the staggering statistics that half of all contributions to the Democratic Party and one quarter of all contributions to the Republican Party were made by Jewish donors, we end up with $700M and almost $500M, respectively.

    Your rebuttal to these staggering statistics is to mock the source of the information, the Jerusalem Post, that it is "a parochial source kind to Likud Israel."

    And you claim that I cherry picked the information. Not sure how someone can cherry pick the amount of money contributed to campaigns?

    And what did you base your cherry picking accusation on? Polling data, of course:

    "... according to polling data, the overwhelming majority of US Jews do not base their vote on Israeli interests.”

    Ah, yes. Hasn't the accuracy of polling data taken a bit of a hit lately? Didn't polling data suggest that there would be no Brexit or that Donald Trump was a heavy underdog in the previous election? So, what this demonstrates is that people may not be completely truthful when responding to polling questions.

    What do you make of what Brother Nathaneal said to Phil Giraldi, when he urged him not to rewrite his article:


    I grew up in an upper-middle class B’nai B’rith synagogue and believe me, MOST American Jews support the warmongering program of the establishment Jewish Lobbies and think tanks.

    I speak with authority here having grown up INSIDE the Jewish community. Oh, many Jews might say to the goyim, ‘I’m against all this war talk.’ BUT with their fellow Jewish ‘lantsmen’ BEHIND CLOSED DOORS they’re ALL for war against Israel’s perceived enemies.

    Every Sabbath Shacharit (morning) service growing up in the 50′s we sang Hatikvah, the Israeli National Anthem. It was part of our ‘religion’ that what’s bad for Israel is bad for all Jews.

    Today that would include all the nations that oppose and/or countering the Zionist project: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and now Russia.
     

    When your buddy Sam Shama was challenged to refute what Brother Nat had said about the singing of the Israeli national anthem at every sabbath service, he blinked.

    Koch Brothers with $880 million for 2016 vs. $340± million for all Jewish mega-donors combined (refer to my prior response).
     
    Not true. The Kock Brothers were planning to spend $880 million for 2016, but the ended up having a change of heart:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/the_koch_brothers_were_supposed_to_buy_the_2016_election_what_happened.html


    I’d like all money out of the system, limited duration elections, no dark money, AIPAC registered as a foreign lobbyist, an end to aid to Israel, an end to the wars, reduced defense spending, and many other reforms... The Lobby’s important, but a tiny part of the problem.
     
    I have to say, Incy, you do a splendid job in proposing remedies to whatever ails the US, but by diminishing the role of The Lobby, which is primarily responsible for putting the country in this mess by adding another $6 trillion to the nation's debt to fight the bogus GWOT, you do a disservice to the American people.

    You seem eager to compel a very narrow view. All or nothing. White or black. God’s mission. No questions permitted. On to the “million-man march on Washington DC demanding…liberation from Zionist rule.” Utopia awaits! Angels will sing, lions will sit down with lambs.
     
    While I never claimed utopia would soon follow, the defeat of The Lobby would represent the removal of a major impediment that is preventing the American ship from being steered out of the dire straights it has found itself in ever since it launched the bogus GWOT, and returning it to more calm waters.

    I’ve been eavesdropping just a little on your conversation w/ Incitatus, Geokat62; mind if I jump in?

    Incitatus appears to think s/he has a slam dunk argument based on sums expended by I lobby vs larger sums paid by other lobbies.

    That’s an interesting piece of the argument pie, but it lacks a crust:

    How many major US government institutions — funded by US taxpayers — are under control of persons loyal to Israeli interests or that are coerced to disseminate Israel-centric or Jewish-centric doctrine?

    A partial list would include:

    Wilson Center
    National Constitution Center
    U S Holocaust Memorial Museum

    US public (and many private) elementary and secondary schools are required to incorporate into their curriculum doctrine developed by Jewish groups that tell an exclusively Jewish-centric version of certain events. Critical analysis of that doctrine is vigorously opposed and suppressed.

    How many hundreds of thousands of people, especially young, impressionable persons — are influenced — lobbied — through those institutions that US taxpayers support, but that are run by and for Jewish interests. That’s a far more significant metric than Incitatus’s list of $ spent.

    As has been mentioned on UF, Israelis hate to be freiers — suckers; spending your own money is the equivalent of being a sucker, better to spend Uncle Sam’s money, which is US taxpayer money, to get US Congress to do the bidding of Israel firsters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Incitatus appears to think s/he has a slam dunk argument based on sums expended by I lobby vs larger sums paid by other lobbies.
     
    Just as slam dunk as George Tenet's argument that Saddam possessed WMD?

    How can you have a rational argument with someone who claims pro-Israel funding is a whopping $3.5M?

    Am I misintinterpreting the data, or do you read it the same way:


    Health Sector Lobbying: $413,776,411 (117 times Pro-Israel).
    Health Sector Spending: $3,200,000,000,000+ (842 times Pro-Israel).

    Pro-Israel Lobbying: $3,536,663;
    Pro-Israel Spending: $3,800,000,000.
     

    , @Incitatus
    S2C!

    “Incitatus appears to think s/he has a slam dunk argument based on sums expended by I lobby vs larger sums paid by other lobbies.”
     
    Putting words in my mouth? That desperate? Or just bored with the same old echo-chamber regulars?

    “How many major US government institutions — funded by US taxpayers — are under control of persons loyal to Israeli interests or that are coerced to disseminate Israel-centric or Jewish-centric doctrine?”
     
    Interesting question. Look forward to tangible comparative analysis. USD contributions to the political process, media, etc. Loyalty percentage may be hard to enumerate. Maybe you can come up with a HebrewMeter scoring system in the best tradition of Senator McCarthy, Roy Cohn, and “I have here a [unshown] list…” Art can help with frequency of ‘Jew’ in texts. And why not measure library shelf space while you’re at it? X feet of Shoah divided by Y feet of Italian orphans?

    “How many hundreds of thousands of people, especially young, impressionable persons — are influenced — lobbied — through those institutions that US taxpayers support, but that are run by and for Jewish interests.”
     
    Indeed. Why not quantify through universal metrics? Don’t be shy. The young bit is easy (hint: age ranges). How about an ‘impresionable’ scale? Comatose-asleep-slumbering-naïve-ambivalent-impressionable-gullible-pushover-parrot? Good start so far? A percent Jewish control metric? This may be more difficult, but you’ll find a way. You could even include Jewish sounding names and hearsay for partial credit.

    Look forward to your results S2C. You’re absolutely right to disbelieve political money significant. Kind of puts you out of business, after all.

    Hate to ask how you’re doing on these long-standing questions:

    • When starting WW1 shouldn’t Austrian and German leaders have planned against blockades and famine?
    • Why, in principle, is the WW1 Allied naval blockade worse than German blockade?
    • Why is the WW1 German loss of 800,000 (1.18%) worse than 800,000 Serbs (17.8%)?
    • Why is Versailles 1919 condemnable, when the harsher Brest-Litovsk 1917 is not?
    • Why is Wise at fault for a Jewish boycott in 1933, when Hitler declared “we must necessarily…be anti-Semites…” in 1920?
    • If Hitler defended Christian Europe against Bolshevism, why did he sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in ’39?
    • Does ’23 Putsch-mate and early Nazi Ludendorff bear any blame for Bolshevism after giving Lenin 40 million gold marks ($100 million) and transporting him to Russia in 1917?
    • Why did Italy and Germany invade Greece in WW2? Why did Italy invade France for sloppy seconds?
    • Why do few (if any) books in US libraries record the fate of Italy’s WW2 victims? Orphans?
    • Why are Mendelsohn’s 1943 unpeopled bomb tests worse than Nazi bombing of peopled Guernica ‘37, Warsaw ‘39, Rotterdam ’40? The German airship bombing campaign 1915-18?
    • If the French owe Nazis for protecting them from WW2 Allied bombing, why aren’t there French monuments saying same?
    • Why did Hitler pass a death sentence on Germany exceeding Morgenthau’s fondest wish in late 1944?
    • Why did Hitler, paragon of honor and bravery, poison his new Frau and blow his brains out in ’45?
    • Three independent, scholarly published sources for torture used at Nüremberg?
    • Hitler believed strength confers legitimacy. By his reasoning, isn’t Nazi Germany’s fate unworthy of sympathy?
    • How does one honor a WW2 Vet father by championing those he fought?
    • How does one worship fascists when they dispossessed his Italian mother?

    You’ve been stricken with acute commentus-interruptus when thus questioned in past. You’re still grinding away on evil Rabbi Wise. Any progress on answers? No? Didn’t think so.

    Inclined to agree with Kilner, since there seem at least three S2C writing styles. Or maybe you’re in agriculture? Cultivating a nut farm with loads of manure?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • You can polish your tail-dog metaphor all you like. I don’t buy the Manichean either/or gambit. Life’s not black or white. It’s gray. Lobbies operate with varying degrees of effort and success.

    The tailless dog it is. While the final sentence of this statement is very true, it unfortunately, is completely irrelevant. What we’re trying to determine here is which of the two countries is dictating policy in that part of the world. In other words is

    1) Israel an asset of the US which is using it to promote US imperialist objectives in the region? DWT; or
    2) The US an asset of The Lobby (which represents Israel) which is using it to promote Israel’s objectives in the region? TWD

    While you can refuse to pick one of these two options, I think the evidence is piling high that TWD is what we’re witnessing.

    I think what clinches the veracity of this reality is what candidate Mitt Romney once said in the 2012 primaries:

    “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’ “

    Sensing he may have gone too far pulling the curtain back, one of The Lobby’s key gatekeepers was quick to reassure the American people that their POTUS is truly the one in charge of US Foreign Policy in the region:

    “whether intentional or not, Mr. Romney’s statement implied that he would ‘subcontract Middle East policy to Israel.’ That, of course, would be inappropriate.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-benjamin-netanyahu-are-old-friends.html

    Another piece of evidence that proves the TWD hypothesis. Why is it that when domestic pieces of legislation, like health care, come before the congress, the vote is nearly split 50/50 down the middle? Whereas, when foreign policy legislation, like sanctions on Russia, NK, and Iran, are voted on, the vote is almost always nearly unanimous in favour of the resolution?

    Finally, why are terms like ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government), Knesset West, 800 lb gorilla, and 51st state becoming more and more prevalent? I think it’s obvious why?

    Health Sector Lobbying: $413,776,411 (117 times Pro-Israel).
    Health Sector Spending: $3,200,000,000,000+ (842 times Pro-Israel).

    Pro-Israel Lobbying: $3,536,663;
    Pro-Israel Spending: $3,800,000,000.

    I had to do a double take when I saw the figure you used for Pro-Israel Lobbying, $3.5M? You’ve got to be kidding me? I don’t know where you got these numbers from, but Sheldon Adelson alone is known to have contributed $100M to the Trump campaign.

    I think most people would agree, it no longer takes millions to run a successful election campaign… it takes billions.

    According to this WaPo article, the Clinton campaign raised &1.4B while the Trump campaign raised just under $1.0B.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

    So, if we apply the staggering statistics that half of all contributions to the Democratic Party and one quarter of all contributions to the Republican Party were made by Jewish donors, we end up with $700M and almost $500M, respectively.

    Your rebuttal to these staggering statistics is to mock the source of the information, the Jerusalem Post, that it is “a parochial source kind to Likud Israel.”

    And you claim that I cherry picked the information. Not sure how someone can cherry pick the amount of money contributed to campaigns?

    And what did you base your cherry picking accusation on? Polling data, of course:

    “… according to polling data, the overwhelming majority of US Jews do not base their vote on Israeli interests.”

    Ah, yes. Hasn’t the accuracy of polling data taken a bit of a hit lately? Didn’t polling data suggest that there would be no Brexit or that Donald Trump was a heavy underdog in the previous election? So, what this demonstrates is that people may not be completely truthful when responding to polling questions.

    What do you make of what Brother Nathaneal said to Phil Giraldi, when he urged him not to rewrite his article:

    I grew up in an upper-middle class B’nai B’rith synagogue and believe me, MOST American Jews support the warmongering program of the establishment Jewish Lobbies and think tanks.

    I speak with authority here having grown up INSIDE the Jewish community. Oh, many Jews might say to the goyim, ‘I’m against all this war talk.’ BUT with their fellow Jewish ‘lantsmen’ BEHIND CLOSED DOORS they’re ALL for war against Israel’s perceived enemies.

    Every Sabbath Shacharit (morning) service growing up in the 50′s we sang Hatikvah, the Israeli National Anthem. It was part of our ‘religion’ that what’s bad for Israel is bad for all Jews.

    Today that would include all the nations that oppose and/or countering the Zionist project: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and now Russia.

    When your buddy Sam Shama was challenged to refute what Brother Nat had said about the singing of the Israeli national anthem at every sabbath service, he blinked.

    Koch Brothers with $880 million for 2016 vs. $340± million for all Jewish mega-donors combined (refer to my prior response).

    Not true. The Kock Brothers were planning to spend $880 million for 2016, but the ended up having a change of heart:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/the_koch_brothers_were_supposed_to_buy_the_2016_election_what_happened.html

    I’d like all money out of the system, limited duration elections, no dark money, AIPAC registered as a foreign lobbyist, an end to aid to Israel, an end to the wars, reduced defense spending, and many other reforms… The Lobby’s important, but a tiny part of the problem.

    I have to say, Incy, you do a splendid job in proposing remedies to whatever ails the US, but by diminishing the role of The Lobby, which is primarily responsible for putting the country in this mess by adding another $6 trillion to the nation’s debt to fight the bogus GWOT, you do a disservice to the American people.

    You seem eager to compel a very narrow view. All or nothing. White or black. God’s mission. No questions permitted. On to the “million-man march on Washington DC demanding…liberation from Zionist rule.” Utopia awaits! Angels will sing, lions will sit down with lambs.

    While I never claimed utopia would soon follow, the defeat of The Lobby would represent the removal of a major impediment that is preventing the American ship from being steered out of the dire straights it has found itself in ever since it launched the bogus GWOT, and returning it to more calm waters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    I've been eavesdropping just a little on your conversation w/ Incitatus, Geokat62; mind if I jump in?

    Incitatus appears to think s/he has a slam dunk argument based on sums expended by I lobby vs larger sums paid by other lobbies.

    That's an interesting piece of the argument pie, but it lacks a crust:

    How many major US government institutions -- funded by US taxpayers -- are under control of persons loyal to Israeli interests or that are coerced to disseminate Israel-centric or Jewish-centric doctrine?

    A partial list would include:

    Wilson Center
    National Constitution Center
    U S Holocaust Memorial Museum

    US public (and many private) elementary and secondary schools are required to incorporate into their curriculum doctrine developed by Jewish groups that tell an exclusively Jewish-centric version of certain events. Critical analysis of that doctrine is vigorously opposed and suppressed.

    How many hundreds of thousands of people, especially young, impressionable persons -- are influenced -- lobbied -- through those institutions that US taxpayers support, but that are run by and for Jewish interests. That's a far more significant metric than Incitatus's list of $ spent.

    As has been mentioned on UF, Israelis hate to be freiers -- suckers; spending your own money is the equivalent of being a sucker, better to spend Uncle Sam's money, which is US taxpayer money, to get US Congress to do the bidding of Israel firsters.
    , @Incitatus

    "What we’re trying to determine here is which of the two countries is dictating policy in that part of the world. In other words is
    1) Israel an asset of the US which is using it to promote US imperialist objectives in the region? DWT; or
    2) The US an asset of The Lobby (which represents Israel) which is using it to promote Israel’s objectives in the region? TWD"
     
    Or:
    3. US considers securing regional energy sources essential to remaining ‘sole-superpower’. Maintaining global trade (cheap labor venues, duty-free imports into US), patent protection, intellectual property rights, USD currency basis, extending finance, insurance, etc. Israel's along for the ride. Sometimes proxy, sometime inconvenient. The US uses local hostility for Israel in a good-cop, bad-cop mime for Arab submission.

    “I think what clinches the veracity of this reality [TWD] is what candidate Mitt Romney once said in the 2012 primaries…”
     
    Is that why Mitt was elected?

    “Another piece of evidence that proves the TWD hypothesis…[support for] domestic pieces of legislation [is]…split 50/50 down the middle…foreign policy legislation…is almost always nearly unanimous in favour of the resolution?”
     
    It proves Americans don’t really care about foreign affairs. Partisan domestic issues (health care, tax reform, abortion, etc.) usually attract the biggest donations. The more hotly contested, the better. It’s like shaking a money tree for both parties.

    “Finally, why are terms like ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government), Knesset West, 800 lb gorilla, and 51st state becoming more and more prevalent? I think it’s obvious why?”
     
    Why indeed? Where? Internet blogs? Same places featuring the ever-popular grassy knoll and 9/11 inside job? Fringe opinion proves fact? Now you’re really stretching.

    Health Sector Lobbying: $413,776,411 (117 times Pro-Israel).
    Health Sector Spending: $3,200,000,000,000+ (842 times Pro-Israel).
    Pro-Israel Lobbying: $3,536,663;
    Pro-Israel Spending: $3,800,000,000.
    “I had to do a double take when I saw the figure you used for Pro-Israel Lobbying, $3.5M? You’ve got to be kidding me? I don’t know where you got these numbers from…”
     
    Figures are for 2017. Center for Responsive Politics at OpenSecrets.org. See Ranked Lobbying Sectors:
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2017&indexType=c
    and Ideological/Single-Issue breakdown:
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=Q&year=2017

    Elections and ongoing lobbying cost billions. Party Money, Dark Money, Soft Money, Independent Spending, Lobbying, PACs, Super PACs, Leadership PACs, Foreign-connected PACs, etc. See my response #254 on the MAD thread.


    “Sheldon Adelson alone is known to have contributed $100M to the Trump campaign.”
     
    Adelson is a disclosed donor in Outside Spending. In 2016 Thomas Steyer (hedge fund manager, Farallon Capital) was #1, giving $89.8 million to liberals. Adelson was #2 at $77.9 million to conservatives. If memory serves, Adelson spread his money to several candidates in the contentious primary process, not just Trump.
    https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&disp=D&type=V&superonly=N

    The disease is narrow special interest control of the country. Parties, primaries, media, advertising, funding, spending, elections, etc. GOP efforts on Health Insurance and Tax reform prove it. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), Ways and Means chair, is an example. He’s doing very well in the money department:

    1. Finance/Insurance/Real Estate: $1,003,350
    2. Health: $957,451
    3. Energy/Nat Resource: $545,700
    4. Misc Business: $533,191
    5. Lawyers & Lobbyists: $364,229
    6. Agribusiness: $217,904
    7. Communications/Electronics: $212,184
    8. Ideology/Single-Issue: $191,397
    9. Construction: $190,850
    10. Transportation: $183,090
    11. Other: $67,290
    12. Defense: $51,000
    13. Labor: $15,000

    https://www.opensecrets.org/cong-cmtes/profiles?cmte=HWAY&cmtename=Ways+and+Means&cong=115&cycle=2016

    An average self-employed family of four will pay $3,100/month = $37,200/year in health insurance premiums. Up 50% (Hartford Courant: http://www.courant.com/business/hc-biz-health-care-open-enrollment-20171101-story.html). Deductibles $8,000-13,000. Median household income? $59,039/yr. QED 63% of income devoured by premiums. Deductibles – if used - add another 13.5% minimum. Total? 77% of gross median income for Health Care.

    Kevin’s priority in the first Health reform mark-up session? Ending subsidies (23 million lose coverage) and unlimited tax deductibility of Insurance CEO salaries (they already get a break on stock options, the bulk of compensation).

    The GOP Tax proposal eliminates medical expense deductibility. End of life expense (nursing home room and board, double occupancy) costs $425 to $625 per day = $155,125 to $228,125 per year. NIC medical procedures or drug expense. Two thirds in nursing homes are paupers on Medicaid, which is rapidly running out of funds. $700+ billion Defense budget? No problem!

    Meanwhile Aetna, prohibited from merging with Humana last year due to anti-trust concerns, is about to marry CVS for $66,000,000,000. Millions for Aetna’s CEO in inflated stock price? Cigna’s CEO made $49 million in a proposed Anthem merger three years ago. Think the US over-medicated and over-charged now? Just wait!

    Americans should march to protest 'the Lobby'? Can they afford bus fare to DC?


    “you do a splendid job in proposing remedies to whatever ails the US…”
     
    Isn’t that the important thing? Curing what ails the US?

    “…but by diminishing the role of The Lobby, which is primarily responsible for putting the country in this mess by adding another $6 trillion to the nation’s debt to fight the bogus GWOT, you do a disservice to the American people.”
     
    Spoken like a true Greco-Canadian with health care. Proving ‘the Lobby’ solely responsible for all evil seems your only interest. A religion. Never mind facts and figures. Never mind proving it. Episodic text proves your creed, even when it doesn’t. Anything to sustain desperate faith.

    I’d follow recent developments in KSA very closely. Yemeni missile(s) aimed at Riyadh airport intercepted by anti-missile systems? Purge of corrupt royals? Steps towards war with Iran? For Israel or KSA? Does ‘the Lobby’ control the Saud family?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    Please quote my agreement with Chomsky, or any support expressed for Israel. Feel free to comb the archive.
     
    While it's true you didn't explicitly state your support for Chomsky, I inferred that based on the following logic:


    There are two schools of thought when it comes to US Foreign Policy in the ME:

    a. The dog wags the tail, whose biggest proponent is Noam Chomsky
    b. The tail wags the dog, whose biggest proponents are the two truth-telling Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt

    (I guess technically there can be a third, a tailless dog. But those breeds are rare, indeed.)
     
    Since all of your comments have made it abundantly clear you vehemently disagree with my position that the "tail wags the dog," I simply assumed you must fall by default in the "dog wags the tail" camp. The only other possibility is that you must subscribe to the "tailless dog" thesis, which I do not consider to be a very interesting thesis. But, if that's the case, I stand corrected.

    One trick pony? Can’t explain lobbying expenditures, so you project a position onto me, then wave the M&W banner again. Is that all you’ve got?
     
    I thought I already addressed the expenditures argument via this comment:

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/#comment-1914007

    The data I presented showed that half, let me repeat half, of all donations made to the Democratic Party and a quarter made to the Republican Party were made by Jewish donors.

    Can you point to any lobby that comes remotely close to this statistic? Good luck?

    “While it’s true you didn’t explicitly state your support for Chomsky, I inferred…”
    “Since all of your comments have made it abundantly clear you vehemently disagree with my position that the “tail wags the dog,” I simply assumed…”

    As I said “…you project a position onto me, then wave the M&W banner again.” One trick pony.

    You can polish your tail-dog metaphor all you like. I don’t buy the Manichean either/or gambit. Life’s not black or white. It’s gray. Lobbies operate with varying degrees of effort and success.

    Health Sector Lobbying: $413,776,411 (117 times Pro-Israel).
    Health Sector Spending: $3,200,000,000,000+ (842 times Pro-Israel).

    Pro-Israel Lobbying: $3,536,663;
    Pro-Israel Spending: $3,800,000,000.

    Pro-Israel has good leverage: $1,075 return per dollar. Health Care? $7,734 per dollar.

    “I thought I already addressed the expenditures argument via this comment:

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/#comment-1914007

    “The data I presented…”

    Originated in the Jerusalem Post, a parochial source kind to Likud Israel. You cherry picked even that.

    ”…showed that half, let me repeat half, of all donations made to the Democratic Party and a quarter made to the Republican Party were made by Jewish donors.”

    Remember the “data” you left out?

    “This does not mean to say they [American Jews] are not pro-Israel, but rather that the intensity of commitment to pro-freedom, liberal ideas is more intense than the commitment to Israel…according to polling data, the overwhelming majority of US Jews do not base their vote on Israeli interests.”

    “But American Jews have remained faithful to their liberal ideology, as reflected by the 78% of the Jewish vote garnered by President Barack Obama in the 2008 election when he defeated strongly pro-Israel Sen. John McCain and the 69% support he took in 2012 against former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, despite accusations against Obama regarding his dealings with Israel during his first term.”

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/#comment-1914820

    In other words, most American Jews voted against the “strongly pro-Israel” GOP.

    “Can you point to any lobby that comes remotely close to this statistic?”

    Koch Brothers with $880 million for 2016 vs. $340± million for all Jewish mega-donors combined (refer to my prior response). Health Care, Finance, Insurance, RE, Defense, Agriculture, etc.

    “…[it’s] abundantly clear you vehemently disagree with my position…”

    Do I? I’d like all money out of the system, limited duration elections, no dark money, AIPAC registered as a foreign lobbyist, an end to aid to Israel, an end to the wars, reduced defense spending, and many other reforms. Including Health Care, Finance, Taxes, etc. The arc of government spending is unsustainable, the corruption inexcusable. The Lobby’s important, but a tiny part of the problem.

    You seem eager to compel a very narrow view. All or nothing. White or black. God’s mission. No questions permitted. On to the “million-man march on Washington DC demanding…liberation from Zionist rule.” Utopia awaits! Angels will sing, lions will sit down with lambs.

    Not unlike a physician who eagerly prioritizes psoriasis treatment for a stage three liver cancer patient. If only we can control that inflammation!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    Does Israel exert the most influence, the tail that wags the dog?
    “This is where I struggle with your sincerity, Incy. You prefer to subscribe to the discredited thesis put forward by Noam Chomsky that unqualified support for the Jewish state is…”
     
    Touched you worry about my sincerity. Please quote my agreement with Chomsky, or any support expressed for Israel. Feel free to comb the archive.

    “No, Incy, truth be told, Chomsky’s thesis has been superseded by that put forth by the two truth-telling professors, Mearsheimer and Walt…”
     
    One trick pony? Can’t explain lobbying expenditures, so you project a position onto me, then wave the M&W banner again. Is that all you’ve got?

    Please quote my agreement with Chomsky, or any support expressed for Israel. Feel free to comb the archive.

    While it’s true you didn’t explicitly state your support for Chomsky, I inferred that based on the following logic:

    There are two schools of thought when it comes to US Foreign Policy in the ME:

    a. The dog wags the tail, whose biggest proponent is Noam Chomsky
    b. The tail wags the dog, whose biggest proponents are the two truth-telling Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt

    (I guess technically there can be a third, a tailless dog. But those breeds are rare, indeed.)

    Since all of your comments have made it abundantly clear you vehemently disagree with my position that the “tail wags the dog,” I simply assumed you must fall by default in the “dog wags the tail” camp. The only other possibility is that you must subscribe to the “tailless dog” thesis, which I do not consider to be a very interesting thesis. But, if that’s the case, I stand corrected.

    One trick pony? Can’t explain lobbying expenditures, so you project a position onto me, then wave the M&W banner again. Is that all you’ve got?

    I thought I already addressed the expenditures argument via this comment:

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/#comment-1914007

    The data I presented showed that half, let me repeat half, of all donations made to the Democratic Party and a quarter made to the Republican Party were made by Jewish donors.

    Can you point to any lobby that comes remotely close to this statistic? Good luck?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “While it’s true you didn’t explicitly state your support for Chomsky, I inferred…”
    “Since all of your comments have made it abundantly clear you vehemently disagree with my position that the “tail wags the dog,” I simply assumed…”
     
    As I said “…you project a position onto me, then wave the M&W banner again.” One trick pony.

    You can polish your tail-dog metaphor all you like. I don’t buy the Manichean either/or gambit. Life’s not black or white. It’s gray. Lobbies operate with varying degrees of effort and success.

    Health Sector Lobbying: $413,776,411 (117 times Pro-Israel).
    Health Sector Spending: $3,200,000,000,000+ (842 times Pro-Israel).

    Pro-Israel Lobbying: $3,536,663;
    Pro-Israel Spending: $3,800,000,000.

    Pro-Israel has good leverage: $1,075 return per dollar. Health Care? $7,734 per dollar.


    “I thought I already addressed the expenditures argument via this comment:
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/#comment-1914007

    “The data I presented…”
     

    Originated in the Jerusalem Post, a parochial source kind to Likud Israel. You cherry picked even that.

    ”…showed that half, let me repeat half, of all donations made to the Democratic Party and a quarter made to the Republican Party were made by Jewish donors.”
     
    Remember the “data” you left out?

    “This does not mean to say they [American Jews] are not pro-Israel, but rather that the intensity of commitment to pro-freedom, liberal ideas is more intense than the commitment to Israel…according to polling data, the overwhelming majority of US Jews do not base their vote on Israeli interests.”

    “But American Jews have remained faithful to their liberal ideology, as reflected by the 78% of the Jewish vote garnered by President Barack Obama in the 2008 election when he defeated strongly pro-Israel Sen. John McCain and the 69% support he took in 2012 against former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, despite accusations against Obama regarding his dealings with Israel during his first term.”

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/#comment-1914820
     

    In other words, most American Jews voted against the "strongly pro-Israel" GOP.

    "Can you point to any lobby that comes remotely close to this statistic?"
     
    Koch Brothers with $880 million for 2016 vs. $340± million for all Jewish mega-donors combined (refer to my prior response). Health Care, Finance, Insurance, RE, Defense, Agriculture, etc.

    “…[it’s] abundantly clear you vehemently disagree with my position…”
     
    Do I? I’d like all money out of the system, limited duration elections, no dark money, AIPAC registered as a foreign lobbyist, an end to aid to Israel, an end to the wars, reduced defense spending, and many other reforms. Including Health Care, Finance, Taxes, etc. The arc of government spending is unsustainable, the corruption inexcusable. The Lobby’s important, but a tiny part of the problem.

    You seem eager to compel a very narrow view. All or nothing. White or black. God’s mission. No questions permitted. On to the “million-man march on Washington DC demanding…liberation from Zionist rule.” Utopia awaits! Angels will sing, lions will sit down with lambs.

    Not unlike a physician who eagerly prioritizes psoriasis treatment for a stage three liver cancer patient. If only we can control that inflammation!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    Does Israel exert the most influence, the tail that wags the dog?
     
    This is where I struggle with your sincerity, Incy. You prefer to subscribe to the discredited thesis put forward by Noam Chomsky that unqualified support for the Jewish state is

    ... not because of the overweening power of the Israel lobby in the US, but because Israel is a strategic and commercial asset which underpins rather than undermines US domination of the Middle East.
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/07/noam-chomsky-us-foreign-policy

    No, Incy, truth be told, Chomsky's thesis has been superseded by that put forth by the two truth-telling professors, Mearsheimer and Walt:


    In a 2003 critique of Israel and the U.S.-Israeli relationship in the New York Review of Books, Judt touched on what Mearsheimer and Walt later laid out as their principal thesis. Judt wrote that Israel continued "to mock its American patron" by building illegal settlements even as the US was pushing the "Roadmap" peace plan calling for a freeze on settlement construction. Israel had reduced the powerful president of the United States, he said, to a "ventriloquist's dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line." Its behavior “has been a disaster for American foreign policy." The United States' unconditional support for Israel "is the main reason why most of the rest of the world no longer credits our good faith."
     
    I think this picture says it all:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8Y7rr5IUAAhvX8?format=jpg

    Does Israel exert the most influence, the tail that wags the dog?
    “This is where I struggle with your sincerity, Incy. You prefer to subscribe to the discredited thesis put forward by Noam Chomsky that unqualified support for the Jewish state is…”

    Touched you worry about my sincerity. Please quote my agreement with Chomsky, or any support expressed for Israel. Feel free to comb the archive.

    “No, Incy, truth be told, Chomsky’s thesis has been superseded by that put forth by the two truth-telling professors, Mearsheimer and Walt…”

    One trick pony? Can’t explain lobbying expenditures, so you project a position onto me, then wave the M&W banner again. Is that all you’ve got?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Please quote my agreement with Chomsky, or any support expressed for Israel. Feel free to comb the archive.
     
    While it's true you didn't explicitly state your support for Chomsky, I inferred that based on the following logic:


    There are two schools of thought when it comes to US Foreign Policy in the ME:

    a. The dog wags the tail, whose biggest proponent is Noam Chomsky
    b. The tail wags the dog, whose biggest proponents are the two truth-telling Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt

    (I guess technically there can be a third, a tailless dog. But those breeds are rare, indeed.)
     
    Since all of your comments have made it abundantly clear you vehemently disagree with my position that the "tail wags the dog," I simply assumed you must fall by default in the "dog wags the tail" camp. The only other possibility is that you must subscribe to the "tailless dog" thesis, which I do not consider to be a very interesting thesis. But, if that's the case, I stand corrected.

    One trick pony? Can’t explain lobbying expenditures, so you project a position onto me, then wave the M&W banner again. Is that all you’ve got?
     
    I thought I already addressed the expenditures argument via this comment:

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/#comment-1914007

    The data I presented showed that half, let me repeat half, of all donations made to the Democratic Party and a quarter made to the Republican Party were made by Jewish donors.

    Can you point to any lobby that comes remotely close to this statistic? Good luck?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    “This is how the lobby works: It wants no daylight between the government of Israel and the U.S. government, so it cultivates American power; it doesn’t care in the end who is sitting in the Oval Office, it will work on him.”
     
    That describes any and all lobbies, n’est-ce pas? That’s the nature of influence, the sales campaign. Israel vs US, or Canada and Mexico regarding NAFTA, etc. None dispute Israel has an influential lobby. You insist it has total control. How did the JPCOA get passed?

    Does Israel exert the most influence, the tail that wags the dog?

    Top lobbying sectors [2017]:

    Health: $413,776,411;
    Finance/Insurance/RE: $370,608,822;
    Miscellaneous Business: $353,610,091;
    Communications/Electronics: $297,340,365;
    Energy/Natural Resources:$230.298.293;
    Transportation: $178,157,786;
    Other: $152,663,472;
    Ideology/Single-Issue: $107,161,403;
    Agribusiness: $96,576,869;
    Defense: $93,937,493;
    Construction: $44,615,045;
    Labor: $33,772,171;
    Lawyers & Lobbyists: $14,593,898.

    Ideological/Single Issue lobbying includes Human Rights ($37+ million), Environment ($12+ million), Gun Rights ($7.8+ million), etc. Pro-Israel ranks sixth on the sector-list = $3,536,663.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=c&showYear=2017
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=Q&year=2017

    Health lobbying ($413,776,411) is 117 times more Pro-Israel ($3,536,663). Health care spending accounts for ±18% of the GDP = $3.2+ trillion. The US has a ridiculously expensive, mediocre health care system. Want to guess who’s driving the bus?

    Does Israel exert the most influence, the tail that wags the dog?

    This is where I struggle with your sincerity, Incy. You prefer to subscribe to the discredited thesis put forward by Noam Chomsky that unqualified support for the Jewish state is

    … not because of the overweening power of the Israel lobby in the US, but because Israel is a strategic and commercial asset which underpins rather than undermines US domination of the Middle East.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/07/noam-chomsky-us-foreign-policy

    No, Incy, truth be told, Chomsky’s thesis has been superseded by that put forth by the two truth-telling professors, Mearsheimer and Walt:

    In a 2003 critique of Israel and the U.S.-Israeli relationship in the New York Review of Books, Judt touched on what Mearsheimer and Walt later laid out as their principal thesis. Judt wrote that Israel continued “to mock its American patron” by building illegal settlements even as the US was pushing the “Roadmap” peace plan calling for a freeze on settlement construction. Israel had reduced the powerful president of the United States, he said, to a “ventriloquist’s dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line.” Its behavior “has been a disaster for American foreign policy.” The United States’ unconditional support for Israel “is the main reason why most of the rest of the world no longer credits our good faith.”

    I think this picture says it all:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8Y7rr5IUAAhvX8?format=jpg

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    Does Israel exert the most influence, the tail that wags the dog?
    “This is where I struggle with your sincerity, Incy. You prefer to subscribe to the discredited thesis put forward by Noam Chomsky that unqualified support for the Jewish state is…”
     
    Touched you worry about my sincerity. Please quote my agreement with Chomsky, or any support expressed for Israel. Feel free to comb the archive.

    “No, Incy, truth be told, Chomsky’s thesis has been superseded by that put forth by the two truth-telling professors, Mearsheimer and Walt…”
     
    One trick pony? Can’t explain lobbying expenditures, so you project a position onto me, then wave the M&W banner again. Is that all you’ve got?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    That’s ok, Incy. I’m sure I’ll catch it sooner or later.
     
    Looks like I may catch my tail, after all, Incy.

    Excerpt from Phil Weiss' The Russia influence story just crashed into the Israel influence story


    This is how the lobby works: It wants no daylight between the government of Israel and the U.S. government, so it cultivates American power; it doesn’t care in the end who is sitting in the Oval Office, it will work on him. The neocons left the Democratic Party in the ’70s over Israel. For the same reason they abandoned George H.W. Bush in the ’90s and switched to Bill Clinton after Bush took on Israel over the settlements. Bush blamed his loss in part on the Israel lobby. Then they switched to his son George W. Bush in 2000.

    Singer overcame his disgust for Trump and befriended him because of his devotion to Israel. And it’s already paid off for Singer. Trump is decertifying the Iran deal under his influence, and sounding more and more like a hawk.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/10/russia-influence-crashed/
     

    There's that "I" word again, influence. So as I've previously stated, Incy, no need to have your hands on the wheel of the bus when you've mapped out the itinerary before hand and laid out clear instructions to the American driver of the Zionist bus.

    P.S. I must say the two Phils are doing stellar work exposing the machinations of The Lobby. If only we had more Phils in this world!

    “This is how the lobby works: It wants no daylight between the government of Israel and the U.S. government, so it cultivates American power; it doesn’t care in the end who is sitting in the Oval Office, it will work on him.”

    That describes any and all lobbies, n’est-ce pas? That’s the nature of influence, the sales campaign. Israel vs US, or Canada and Mexico regarding NAFTA, etc. None dispute Israel has an influential lobby. You insist it has total control. How did the JPCOA get passed?

    Does Israel exert the most influence, the tail that wags the dog?

    Top lobbying sectors [2017]:

    Health: $413,776,411;
    Finance/Insurance/RE: $370,608,822;
    Miscellaneous Business: $353,610,091;
    Communications/Electronics: $297,340,365;
    Energy/Natural Resources:$230.298.293;
    Transportation: $178,157,786;
    Other: $152,663,472;
    Ideology/Single-Issue: $107,161,403;
    Agribusiness: $96,576,869;
    Defense: $93,937,493;
    Construction: $44,615,045;
    Labor: $33,772,171;
    Lawyers & Lobbyists: $14,593,898.

    Ideological/Single Issue lobbying includes Human Rights ($37+ million), Environment ($12+ million), Gun Rights ($7.8+ million), etc. Pro-Israel ranks sixth on the sector-list = $3,536,663.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=c&showYear=2017

    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=Q&year=2017

    Health lobbying ($413,776,411) is 117 times more Pro-Israel ($3,536,663). Health care spending accounts for ±18% of the GDP = $3.2+ trillion. The US has a ridiculously expensive, mediocre health care system. Want to guess who’s driving the bus?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Does Israel exert the most influence, the tail that wags the dog?
     
    This is where I struggle with your sincerity, Incy. You prefer to subscribe to the discredited thesis put forward by Noam Chomsky that unqualified support for the Jewish state is

    ... not because of the overweening power of the Israel lobby in the US, but because Israel is a strategic and commercial asset which underpins rather than undermines US domination of the Middle East.
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/07/noam-chomsky-us-foreign-policy

    No, Incy, truth be told, Chomsky's thesis has been superseded by that put forth by the two truth-telling professors, Mearsheimer and Walt:


    In a 2003 critique of Israel and the U.S.-Israeli relationship in the New York Review of Books, Judt touched on what Mearsheimer and Walt later laid out as their principal thesis. Judt wrote that Israel continued "to mock its American patron" by building illegal settlements even as the US was pushing the "Roadmap" peace plan calling for a freeze on settlement construction. Israel had reduced the powerful president of the United States, he said, to a "ventriloquist's dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line." Its behavior “has been a disaster for American foreign policy." The United States' unconditional support for Israel "is the main reason why most of the rest of the world no longer credits our good faith."
     
    I think this picture says it all:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8Y7rr5IUAAhvX8?format=jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62
    And in case the reader wasn't totally clear about the thrust of Phil's article, here's a comment made by Annie Robbins:

    we all know why these people (singer/free beacon) spend their money, to influence who is in power for the benefit of israel. the bigger the storm the more we’re supposed to forget the little tails wagging the big dog.
     
    Seems like I'm not the only one who can see the little tails, Incy.

    Don't you think it's time you changed your prescription?

    Antisemitism is a serious matter.

    Then why exacerbate it by falsely accusing people or their books of being antisemitic?

    Well, you have just about burned up this little pea-brain.

    It’s “distinguished professor,” “truth-telling scholar” and “courageous, speaking truth to power.” But it seems that this scholar can call an article anti-Semitic, not to mention wrong and offensive and everything is A-okay.

    an anti-Semitic column that accused American Jews of being responsible for most if not all of our country’s recent wars. For the record, I thought the original column she retweeted was both wrong and offensive

    Was courageous? Speaking truth to power? Calling someone else’s work anti-Semitic in order to strengthen his defense of his work as not anti-Semitic? That would not be very courageous.

    But if little iffen-iffen calls something anti-Semitic, it’s all hands on deck, full attack mode, get the SS on the phone.

    What’s could be the difference? Is it okay for some people to label something as anti-Semitic but others are not allowed to do that? Is it a question of motivation? If I have good motives, can I label articles as anti-Semitic like Professor Walt without the HH Hounds coming down on me.

    This little pea-brain sure could use some help from some big butterbean-brains to sort through the questions.

    This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine.
    This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine.
    This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine.
    Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.

    I won’t let anyone blow it out, I’m gonna let it shine.
    I won’t let anyone blow it out, I’m gonna let it shine.
    I won’t let anyone blow it out, I’m gonna let it shine.
    Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    That’s ok, Incy. I’m sure I’ll catch it sooner or later.
     
    Looks like I may catch my tail, after all, Incy.

    Excerpt from Phil Weiss' The Russia influence story just crashed into the Israel influence story


    This is how the lobby works: It wants no daylight between the government of Israel and the U.S. government, so it cultivates American power; it doesn’t care in the end who is sitting in the Oval Office, it will work on him. The neocons left the Democratic Party in the ’70s over Israel. For the same reason they abandoned George H.W. Bush in the ’90s and switched to Bill Clinton after Bush took on Israel over the settlements. Bush blamed his loss in part on the Israel lobby. Then they switched to his son George W. Bush in 2000.

    Singer overcame his disgust for Trump and befriended him because of his devotion to Israel. And it’s already paid off for Singer. Trump is decertifying the Iran deal under his influence, and sounding more and more like a hawk.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/10/russia-influence-crashed/
     

    There's that "I" word again, influence. So as I've previously stated, Incy, no need to have your hands on the wheel of the bus when you've mapped out the itinerary before hand and laid out clear instructions to the American driver of the Zionist bus.

    P.S. I must say the two Phils are doing stellar work exposing the machinations of The Lobby. If only we had more Phils in this world!

    And in case the reader wasn’t totally clear about the thrust of Phil’s article, here’s a comment made by Annie Robbins:

    we all know why these people (singer/free beacon) spend their money, to influence who is in power for the benefit of israel. the bigger the storm the more we’re supposed to forget the little tails wagging the big dog.

    Seems like I’m not the only one who can see the little tails, Incy.

    Don’t you think it’s time you changed your prescription?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    Antisemitism is a serious matter.
     
    Then why exacerbate it by falsely accusing people or their books of being antisemitic?

    Well, you have just about burned up this little pea-brain.

    It’s “distinguished professor,” “truth-telling scholar” and “courageous, speaking truth to power.” But it seems that this scholar can call an article anti-Semitic, not to mention wrong and offensive and everything is A-okay.


    an anti-Semitic column that accused American Jews of being responsible for most if not all of our country’s recent wars. For the record, I thought the original column she retweeted was both wrong and offensive
     
    Was courageous? Speaking truth to power? Calling someone else’s work anti-Semitic in order to strengthen his defense of his work as not anti-Semitic? That would not be very courageous.

    But if little iffen-iffen calls something anti-Semitic, it’s all hands on deck, full attack mode, get the SS on the phone.

    What’s could be the difference? Is it okay for some people to label something as anti-Semitic but others are not allowed to do that? Is it a question of motivation? If I have good motives, can I label articles as anti-Semitic like Professor Walt without the HH Hounds coming down on me.

    This little pea-brain sure could use some help from some big butterbean-brains to sort through the questions.


    This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.
    This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.
    This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.
    Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.

    I won't let anyone blow it out, I'm gonna let it shine.
    I won't let anyone blow it out, I'm gonna let it shine.
    I won't let anyone blow it out, I'm gonna let it shine.
    Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    How would they do that? Specifics please.
     
    No problem. Incy. They would simply declare they no longer believe in what the Zionist project has become, i.e., an apartheid state. They would also publicly state that The Lobby no longer speaks for them. They would do the good work Philip Weiss is doing with his MW website that shines a light on the misdeeds of the Jewish state and The Lobby.

    I think it was Peter Beinart who once said:

    For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.”
     

    What would you suggest they do to improve to the Israel-Palestinian relations? Specifics please.
     
    Put the special relationship on a more normal footing.

    Here’s what I suggested (6 Sep 2016 #264 to alexander):
     
    For any of that to happen, pressure has to brought to bear on the Israelis. And for that to happen, the WH and The Congress have to have the support of the public in placing significant demands on the Jewish state. If DJT does the bidding of The Lobby and takes out the last country on their list of 7 countries in 5 years, I believe that the night flower will no longer be able to hide in the dark. Even more people will be willing to talk openly about the 800lb gorilla.

    Is finding fault more important than finding a future?
     
    At this stage, it is indeed more important to correctly identify the problem. Only after having successfully completed that stage does it make sense to move on to the next stage, putting forward proposals to resolve it.

    With respect, Geo, the only tail I’ve seen is the one you’re chasing in circles.

     

    That's ok, Incy. I'm sure I'll catch it sooner or later.

    That’s ok, Incy. I’m sure I’ll catch it sooner or later.

    Looks like I may catch my tail, after all, Incy.

    Excerpt from Phil Weiss’ The Russia influence story just crashed into the Israel influence story

    This is how the lobby works: It wants no daylight between the government of Israel and the U.S. government, so it cultivates American power; it doesn’t care in the end who is sitting in the Oval Office, it will work on him. The neocons left the Democratic Party in the ’70s over Israel. For the same reason they abandoned George H.W. Bush in the ’90s and switched to Bill Clinton after Bush took on Israel over the settlements. Bush blamed his loss in part on the Israel lobby. Then they switched to his son George W. Bush in 2000.

    Singer overcame his disgust for Trump and befriended him because of his devotion to Israel. And it’s already paid off for Singer. Trump is decertifying the Iran deal under his influence, and sounding more and more like a hawk.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/10/russia-influence-crashed/

    There’s that “I” word again, influence. So as I’ve previously stated, Incy, no need to have your hands on the wheel of the bus when you’ve mapped out the itinerary before hand and laid out clear instructions to the American driver of the Zionist bus.

    P.S. I must say the two Phils are doing stellar work exposing the machinations of The Lobby. If only we had more Phils in this world!

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    And in case the reader wasn't totally clear about the thrust of Phil's article, here's a comment made by Annie Robbins:

    we all know why these people (singer/free beacon) spend their money, to influence who is in power for the benefit of israel. the bigger the storm the more we’re supposed to forget the little tails wagging the big dog.
     
    Seems like I'm not the only one who can see the little tails, Incy.

    Don't you think it's time you changed your prescription?
    , @Incitatus

    “This is how the lobby works: It wants no daylight between the government of Israel and the U.S. government, so it cultivates American power; it doesn’t care in the end who is sitting in the Oval Office, it will work on him.”
     
    That describes any and all lobbies, n’est-ce pas? That’s the nature of influence, the sales campaign. Israel vs US, or Canada and Mexico regarding NAFTA, etc. None dispute Israel has an influential lobby. You insist it has total control. How did the JPCOA get passed?

    Does Israel exert the most influence, the tail that wags the dog?

    Top lobbying sectors [2017]:

    Health: $413,776,411;
    Finance/Insurance/RE: $370,608,822;
    Miscellaneous Business: $353,610,091;
    Communications/Electronics: $297,340,365;
    Energy/Natural Resources:$230.298.293;
    Transportation: $178,157,786;
    Other: $152,663,472;
    Ideology/Single-Issue: $107,161,403;
    Agribusiness: $96,576,869;
    Defense: $93,937,493;
    Construction: $44,615,045;
    Labor: $33,772,171;
    Lawyers & Lobbyists: $14,593,898.

    Ideological/Single Issue lobbying includes Human Rights ($37+ million), Environment ($12+ million), Gun Rights ($7.8+ million), etc. Pro-Israel ranks sixth on the sector-list = $3,536,663.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=c&showYear=2017
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=Q&year=2017

    Health lobbying ($413,776,411) is 117 times more Pro-Israel ($3,536,663). Health care spending accounts for ±18% of the GDP = $3.2+ trillion. The US has a ridiculously expensive, mediocre health care system. Want to guess who’s driving the bus?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    We hope that the State of Israel does not exploit secrecy to cross criminal lines.
     
    Do you think the Mossad has ever crossed criminal lines, Incy?

    Since no one (except for people in the know) really knows what dastardly deeds the Mossad has carried out, the best one can do is simply speculate. If someone were to ask me which events I thought the Mossad may have had a (major or minor) hand in, here are the top 3 on my list:

    1. 9/11
    2. The 2003 anthrax attacks
    3. The Rafic Hariri assassination

    I'll leave it to other Unzers to turn this into a top 10 list.

    “Do you think the Mossad has ever crossed criminal lines…”

    Like the CIA, they’d probably say it’s illegal only if you get caught.

    Did Alan Dulles cross the line in ‘53 Iran? ‘54 Guatemala? ‘61 Bay of Pigs? Multiple Castro hit attempts? McCone in the ‘63 Diem murder? Casey in ‘85-87  Iran-Contra? Webster in ‘90-91 Gulf War I? Tenet in ‘03 Iraq? Libya? Syria? Ukraine?

    My belief? Targeted extrajudicial assassination is illegal. Involuntary régime change is illegal. No matter who does it.

    Mossad’s list? ‘97 poison attempt on Khaled Mashal. ‘04 Ahmed Yassin (and 11 others) assassination. Iranian scientists. Mistaken bloke(s) killed in Scandinavia. Probably many others. I’m no expert. Palestinians also routinely cross the line in their assassinations.

    “…the top 3 [suspected Mossad ops] on my list:
    1. 9/11
    2. The 2003 anthrax attacks
    3. The Rafic Hariri assassination”

    9/11: The Mossad likely knew what the CIA, Bush and Cheney knew. Domestic cells, immanent attack, probably DC and/or NY, airplane hijacking (6 Aug ‘01 PDB). Doubt either knew targets, dates or suicide planes (previous hijackings were ransom demands). Don’t believe it was an inside job, demo and the rest. Far exceeds the ability of the Bush administration (Katrina, Iraq ‘03) or Mossad (the Mashal poisoning farce). Once it happened, Israel made the most of it to engineer favorable ‘war on terror’ policy. Bush etc should have been tried for Criminal Negligence.

    ‘03 anthrax: doubt it.

    Hariri: possible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62
    I highly recommend all Unzers who are keen on understanding how The Lobby operates to view this video of Red Ice host Henrik Palmgren interviewing Prof. Kevin MacDonald.

    Enjoy!

    https://youtu.be/HyRw2vAKxdI

    If you enjoyed the Red Ice interview of Prof. Kevin MacDonald, you’re gonna Iove this interview with Swedish journalist, Ingrid Carlqvist. It’s called Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable

    Here’s the promo for the video:

    Ingrid [Carlqvist] returns to Red Ice to discuss her experience as a journalist telling unpopular truths in Sweden. To begin, she tells us about how she set out to understand why Sweden had become multicultural. Ingrid quickly realized that it is nearly impossible to discuss Jewish influence, as most people – even those critical of Islam – are unwilling to venture into such controversial waters. We then discuss Barbara Spectre, an influential American Jew in Sweden who has called for the end of European civilization through mass immigration from the third world. Later, we discuss Holocaust revisionism, and how Ingrid’s willingness to question – not deny – this historical event has affected her journalism career.

    For those who don’t have the time to watch the full video, I’ve reproduced what I think was the most pertinent exchange of the interview. It occurs at 46:23:

    Henrik Palmgren – … for the sake of really knowing this guilt cloud that’s held over us today, that as soon as we begin to organize as an ethnic group, but have interests… supposedly that always turns into some holocaust, right. So, we have to be able to question this, shouldn’t we?

    Ingrid Carlqvist – Of course, and that’s why I think… I mean many people tell me “why do you want to dig into the holocaust… it is so many years ago… it doesn’t matter today… just leave it alone. If there was something wrong about the story, just leave it alone… it doesn’t matter.” But I think it does matter, because everything we do today, if we, as you said, if we try to organize ourselves. If we say that “I’m Sweden, I’m proud to be a Swede, I love my country, Sweden is the country of the Swedes, and I want us to take our country back.” Then I will always hear, “Oh, so you want another holocaust? Is that what you want? You are a nazi. Everyone who is a patriot, a nationalist, is a nazi. And that leads to one thing: to gas the Jews.”

    So, that’s why I do think it’s important, even if it was so many years ago. It is important, because every time you try to say “I love my country,” then they always come “the holocaust.”

    I was so intrigued by this video that I decided to do a little more digging about the origins of Swedish multiculturalism and came across the following articles:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/09/23/the-origins-of-swedish-multiculturalism/

    https://redice.tv/news/how-and-why-sweden-became-multicultural

    The second link is a review of a very brief book, How Sweden Became Multicultural: The Hidden Agenda, The Process, The Lobbyists

    The review piqued my curiosity so much that I decided to buy the book. And much to my surprise, it was worth every penny.

    Here are some of the most revealing quotes from the Preface:

    [MORE]

    The purpose of this text is to educate the reader on the key events that caused Sweden to transform into a multicultural society, the people responsible for this development, and their motives. When I am talking about the transformation of Sweden into a multicultural country I am referring to a political decision in 1975, which proclaimed that Sweden was a multicultural country. The stated reasons for allowing large-scale immigration of foreign ethnic groups, and the consequences that followed, are not going to be the focus of this book. However, Sweden self-identifying as a multicultural country was undoubtedly an important factor.

    In some parts of the text I also claim that the implementation of multiculturalism is (and was) contrary to Swedish ethnic interests. As is made clear in this text it was predominantly individuals from certain ethnic minorities who lobbied for Sweden to become multicultural. These individuals had a strong ethnic identity and saw their interests threatened by a culturally homogenous Sweden. The implementation of multiculturalism was thus a way for these ethnic activists to advance their respective groups’ interests, which to some extent occurred at the expense of Swedish ethnic interests…

    Considering how frequently [Multiculturalism] is used to describe modern-day Sweden remarkably few people know how Sweden became multicultural. As recently as the mid-60s the term didn’t even exist, and the implementation of multiculturalism was hardly considered a government priority. In 1975, less than 30 years ago at the time of writing, this radically changed following a resolution in parliament which stated that Sweden was no longer a nation dominated by Swedish culture, but rather a culturally pluralist society where different minority cultures were going to be allowed to thrive.

    This decision was made very quickly. To make a long story short a series of newspaper debates that began in 1964 got the ball rolling. Some debaters demanded that minorities in the country should be allowed to maintain and promote their ethnic identity, while others advocated for minority assimilation. In conjunction with the newspaper debates certain minorities started to increase the pressure on politicians to get their ethnic interests met. The debates also made immigration and minority-related questions political questions, something that was unheard of previously.

    In 1967 the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) sent a bill, which originated in the Social-Democratic Culture Workers Association (KSF), to the government demanding that they change public policy related to immigration and minorities. This in turn led to the 1968 formation of the Immigrant Investigation (IU) that was tasked with investigating the status of minorities who had immigrated to Sweden. It was to a large degree inspired by those who argued for cultural pluralism in the aforementioned newspaper debates. In 1974 IU put forth a proposal based on the slogans “equality, freedom of choice, and co-operation”, which in practice meant that Sweden would pursue diversity instead of cultural homogeneity. This is precisely what happened in 1975 when the parliament unanimously passed proposal 1975: 26 based on IU’s final conclusion.

    To gain a better understanding of the fundamental change Swedish politics and society has undergone we must acquaint ourselves with the newspaper debates that began in 1964. It’s also important that we understand the man who was at the centre of the process that transformed Sweden. His name was David Schwarz*, the father of Swedish multiculturalism.

    * David Schwarz came from a Jewish family and was born in Poland in 1928. During the Second World War he was interned in four different concentration camps: Buchenwald, Nordhausen, Dora, and Bergen-Belsen. Like many other concentration camp interns he suffered from typhus and tuberculosis but Schwarz was luckier than many others and was placed in a sanatorium in Germany and later Italy where he resided until 1950. When the Italian sanatorium closed Schwarz was sent to Sweden where he was treated at various facilities until 1954.

    And here’s an excerpt (from the chapter on Ethnic Dimension) that delves into the origins of multiculturalism in other countries, especially Australia:

    The Jewish commitment to multiculturalism in Sweden is not a unique phenomenon. For example, in a comparative study of multiculturalism in the USA and Germany, Hornung notes that Jews were the leading elements behind the implementation of multiculturalism in both countries and he mentions Horace Kallen and Daniel Cohn-Bendit as the ideological fathers of multiculturalism. Kevin MacDonald has written extensively about the overwhelming and crucial Jewish involvement in the USA’s political transition to multiculturalism.

    In his exhaustive study of how Australia became multicultural in 1978 Lopez identifies Walter Lippmann, leader for the Jewish congregation in Melbourne, as the most influential actor. As early as 1960 Isi Leibler, who for several decades was the leader of Australia’s Jewish congregation and later vice-chairman of the World Jewish Congress, expressed how important it was for Jewish interests that Australia became multicultural in his yearly report to the Jewish congregations board:

    I believe it is essential for Jews to join with other groups in Australia in promoting the philosophy of a pluralistic society which unlike totaIitarianist regimes implies unity in a common end without uniformity in culture, religion, or communal organisation… The Jewish community must be at the forefront and willing to co-operate with elements from left and right who are dedicated to the concept of an open society without which pluralism and a full Jewish life is impossible.

    Leibler is simultaneously a vocal opponent to the implementation of multiculturalism in Israel.

    This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews.

    This approach underlines how advocacy in favour of multiculturalism in states where Jews are a minority is motivated by a specific ethnically Jewish interest…

    Furthermore, the first politician who brought up multiculturalism as a political issue in Australia was the Jew Malcolm Fraser during his time as the opposition’s spokesperson on Immigration. It was also Fraser who in 1978, during his time as Australia’s Prime Minister, officially declared that the country was multicultural.

    Who knew?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @RobinG
    The [Mossad] fake laptops to implicate Iranian nuclear program.

    [See "Manufactured Crisis" by Gareth Porter.]

    [See "Manufactured Crisis" by Gareth Porter.]

    And I highly recommend viewing Iran and STUXnet, Iran is HACKED

    My favourite quote comes from an undercover agent who states at 1:36:18:

    I would never compromise ongoing operations in the field, but we should be able to talk about capability. We can talk about our bunker busters, why not our cyber weapons? I mean the secrecy of the operation has been blown.

    Our friends in Israel took a weapon that we jointly developed, in part to keep Israel from doing something crazy and then used it on their own in a way that blew the cover of the operation and could have led to war… and we can’t talk about that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @RobinG
    The [Mossad] fake laptops to implicate Iranian nuclear program.

    [See "Manufactured Crisis" by Gareth Porter.]

    He asked for dastardly deeds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    We hope that the State of Israel does not exploit secrecy to cross criminal lines.
     
    Do you think the Mossad has ever crossed criminal lines, Incy?

    Since no one (except for people in the know) really knows what dastardly deeds the Mossad has carried out, the best one can do is simply speculate. If someone were to ask me which events I thought the Mossad may have had a (major or minor) hand in, here are the top 3 on my list:

    1. 9/11
    2. The 2003 anthrax attacks
    3. The Rafic Hariri assassination

    I'll leave it to other Unzers to turn this into a top 10 list.

    The [Mossad] fake laptops to implicate Iranian nuclear program.

    [See "Manufactured Crisis" by Gareth Porter.]

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    He asked for dastardly deeds.
    , @geokat62

    [See "Manufactured Crisis" by Gareth Porter.]
     
    And I highly recommend viewing Iran and STUXnet, Iran is HACKED

    https://youtu.be/TGGxqjpka-U

    My favourite quote comes from an undercover agent who states at 1:36:18:

    I would never compromise ongoing operations in the field, but we should be able to talk about capability. We can talk about our bunker busters, why not our cyber weapons? I mean the secrecy of the operation has been blown.

    Our friends in Israel took a weapon that we jointly developed, in part to keep Israel from doing something crazy and then used it on their own in a way that blew the cover of the operation and could have led to war... and we can't talk about that?
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Iran nuclear scientists

    He asked for dastardly deeds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    We hope that the State of Israel does not exploit secrecy to cross criminal lines.
     
    Do you think the Mossad has ever crossed criminal lines, Incy?

    Since no one (except for people in the know) really knows what dastardly deeds the Mossad has carried out, the best one can do is simply speculate. If someone were to ask me which events I thought the Mossad may have had a (major or minor) hand in, here are the top 3 on my list:

    1. 9/11
    2. The 2003 anthrax attacks
    3. The Rafic Hariri assassination

    I'll leave it to other Unzers to turn this into a top 10 list.

    Iran nuclear scientists

    Read More
    • Agree: geokat62
    • Replies: @iffen
    He asked for dastardly deeds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    “He [Moore] had many reluctant supporters...One of two choices: him or Big Luther...”
     
    Hobson’s choice. HRC vs DJT. Beets vs cauliflower.

    “Some Evangelicals question his style.”
     
    Question Moral Law? Get the stake ready.

    Times have changed.

    “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention...all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state...during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” [308]

    “The church cannot share the temporal power of the state without being the object of a portion of that animosity which the latter excites.” [310]

    “...in forming an alliance with a political power, religion augments its authority over a few and forfeits the hope of reigning over all.” [310]

    -Alexis de Tocqueville, ‘Democracy in America’ 1832
     
    Doug Jones any better?

    Beets vs cauliflower.

    More like; poop pudding or s*** sandwich…

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    “Moore as a senator would be a constant embarrassment to the GOP”
     
    Now that’s an interesting contest. Who’s more embarrassing? Roy ‘Moral Law’ Moore vs Donald ‘Tic-Tac’ Trump. World Wrestling Entertainment could host it.

    “To do my duty, I must obey God” vs. “When you’re a star they let you do it.”

    Opening round POTUS: “You know, people don’t understand: I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person...[I have] one of the great memories of all time.” Roy has his work cut out for him.

    Kristol’s worried about GOP embarrassment? That ship sailed long ago.

    BDS news:

    “About two years ago, the security cabinet made the Strategic Affairs Ministry responsible for coordinating the fight against “delegitimization” and earmarked major resources for these efforts...money has been given to Jewish organizations overseas for public relations work on campuses and elsewhere...[the ministry] is involved in “gathering intelligence and attacking.””

    “...secrecy surrounding the [legal] contracts raises the suspicion that the work involves not only writing legal opinions but also preparing lawsuits against BDS supporters, as Israel does not want to be revealed as supporting such actions, to avoid the perception that it is interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.”

    "There is the danger of a slippery slope in the secrecy shrouding Israeli anti-BDS activity in the world," Mack told Haaretz. "It is deeply worrying that the military terminology used by senior officials in the Strategic Affairs Ministry is being used in the fight against civilians abroad who criticize the State of Israel."

    "Just like it's difficult for Israel's to sell the occupation, the regime in South Africa had trouble selling Apartheid, '' he says. "Pretoria launched a secret operation of disinformation and persecution of anti-apartheid activists whose exposure led to the dismissal of the prime minister and the opening of a criminal investigation and civil proceedings In the U.S. We hope that the State of Israel does not exploit secrecy to cross criminal lines."

    -Ha’aretz, Chaim Levinson & Barak Ravid, ‘Israel Secretly Using U.S. Law Firm to Fight BDS Activists in Europe, North America’ 26 Oct 2017
    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.818938
     
    As usual, Israel prints stories the US won’t.

    We hope that the State of Israel does not exploit secrecy to cross criminal lines.

    Do you think the Mossad has ever crossed criminal lines, Incy?

    Since no one (except for people in the know) really knows what dastardly deeds the Mossad has carried out, the best one can do is simply speculate. If someone were to ask me which events I thought the Mossad may have had a (major or minor) hand in, here are the top 3 on my list:

    1. 9/11
    2. The 2003 anthrax attacks
    3. The Rafic Hariri assassination

    I’ll leave it to other Unzers to turn this into a top 10 list.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Iran nuclear scientists
    , @RobinG
    The [Mossad] fake laptops to implicate Iranian nuclear program.

    [See "Manufactured Crisis" by Gareth Porter.]
    , @Incitatus

    “Do you think the Mossad has ever crossed criminal lines...”
     
    Like the CIA, they’d probably say it’s illegal only if you get caught.

    Did Alan Dulles cross the line in ‘53 Iran? ‘54 Guatemala? ‘61 Bay of Pigs? Multiple Castro hit attempts? McCone in the ‘63 Diem murder? Casey in ‘85-87  Iran-Contra? Webster in ‘90-91 Gulf War I? Tenet in ‘03 Iraq? Libya? Syria? Ukraine?

    My belief? Targeted extrajudicial assassination is illegal. Involuntary régime change is illegal. No matter who does it.

    Mossad’s list? ‘97 poison attempt on Khaled Mashal. ‘04 Ahmed Yassin (and 11 others) assassination. Iranian scientists. Mistaken bloke(s) killed in Scandinavia. Probably many others. I’m no expert. Palestinians also routinely cross the line in their assassinations.

    “...the top 3 [suspected Mossad ops] on my list:
    1. 9/11
    2. The 2003 anthrax attacks
    3. The Rafic Hariri assassination”
     
    9/11: The Mossad likely knew what the CIA, Bush and Cheney knew. Domestic cells, immanent attack, probably DC and/or NY, airplane hijacking (6 Aug ‘01 PDB). Doubt either knew targets, dates or suicide planes (previous hijackings were ransom demands). Don’t believe it was an inside job, demo and the rest. Far exceeds the ability of the Bush administration (Katrina, Iraq ‘03) or Mossad (the Mashal poisoning farce). Once it happened, Israel made the most of it to engineer favorable ‘war on terror’ policy. Bush etc should have been tried for Criminal Negligence.

    ‘03 anthrax: doubt it.

    Hariri: possible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    Doug Jones any better?
     
    Need I say anything more?

    Editor at large of the Weekly Standard and #NeverTrump warrior Bill Kristol challenged Republicans via Twitter on Wednesday:

    1. Doug Jones would be a better U.S. senator than Roy Moore.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/10/20/how-do-you-argue-for-roy-moore/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.b4e72135904c
     

    “Moore as a senator would be a constant embarrassment to the GOP”

    Now that’s an interesting contest. Who’s more embarrassing? Roy ‘Moral Law’ Moore vs Donald ‘Tic-Tac’ Trump. World Wrestling Entertainment could host it.

    “To do my duty, I must obey God” vs. “When you’re a star they let you do it.”

    Opening round POTUS: “You know, people don’t understand: I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person…[I have] one of the great memories of all time.” Roy has his work cut out for him.

    Kristol’s worried about GOP embarrassment? That ship sailed long ago.

    BDS news:

    “About two years ago, the security cabinet made the Strategic Affairs Ministry responsible for coordinating the fight against “delegitimization” and earmarked major resources for these efforts…money has been given to Jewish organizations overseas for public relations work on campuses and elsewhere…[the ministry] is involved in “gathering intelligence and attacking.””

    “…secrecy surrounding the [legal] contracts raises the suspicion that the work involves not only writing legal opinions but also preparing lawsuits against BDS supporters, as Israel does not want to be revealed as supporting such actions, to avoid the perception that it is interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.”

    “There is the danger of a slippery slope in the secrecy shrouding Israeli anti-BDS activity in the world,” Mack told Haaretz. “It is deeply worrying that the military terminology used by senior officials in the Strategic Affairs Ministry is being used in the fight against civilians abroad who criticize the State of Israel.”

    “Just like it’s difficult for Israel’s to sell the occupation, the regime in South Africa had trouble selling Apartheid, ” he says. “Pretoria launched a secret operation of disinformation and persecution of anti-apartheid activists whose exposure led to the dismissal of the prime minister and the opening of a criminal investigation and civil proceedings In the U.S. We hope that the State of Israel does not exploit secrecy to cross criminal lines.”

    -Ha’aretz, Chaim Levinson & Barak Ravid, ‘Israel Secretly Using U.S. Law Firm to Fight BDS Activists in Europe, North America’ 26 Oct 2017
    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.818938

    As usual, Israel prints stories the US won’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    We hope that the State of Israel does not exploit secrecy to cross criminal lines.
     
    Do you think the Mossad has ever crossed criminal lines, Incy?

    Since no one (except for people in the know) really knows what dastardly deeds the Mossad has carried out, the best one can do is simply speculate. If someone were to ask me which events I thought the Mossad may have had a (major or minor) hand in, here are the top 3 on my list:

    1. 9/11
    2. The 2003 anthrax attacks
    3. The Rafic Hariri assassination

    I'll leave it to other Unzers to turn this into a top 10 list.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    “He [Moore] had many reluctant supporters...One of two choices: him or Big Luther...”
     
    Hobson’s choice. HRC vs DJT. Beets vs cauliflower.

    “Some Evangelicals question his style.”
     
    Question Moral Law? Get the stake ready.

    Times have changed.

    “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention...all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state...during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” [308]

    “The church cannot share the temporal power of the state without being the object of a portion of that animosity which the latter excites.” [310]

    “...in forming an alliance with a political power, religion augments its authority over a few and forfeits the hope of reigning over all.” [310]

    -Alexis de Tocqueville, ‘Democracy in America’ 1832
     
    Doug Jones any better?

    Doug Jones any better?

    Need I say anything more?

    Editor at large of the Weekly Standard and #NeverTrump warrior Bill Kristol challenged Republicans via Twitter on Wednesday:

    1. Doug Jones would be a better U.S. senator than Roy Moore.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/10/20/how-do-you-argue-for-roy-moore/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.b4e72135904c

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “Moore as a senator would be a constant embarrassment to the GOP”
     
    Now that’s an interesting contest. Who’s more embarrassing? Roy ‘Moral Law’ Moore vs Donald ‘Tic-Tac’ Trump. World Wrestling Entertainment could host it.

    “To do my duty, I must obey God” vs. “When you’re a star they let you do it.”

    Opening round POTUS: “You know, people don’t understand: I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person...[I have] one of the great memories of all time.” Roy has his work cut out for him.

    Kristol’s worried about GOP embarrassment? That ship sailed long ago.

    BDS news:

    “About two years ago, the security cabinet made the Strategic Affairs Ministry responsible for coordinating the fight against “delegitimization” and earmarked major resources for these efforts...money has been given to Jewish organizations overseas for public relations work on campuses and elsewhere...[the ministry] is involved in “gathering intelligence and attacking.””

    “...secrecy surrounding the [legal] contracts raises the suspicion that the work involves not only writing legal opinions but also preparing lawsuits against BDS supporters, as Israel does not want to be revealed as supporting such actions, to avoid the perception that it is interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.”

    "There is the danger of a slippery slope in the secrecy shrouding Israeli anti-BDS activity in the world," Mack told Haaretz. "It is deeply worrying that the military terminology used by senior officials in the Strategic Affairs Ministry is being used in the fight against civilians abroad who criticize the State of Israel."

    "Just like it's difficult for Israel's to sell the occupation, the regime in South Africa had trouble selling Apartheid, '' he says. "Pretoria launched a secret operation of disinformation and persecution of anti-apartheid activists whose exposure led to the dismissal of the prime minister and the opening of a criminal investigation and civil proceedings In the U.S. We hope that the State of Israel does not exploit secrecy to cross criminal lines."

    -Ha’aretz, Chaim Levinson & Barak Ravid, ‘Israel Secretly Using U.S. Law Firm to Fight BDS Activists in Europe, North America’ 26 Oct 2017
    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.818938
     
    As usual, Israel prints stories the US won’t.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    Nothing can be done with the questions about Moore. He had many reluctant supporters among the base here in Alabama. Some Evangelicals question his style.

    One of two choices: him or Big Luther, who was a poster child for opportunistic cucks.

    It's time to choose sides, it won't matter if we wait too long.

    “He [Moore] had many reluctant supporters…One of two choices: him or Big Luther…”

    Hobson’s choice. HRC vs DJT. Beets vs cauliflower.

    “Some Evangelicals question his style.”

    Question Moral Law? Get the stake ready.

    Times have changed.

    “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention…all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state…during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” [308]

    “The church cannot share the temporal power of the state without being the object of a portion of that animosity which the latter excites.” [310]

    “…in forming an alliance with a political power, religion augments its authority over a few and forfeits the hope of reigning over all.” [310]

    -Alexis de Tocqueville, ‘Democracy in America’ 1832

    Doug Jones any better?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Doug Jones any better?
     
    Need I say anything more?

    Editor at large of the Weekly Standard and #NeverTrump warrior Bill Kristol challenged Republicans via Twitter on Wednesday:

    1. Doug Jones would be a better U.S. senator than Roy Moore.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/10/20/how-do-you-argue-for-roy-moore/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.b4e72135904c
     
    , @Talha

    Beets vs cauliflower.
     
    More like; poop pudding or s*** sandwich...

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Nothing can be done with the questions about Moore. He had many reluctant supporters among the base here in Alabama. Some Evangelicals question his style.

    One of two choices: him or Big Luther, who was a poster child for opportunistic cucks.

    It’s time to choose sides, it won’t matter if we wait too long.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “He [Moore] had many reluctant supporters...One of two choices: him or Big Luther...”
     
    Hobson’s choice. HRC vs DJT. Beets vs cauliflower.

    “Some Evangelicals question his style.”
     
    Question Moral Law? Get the stake ready.

    Times have changed.

    “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention...all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state...during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” [308]

    “The church cannot share the temporal power of the state without being the object of a portion of that animosity which the latter excites.” [310]

    “...in forming an alliance with a political power, religion augments its authority over a few and forfeits the hope of reigning over all.” [310]

    -Alexis de Tocqueville, ‘Democracy in America’ 1832
     
    Doug Jones any better?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Hey Incitatus,

    Here’s what I suggested (6 Sep 2016 #264 to alexander)
     
    I like the suggestions you gave, fairly solid. It's a great starting point for negotiations and resolutions. I can see you've put a lot of thought into it, you came up with some things that weren't even on my radar.

    As to your comments on the Israel and US relationship. I'd say they are fairly accurate, but slightly dated. For sure Israel seemed to just fit in nicely into the grand top-dog imperial/capitalist hegemon scheme for the longest time. This was the time of Reagan, Bush, etc. seasoned conservatives like James Baker, Haig, Schultz, etc. But the relationship evolved. Israel knew its place in the grand scheme of things and seemed to be fairly content and the old-guard conservatives knew not to let it get too uppity and also knew where interests diverged.

    I believe we are at a new paradigm. There is no way an Israeli PM from the past could have given a speech deriding Reagan or Bush from the podium at the House and gotten standing ovations. Furthermore, it seems more and more that we seem to be getting a lot less gain from anything we do in the ME, but the only ones that do seem to be gaining are Israel (and Saudi at a distant second). Even after disastrous policies, the Neocons are still firmly in place and they are all (whether Jewish or not) firmly in Israel's corner.

    Peter Beinart (who is a progressive Jewish critic of Israel and her influence on US politics) nailed it fairly well:
    "The American Jewish establishment’s dominance of the Israel debate in Washington has never been more complete. In fact, it has reached the point of parody. As his top Israel advisers, Donald Trump has appointed three men — Jared Kushner (his son-in-law) and Jonathan Greenblatt and David Friedman (his former lawyers) — whose only qualifications are their Jewishness and their relationships to him. None has any relevant governmental experience or academic expertise.
    To grasp the absurdity of their appointments, imagine that Malia Obama had married a Palestinian-American Muslim and become a devout Muslim herself. Then imagine that her father had named his Palestinian Muslim son-in-law — who lacked any qualification other than his ethnic and religious background — to oversee the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Then imagine that President Obama had named two other unqualified Palestinian-American Muslims, who had worked with him in Chicago, to round out his Middle East team."
    http://forward.com/opinion/israel/382570/what-ta-nehisi-coates-tells-us-about-jared-kushner-israel-and-the-power-of/

    It is when you "swap hats" in the hypothetical that Beinart does that you realize how absolutely crazy this is.

    Peace.

    Hi Talha,

    “I’d say they [your comments] are fairly accurate, but slightly dated.”

    Thanks for the kind words. Afraid my visage is no less dated.

    “There is no way an Israeli PM from the past could have given a speech deriding Reagan or Bush from the podium at the House and gotten standing ovations.”

    Agree. It was shameful pandering, as stupid and embarrassing as DJT’s BHO Birtherism. Interesting James Baker was a deal breaker for Adelson’s support of Jeb Bush.

    “…the relationship evolved”

    A (the?) big change came in early 2001:

    “We’re going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict. We’re going to tilt back towards Israel. And we’re going to be consistent. I’m not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon. Just saw him one time [Dec 1998]. We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real bad down there. I don’t see much we can do over there at this point. I think it’s time to pull out of that situation….Maybe that’s the best way to get things back in balance. Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things.”
    -George W. Bush, First NSC Principles Meeting, 30 January 2001 (emphasis added)

    GWB reversed fifty years of American policy, abandoned any pretense of a peace process. The rest of the meeting discussed Saddam and loosening sanctions.

    “…it seems more and more that we seem to be getting a lot less gain from anything we do in the ME, but the only ones that do seem to be gaining are Israel (and Saudi at a distant second).”

    Agree again, but I’d say it’s Likud that’s gaining. Contrary spirits in Israel are increasingly powerless. Israel and KSA seem to have a blossoming love affair. Each probably counts on swatting the other when the time is right. Scorpions in a bottle. The war in Yemen is a disgrace, KSA’s Lebanon. We share a lot of blame.

    “To grasp the absurdity of their [Kushner, Greenblatt, Friedman] appointments…”

    Most recently Friedman’s claim Israel occupies 2% of the West Bank. Prince Jared the Peacemaker? Doubt Israelis can keep a straight face. Wonder if DJT owes Kushner senior money. Beinart doesn’t mention DJT’s ludicrous conflicts of interest. They make Nero look like a choirboy.

    Can’t help thinking Vonnegut would have loved the whole mess.

    Best.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    Roy forgot to report $498,000 income from his charity

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/10/20/roy-moore-campaign-calls-washington-post-retract-tax-story-fire-reporters-cooked-fake-news/

    Anyway cuck season is open.

    Corker is conked, Flake is flipped.

    We want Ben! We want Ben!

    “Judge Moore is an honorable man who has served the public according to the highest of ethical standards and in accordance with the law…”

    Moral Law, that is. Roy alone can explain it. Pay no attention to the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. Little wonder he’s called the “Ayatollah of Alabama”.

    No doubt Hobby Lobby will give him a lifetime pass to the new Museum of the Bible. Maybe he’ll star in a living exhibit with his ten commandments monument! After all, the Museum also knows a lot about Moral Law:

    ‘Hobby Lobby Agrees to Forfeit 5,500 Artifacts Smuggled Out of Iraq’

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/nyregion/hobby-lobby-artifacts-smuggle-iraq.html

    “We want Ben! We want Ben!”

    How about Jim Webb? I know. It’ll never happen.

    Finally, First Place in the Bad Taste Category goes to:

    ‘Anne Frank costume pulled after social media backlash’

    http://nypost.com/2017/10/17/anne-frank-costume-pulled-after-social-media-backlash/

    I had my heart set on one (size large)!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sasse

    But we have to wait until 2020.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    If I was conspiracy minded like some here, I would say that the Jews bribed and manipulated the Arab countries into attacking them in 1948. It has been a piece of cake since then.

    Chipping off little pieces of the WB seems to point to the end of their luck.

    Hey iffen,

    I wouldn’t go that far, but there were definitely Zionist plots to make life difficult for Jews in their homelands. False-flag attacks and such. They were really frustrated that many Jews in the ME simply weren’t interested in their grand schemes so they had to “push” things in their direction.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    Roy forgot to report $498,000 income from his charity

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/10/20/roy-moore-campaign-calls-washington-post-retract-tax-story-fire-reporters-cooked-fake-news/

    Anyway cuck season is open.

    Corker is conked, Flake is flipped.

    We want Ben! We want Ben!

    Ben who?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    American Jews have a real problem vis-à-vis Israel’s domestic and foreign policies and what that entails for Jewish identity.
     
    This is correct, this is the major problem as I see it. Even Jewish people that want reasonable policies and just want to support Israel as the only visible nation with a Jewish character are getting railroaded into supporting practically everything The Lobby and the Neocons are pushing for since they are firmly in charge and there seem to be fairly few alternatives. Though I think Geo is right, many young Jews are going to support Israel less and less due to the cognitive dissonance it causes for them.

    I can appreciate that Jewish people have a natural affinity to Israel just like I can appreciate that a Roman Catholic has an affinity to the Vatican. But pushing for myopic policies that are causing horrific bloodshed around the world is not acceptable.

    They could have a choice among the good, the bad or the ugly.
     
    This was where many parts of the Muslim world goofed. It was caught up in secular Arab ethno-nationalism (flip side of secular Jewish ethno-nationalism) and so ended up isolating a lot of its historical Jewish populations (which were quite sizable - As I mentioned before, 1/3 of Baghdad was Jewish) and helping them into the arms of Zionists (which was exactly their narrative; "This is your only home."). As I said in post #251; Had they not done this, a counter-narrative would easily exist; Israel could claim to be the homeland of all Jews and the Jews of the wider Middle East would simply have laughed and said, “piss off”. If you have the time, watch the documentary on post #261 - well worth the time.

    Peace.

    If I was conspiracy minded like some here, I would say that the Jews bribed and manipulated the Arab countries into attacking them in 1948. It has been a piece of cake since then.

    Chipping off little pieces of the WB seems to point to the end of their luck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    I wouldn't go that far, but there were definitely Zionist plots to make life difficult for Jews in their homelands. False-flag attacks and such. They were really frustrated that many Jews in the ME simply weren't interested in their grand schemes so they had to "push" things in their direction.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    Also you have an advantage that American Jews do not have. You can reject KSA and the ISIS caliphate and point to "good" Muslim states like Morocco, but the Jews are stuck with Israel.

    Maybe instead of concentrating on a two-state solution, we should look at a three or four state solution. If we had more Jewish states, American Jews wouldn't be locked in to supporting Israel. They could have a choice among the good, the bad or the ugly. :)

    Hey iffen,

    American Jews have a real problem vis-à-vis Israel’s domestic and foreign policies and what that entails for Jewish identity.

    This is correct, this is the major problem as I see it. Even Jewish people that want reasonable policies and just want to support Israel as the only visible nation with a Jewish character are getting railroaded into supporting practically everything The Lobby and the Neocons are pushing for since they are firmly in charge and there seem to be fairly few alternatives. Though I think Geo is right, many young Jews are going to support Israel less and less due to the cognitive dissonance it causes for them.

    I can appreciate that Jewish people have a natural affinity to Israel just like I can appreciate that a Roman Catholic has an affinity to the Vatican. But pushing for myopic policies that are causing horrific bloodshed around the world is not acceptable.

    They could have a choice among the good, the bad or the ugly.

    This was where many parts of the Muslim world goofed. It was caught up in secular Arab ethno-nationalism (flip side of secular Jewish ethno-nationalism) and so ended up isolating a lot of its historical Jewish populations (which were quite sizable – As I mentioned before, 1/3 of Baghdad was Jewish) and helping them into the arms of Zionists (which was exactly their narrative; “This is your only home.”). As I said in post #251; Had they not done this, a counter-narrative would easily exist; Israel could claim to be the homeland of all Jews and the Jews of the wider Middle East would simply have laughed and said, “piss off”. If you have the time, watch the documentary on post #261 – well worth the time.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    If I was conspiracy minded like some here, I would say that the Jews bribed and manipulated the Arab countries into attacking them in 1948. It has been a piece of cake since then.

    Chipping off little pieces of the WB seems to point to the end of their luck.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    “They [ethical Jews] would simply declare they no longer believe in what the Zionist project has become, i.e., an apartheid state. They would also publicly state that The Lobby no longer speaks for them.”
     
    Imagine it’d be easier if they had a hopeful alternate for Israel’s future. Not easy, since Chicken Little Likud (like the GOP) zealously cries ‘the sky is falling’ to exact unquestioning conformity. Netanyahu’s ‘Arabs flooding the polls’, or ‘Iran-the-terminator’ spiel is pretty effective. Demagoguery never goes out of style.

    A viable future will take Mandela-like Palestinian leadership. Existing figures seem as corrupt as Bibi.

    “If DJT does the bidding of The Lobby and takes out the last country on their list of 7 countries in 5 years, I believe that the night flower will no longer be able to hide in the dark.”
     
    Nicely put. Wouldn’t put it past DJT (or HRC), with cheerleaders like Cotton and Royce. Iran would then likely nail KSA oil fields. Hopefully DJT’s full of hot air, like most real-estate developer - casino owners.

    “If the damage caused by a non-restrictionist immigration policy can be mitigated, if not undone, what it looked like in a pre-Lobby world.”
     
    Unrestricted, illegal immigration is the staple of many lobbies. From the US Chamber of Commerce to Silicon Valley celebrities. DJT’s ‘wall’ is pure theater for his base. An opportunity for his cronies to make big bucks.

    Cheap illegal labor risking deportment - indentured servitude - is addictive. No wall will stop it: 40% fly in. Mandatory E-Verify, with huge fines or deportation for employers, is an easy, free fix. The DNC and GOP avoid it.

    Looks like Cotton may soon have company, if kingmaker Bannon’s successful.

    “...We must remember that Israel is the United States' most important ally and partner in the Middle East and should reject agreements or policies that undermine Israel's security. We should pass the Taylor Force Act and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.”
    -Judge Roy Moore https://www.roymoore.org/Positions/
     
    But there’s trouble in paradise. Roy forgot to report $498,000 income from his charity - the Foundation for Moral Law. No doubt he was too busy policing restrooms and peering into bedrooms. What makes his foundation worth a tax-exemption?

    “The Foundation for Moral Law advocates Moore's Christian right and socially conservative views through the filing of amicus briefs in courts. The group is anti-abortion, opposed to same-sex marriage and supportive of public prayer...From 2005 through 2013, Roy Moore and his family drew $1,030,875 from the Foundation for Moral Law”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Moral_Law

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/charitys-promised-back-pay-to-roy-moore-was-not-reported-to-irs-as-income/2017/10/19/fa31ab9c-b042-11e7-99c6-46bdf7f6f8ba_story.html?utm_term=.22695788f0ff
     
    Moral Law pays pretty well.

    Roy forgot to report $498,000 income from his charity

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/10/20/roy-moore-campaign-calls-washington-post-retract-tax-story-fire-reporters-cooked-fake-news/

    Anyway cuck season is open.

    Corker is conked, Flake is flipped.

    We want Ben! We want Ben!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Ben who?
    , @Incitatus

    “Judge Moore is an honorable man who has served the public according to the highest of ethical standards and in accordance with the law...”
     
    Moral Law, that is. Roy alone can explain it. Pay no attention to the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. Little wonder he’s called the “Ayatollah of Alabama”.

    No doubt Hobby Lobby will give him a lifetime pass to the new Museum of the Bible. Maybe he’ll star in a living exhibit with his ten commandments monument! After all, the Museum also knows a lot about Moral Law:

    ‘Hobby Lobby Agrees to Forfeit 5,500 Artifacts Smuggled Out of Iraq’
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/nyregion/hobby-lobby-artifacts-smuggle-iraq.html


    “We want Ben! We want Ben!”
     
    How about Jim Webb? I know. It’ll never happen.

    Finally, First Place in the Bad Taste Category goes to:

    ‘Anne Frank costume pulled after social media backlash’
    http://nypost.com/2017/10/17/anne-frank-costume-pulled-after-social-media-backlash/

    I had my heart set on one (size large)!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    “Why am I not surprised? My sense is that it probably has something to do with your eyewear. Something tells me your spectacles are designed to see only monkeys, but not 800 lb gorillas… just sayin’”
     
    On the other hand, it might have something to do with Arab ME business/travel 1973-90s and living in KSA 90s. Just sayin’

    “As I’ve repeatedly indicated, it is my strong belief that ethical members of the Jewish community itself will be the ones that defeat The Lobby.”
     
    How would they do that? Specifics please.

    “[ethical Jews know] there is something fundamentally wrong in being a PEP (progressive except Palestine)”
     
    What would you suggest they do to improve to the Israel-Palestinian relations? Specifics please.

    Here’s what I suggested (6 Sep 2016 #264 to alexander):
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-obstacle-to-peace/#comment-1558317

    Look forward to your critique.

    You seem in need of loyal confederates for a necktie party. No other opinion is welcome. No plans other than to “defeat The Lobby.” Or, to be more exact, to have someone else “defeat the lobby” by unknown means. No constructive suggestions for Israel-Palestine. Is finding fault more important than finding a future?

    “...the tail is indeed wagging the dog?”

     

    With respect, Geo, the only tail I’ve seen is the one you’re chasing in circles.

    Hey Incitatus,

    Here’s what I suggested (6 Sep 2016 #264 to alexander)

    I like the suggestions you gave, fairly solid. It’s a great starting point for negotiations and resolutions. I can see you’ve put a lot of thought into it, you came up with some things that weren’t even on my radar.

    As to your comments on the Israel and US relationship. I’d say they are fairly accurate, but slightly dated. For sure Israel seemed to just fit in nicely into the grand top-dog imperial/capitalist hegemon scheme for the longest time. This was the time of Reagan, Bush, etc. seasoned conservatives like James Baker, Haig, Schultz, etc. But the relationship evolved. Israel knew its place in the grand scheme of things and seemed to be fairly content and the old-guard conservatives knew not to let it get too uppity and also knew where interests diverged.

    I believe we are at a new paradigm. There is no way an Israeli PM from the past could have given a speech deriding Reagan or Bush from the podium at the House and gotten standing ovations. Furthermore, it seems more and more that we seem to be getting a lot less gain from anything we do in the ME, but the only ones that do seem to be gaining are Israel (and Saudi at a distant second). Even after disastrous policies, the Neocons are still firmly in place and they are all (whether Jewish or not) firmly in Israel’s corner.

    Peter Beinart (who is a progressive Jewish critic of Israel and her influence on US politics) nailed it fairly well:
    “The American Jewish establishment’s dominance of the Israel debate in Washington has never been more complete. In fact, it has reached the point of parody. As his top Israel advisers, Donald Trump has appointed three men — Jared Kushner (his son-in-law) and Jonathan Greenblatt and David Friedman (his former lawyers) — whose only qualifications are their Jewishness and their relationships to him. None has any relevant governmental experience or academic expertise.
    To grasp the absurdity of their appointments, imagine that Malia Obama had married a Palestinian-American Muslim and become a devout Muslim herself. Then imagine that her father had named his Palestinian Muslim son-in-law — who lacked any qualification other than his ethnic and religious background — to oversee the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Then imagine that President Obama had named two other unqualified Palestinian-American Muslims, who had worked with him in Chicago, to round out his Middle East team.”

    http://forward.com/opinion/israel/382570/what-ta-nehisi-coates-tells-us-about-jared-kushner-israel-and-the-power-of/

    It is when you “swap hats” in the hypothetical that Beinart does that you realize how absolutely crazy this is.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Hi Talha,

    “I’d say they [your comments] are fairly accurate, but slightly dated.”
     
    Thanks for the kind words. Afraid my visage is no less dated.

    “There is no way an Israeli PM from the past could have given a speech deriding Reagan or Bush from the podium at the House and gotten standing ovations.”
     
    Agree. It was shameful pandering, as stupid and embarrassing as DJT’s BHO Birtherism. Interesting James Baker was a deal breaker for Adelson’s support of Jeb Bush.

    “...the relationship evolved”
     
    A (the?) big change came in early 2001:

    “We’re going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict. We’re going to tilt back towards Israel. And we’re going to be consistent. I’m not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon. Just saw him one time [Dec 1998]. We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real bad down there. I don’t see much we can do over there at this point. I think it’s time to pull out of that situation....Maybe that’s the best way to get things back in balance. Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things.”
    -George W. Bush, First NSC Principles Meeting, 30 January 2001 (emphasis added)
     
    GWB reversed fifty years of American policy, abandoned any pretense of a peace process. The rest of the meeting discussed Saddam and loosening sanctions.

    “...it seems more and more that we seem to be getting a lot less gain from anything we do in the ME, but the only ones that do seem to be gaining are Israel (and Saudi at a distant second).”
     
    Agree again, but I’d say it’s Likud that’s gaining. Contrary spirits in Israel are increasingly powerless. Israel and KSA seem to have a blossoming love affair. Each probably counts on swatting the other when the time is right. Scorpions in a bottle. The war in Yemen is a disgrace, KSA’s Lebanon. We share a lot of blame.

    “To grasp the absurdity of their [Kushner, Greenblatt, Friedman] appointments...”
     
    Most recently Friedman’s claim Israel occupies 2% of the West Bank. Prince Jared the Peacemaker? Doubt Israelis can keep a straight face. Wonder if DJT owes Kushner senior money. Beinart doesn’t mention DJT’s ludicrous conflicts of interest. They make Nero look like a choirboy.

    Can’t help thinking Vonnegut would have loved the whole mess.

    Best.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    How would they do that? Specifics please.
     
    No problem. Incy. They would simply declare they no longer believe in what the Zionist project has become, i.e., an apartheid state. They would also publicly state that The Lobby no longer speaks for them. They would do the good work Philip Weiss is doing with his MW website that shines a light on the misdeeds of the Jewish state and The Lobby.

    I think it was Peter Beinart who once said:

    For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.”
     

    What would you suggest they do to improve to the Israel-Palestinian relations? Specifics please.
     
    Put the special relationship on a more normal footing.

    Here’s what I suggested (6 Sep 2016 #264 to alexander):
     
    For any of that to happen, pressure has to brought to bear on the Israelis. And for that to happen, the WH and The Congress have to have the support of the public in placing significant demands on the Jewish state. If DJT does the bidding of The Lobby and takes out the last country on their list of 7 countries in 5 years, I believe that the night flower will no longer be able to hide in the dark. Even more people will be willing to talk openly about the 800lb gorilla.

    Is finding fault more important than finding a future?
     
    At this stage, it is indeed more important to correctly identify the problem. Only after having successfully completed that stage does it make sense to move on to the next stage, putting forward proposals to resolve it.

    With respect, Geo, the only tail I’ve seen is the one you’re chasing in circles.

     

    That's ok, Incy. I'm sure I'll catch it sooner or later.

    “They [ethical Jews] would simply declare they no longer believe in what the Zionist project has become, i.e., an apartheid state. They would also publicly state that The Lobby no longer speaks for them.”

    Imagine it’d be easier if they had a hopeful alternate for Israel’s future. Not easy, since Chicken Little Likud (like the GOP) zealously cries ‘the sky is falling’ to exact unquestioning conformity. Netanyahu’s ‘Arabs flooding the polls’, or ‘Iran-the-terminator’ spiel is pretty effective. Demagoguery never goes out of style.

    A viable future will take Mandela-like Palestinian leadership. Existing figures seem as corrupt as Bibi.

    “If DJT does the bidding of The Lobby and takes out the last country on their list of 7 countries in 5 years, I believe that the night flower will no longer be able to hide in the dark.”

    Nicely put. Wouldn’t put it past DJT (or HRC), with cheerleaders like Cotton and Royce. Iran would then likely nail KSA oil fields. Hopefully DJT’s full of hot air, like most real-estate developer – casino owners.

    “If the damage caused by a non-restrictionist immigration policy can be mitigated, if not undone, what it looked like in a pre-Lobby world.”

    Unrestricted, illegal immigration is the staple of many lobbies. From the US Chamber of Commerce to Silicon Valley celebrities. DJT’s ‘wall’ is pure theater for his base. An opportunity for his cronies to make big bucks.

    Cheap illegal labor risking deportment – indentured servitude – is addictive. No wall will stop it: 40% fly in. Mandatory E-Verify, with huge fines or deportation for employers, is an easy, free fix. The DNC and GOP avoid it.

    Looks like Cotton may soon have company, if kingmaker Bannon’s successful.

    “…We must remember that Israel is the United States’ most important ally and partner in the Middle East and should reject agreements or policies that undermine Israel’s security. We should pass the Taylor Force Act and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.”
    -Judge Roy Moore https://www.roymoore.org/Positions/

    But there’s trouble in paradise. Roy forgot to report $498,000 income from his charity – the Foundation for Moral Law. No doubt he was too busy policing restrooms and peering into bedrooms. What makes his foundation worth a tax-exemption?

    “The Foundation for Moral Law advocates Moore’s Christian right and socially conservative views through the filing of amicus briefs in courts. The group is anti-abortion, opposed to same-sex marriage and supportive of public prayer…From 2005 through 2013, Roy Moore and his family drew $1,030,875 from the Foundation for Moral Law”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Moral_Law

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/charitys-promised-back-pay-to-roy-moore-was-not-reported-to-irs-as-income/2017/10/19/fa31ab9c-b042-11e7-99c6-46bdf7f6f8ba_story.html?utm_term=.22695788f0ff

    Moral Law pays pretty well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Roy forgot to report $498,000 income from his charity

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/10/20/roy-moore-campaign-calls-washington-post-retract-tax-story-fire-reporters-cooked-fake-news/

    Anyway cuck season is open.

    Corker is conked, Flake is flipped.

    We want Ben! We want Ben!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If this is taking place across the pond, it’s just a matter of time before the same thing happens here.

    Excerpt from Robert Cohen’s article, Balfour anniversary drives a wedge into British consensus on Israel:

    As the Balfour centenary year approaches its climax on 2 November, we’re witnessing in Britain the fracturing of decades of mainstream political consensus over Israel and the gradual isolation of the Jewish communal leadership as it becomes ever more intolerant of Palestinian solidarity.

    Labour Party conference

    Three weeks ago at the annual Labour Party conference, Corbyn’s biggest applause line was not about Brexit or austerity but for this:

    “Let’s give real support to end the oppression of the Palestinian people, the 50-year occupation and illegal settlement expansion and move to a genuine two-state solution of the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

    It wasn’t only because the 4,000 party members in the hall endorsed the sentiment that they applauded for so long. It was because they were fed up with the intimidation from the Israel lobby in the UK that attempts to turn every expression of Palestinian solidarity into an investigation about antisemitism. See Jamie Stern-Weiner for a forensic take-down of the most recent attempt to make Labour toxic on this issue.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/10/balfour-anniversary-consensus/

    I say this with the outmost of confidence, The Lobby’s days are numbered.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Mearsheimer does a pretty good job of defending his blurb for Atzmon’s book here:

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/09/26/mearsheimer-responds-to-goldbergs-latest-smear/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha

    distinction between Jewish influence and the Israel lobby/Lobby
     
    Are you saying that they are the same? I would imagine the Israeli Lobby is under the umbrella of Jewish influence but is a specific sub-type that is considered by many to be pernicious. Why must calling out the Israeli Lobby's negative influence necessarily be conflated with Jewish influence in general?

    Let's take the influence of the Saudis on US policy. Sure Saudi influence can be accurately classified under the umbrella of Muslim influence in general - but criticizing the Saudi Lobby is hardly taken as criticizing the concept of Muslims having influence in the US in toto.

    Are you saying the Israeli Lobby (which pushes for Israeli-first policies that can hardly be described as being distinct from the Neocons*) represents the desires of all Jews in general?

    Peace.

    *Saudi lobby is basically the same as well.

    Also you have an advantage that American Jews do not have. You can reject KSA and the ISIS caliphate and point to “good” Muslim states like Morocco, but the Jews are stuck with Israel.

    Maybe instead of concentrating on a two-state solution, we should look at a three or four state solution. If we had more Jewish states, American Jews wouldn’t be locked in to supporting Israel. They could have a choice among the good, the bad or the ugly. :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    American Jews have a real problem vis-à-vis Israel’s domestic and foreign policies and what that entails for Jewish identity.
     
    This is correct, this is the major problem as I see it. Even Jewish people that want reasonable policies and just want to support Israel as the only visible nation with a Jewish character are getting railroaded into supporting practically everything The Lobby and the Neocons are pushing for since they are firmly in charge and there seem to be fairly few alternatives. Though I think Geo is right, many young Jews are going to support Israel less and less due to the cognitive dissonance it causes for them.

    I can appreciate that Jewish people have a natural affinity to Israel just like I can appreciate that a Roman Catholic has an affinity to the Vatican. But pushing for myopic policies that are causing horrific bloodshed around the world is not acceptable.

    They could have a choice among the good, the bad or the ugly.
     
    This was where many parts of the Muslim world goofed. It was caught up in secular Arab ethno-nationalism (flip side of secular Jewish ethno-nationalism) and so ended up isolating a lot of its historical Jewish populations (which were quite sizable - As I mentioned before, 1/3 of Baghdad was Jewish) and helping them into the arms of Zionists (which was exactly their narrative; "This is your only home."). As I said in post #251; Had they not done this, a counter-narrative would easily exist; Israel could claim to be the homeland of all Jews and the Jews of the wider Middle East would simply have laughed and said, “piss off”. If you have the time, watch the documentary on post #261 - well worth the time.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dekp
    Ignorant antisemites

    Ignorant antisemites

    Not all of them are ignorant; some just pretend.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    Thus, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on “Jewish influence.” Rather, the war was due in large part to the lobby’s influence, and especially that of the neoconservatives within it.

    This is an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too.

    If the Israel Lobby is not Jewish influence, what is?

    The lobby’s, not the Lobby’s, influence?

    Which lobby? The NRA?

    They should be more forthright and stop their doubletalk and go ahead and do like Giraldi did and blame America’s Jews.

    People have trouble understanding a Venn diagram these days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wally
    Thank you, Philip Giraldi.

    The only reason the average American is silenced about parasitical Zionists / Israel is because they’ve had their head filled with absurd, fictitious, & impossible "Holocau$t" propaganda, “Judeo-Christian values”, and Jews being a uniquely righteous, exceptional, and persecuted people.

    The tide is turning.

    Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

    Ignorant antisemites

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Ignorant antisemites

    Not all of them are ignorant; some just pretend.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Don’t weasel past #402 as per your usual behavior.

    My usual behaviour? Listen, not wishing be drawn into one of your fruitless rabbit holes reflects more on your behaviour, than mine.

    In other words, try posing serious queries or don’t waste my time, ok?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    “Why am I not surprised? My sense is that it probably has something to do with your eyewear. Something tells me your spectacles are designed to see only monkeys, but not 800 lb gorillas… just sayin’”
     
    On the other hand, it might have something to do with Arab ME business/travel 1973-90s and living in KSA 90s. Just sayin’

    “As I’ve repeatedly indicated, it is my strong belief that ethical members of the Jewish community itself will be the ones that defeat The Lobby.”
     
    How would they do that? Specifics please.

    “[ethical Jews know] there is something fundamentally wrong in being a PEP (progressive except Palestine)”
     
    What would you suggest they do to improve to the Israel-Palestinian relations? Specifics please.

    Here’s what I suggested (6 Sep 2016 #264 to alexander):
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-obstacle-to-peace/#comment-1558317

    Look forward to your critique.

    You seem in need of loyal confederates for a necktie party. No other opinion is welcome. No plans other than to “defeat The Lobby.” Or, to be more exact, to have someone else “defeat the lobby” by unknown means. No constructive suggestions for Israel-Palestine. Is finding fault more important than finding a future?

    “...the tail is indeed wagging the dog?”

     

    With respect, Geo, the only tail I’ve seen is the one you’re chasing in circles.

    How would they do that? Specifics please.

    No problem. Incy. They would simply declare they no longer believe in what the Zionist project has become, i.e., an apartheid state. They would also publicly state that The Lobby no longer speaks for them. They would do the good work Philip Weiss is doing with his MW website that shines a light on the misdeeds of the Jewish state and The Lobby.

    I think it was Peter Beinart who once said:

    For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.”

    What would you suggest they do to improve to the Israel-Palestinian relations? Specifics please.

    Put the special relationship on a more normal footing.

    Here’s what I suggested (6 Sep 2016 #264 to alexander):

    For any of that to happen, pressure has to brought to bear on the Israelis. And for that to happen, the WH and The Congress have to have the support of the public in placing significant demands on the Jewish state. If DJT does the bidding of The Lobby and takes out the last country on their list of 7 countries in 5 years, I believe that the night flower will no longer be able to hide in the dark. Even more people will be willing to talk openly about the 800lb gorilla.

    Is finding fault more important than finding a future?

    At this stage, it is indeed more important to correctly identify the problem. Only after having successfully completed that stage does it make sense to move on to the next stage, putting forward proposals to resolve it.

    With respect, Geo, the only tail I’ve seen is the one you’re chasing in circles.

    That’s ok, Incy. I’m sure I’ll catch it sooner or later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “They [ethical Jews] would simply declare they no longer believe in what the Zionist project has become, i.e., an apartheid state. They would also publicly state that The Lobby no longer speaks for them.”
     
    Imagine it’d be easier if they had a hopeful alternate for Israel’s future. Not easy, since Chicken Little Likud (like the GOP) zealously cries ‘the sky is falling’ to exact unquestioning conformity. Netanyahu’s ‘Arabs flooding the polls’, or ‘Iran-the-terminator’ spiel is pretty effective. Demagoguery never goes out of style.

    A viable future will take Mandela-like Palestinian leadership. Existing figures seem as corrupt as Bibi.

    “If DJT does the bidding of The Lobby and takes out the last country on their list of 7 countries in 5 years, I believe that the night flower will no longer be able to hide in the dark.”
     
    Nicely put. Wouldn’t put it past DJT (or HRC), with cheerleaders like Cotton and Royce. Iran would then likely nail KSA oil fields. Hopefully DJT’s full of hot air, like most real-estate developer - casino owners.

    “If the damage caused by a non-restrictionist immigration policy can be mitigated, if not undone, what it looked like in a pre-Lobby world.”
     
    Unrestricted, illegal immigration is the staple of many lobbies. From the US Chamber of Commerce to Silicon Valley celebrities. DJT’s ‘wall’ is pure theater for his base. An opportunity for his cronies to make big bucks.

    Cheap illegal labor risking deportment - indentured servitude - is addictive. No wall will stop it: 40% fly in. Mandatory E-Verify, with huge fines or deportation for employers, is an easy, free fix. The DNC and GOP avoid it.

    Looks like Cotton may soon have company, if kingmaker Bannon’s successful.

    “...We must remember that Israel is the United States' most important ally and partner in the Middle East and should reject agreements or policies that undermine Israel's security. We should pass the Taylor Force Act and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.”
    -Judge Roy Moore https://www.roymoore.org/Positions/
     
    But there’s trouble in paradise. Roy forgot to report $498,000 income from his charity - the Foundation for Moral Law. No doubt he was too busy policing restrooms and peering into bedrooms. What makes his foundation worth a tax-exemption?

    “The Foundation for Moral Law advocates Moore's Christian right and socially conservative views through the filing of amicus briefs in courts. The group is anti-abortion, opposed to same-sex marriage and supportive of public prayer...From 2005 through 2013, Roy Moore and his family drew $1,030,875 from the Foundation for Moral Law”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Moral_Law

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/charitys-promised-back-pay-to-roy-moore-was-not-reported-to-irs-as-income/2017/10/19/fa31ab9c-b042-11e7-99c6-46bdf7f6f8ba_story.html?utm_term=.22695788f0ff
     
    Moral Law pays pretty well.
    , @geokat62

    That’s ok, Incy. I’m sure I’ll catch it sooner or later.
     
    Looks like I may catch my tail, after all, Incy.

    Excerpt from Phil Weiss' The Russia influence story just crashed into the Israel influence story


    This is how the lobby works: It wants no daylight between the government of Israel and the U.S. government, so it cultivates American power; it doesn’t care in the end who is sitting in the Oval Office, it will work on him. The neocons left the Democratic Party in the ’70s over Israel. For the same reason they abandoned George H.W. Bush in the ’90s and switched to Bill Clinton after Bush took on Israel over the settlements. Bush blamed his loss in part on the Israel lobby. Then they switched to his son George W. Bush in 2000.

    Singer overcame his disgust for Trump and befriended him because of his devotion to Israel. And it’s already paid off for Singer. Trump is decertifying the Iran deal under his influence, and sounding more and more like a hawk.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/10/russia-influence-crashed/
     

    There's that "I" word again, influence. So as I've previously stated, Incy, no need to have your hands on the wheel of the bus when you've mapped out the itinerary before hand and laid out clear instructions to the American driver of the Zionist bus.

    P.S. I must say the two Phils are doing stellar work exposing the machinations of The Lobby. If only we had more Phils in this world!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    Tell me what “defeating the Lobby” looks like. Specific measures and sequence please.
     
    I have a dream... just kidding!

    As I've repeatedly indicated, it is my strong belief that ethical members of the Jewish community itself will be the ones that defeat The Lobby. More and more of them know in their heart of hearts that there is something fundamentally wrong in being a PEP (progressive except Palestine). They feel the hypocrisy of calling for mass immigration for the US while fiercely defending the ethnic homogeneity of the Jewish state. They can no longer shield these lies from their children and more and more of their children are no longer willing to perpetuate these lies. We can already see the fissures starting to develop. It's just a matter of time before the Zionist project is declared a resounding failure.


    Describe the post-Lobby world.
     
    If the damage caused by a non-restrictionist immigration policy can be mitigated, if not undone, what it looked like in a pre-Lobby world.

    Don’t weasel past #402 as per your usual behavior.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sam Shama
    Hi Iffen & Incitatus,
    I've been swamped at work this past week and only just now taking a short window to read UR. I see activity. None unpredictable, none reaching standards which merit serious thought. I see you, Iffen, Incitatus, and the new commentator Tyrion, doing tireless work in aid of all normal-minded people who might stumble upon this site. What you say is correct of course, and I see, as I have for a time now, the conditions of our familiar interlocutors as mostly beyond redemption. There is no rhyme and little reason in their words. They are essentially gaoled in a chamber of their own, far too invested to escape the privations they suffer; of normal information and a normal world.

    I shall be travelling to Korea and then India [work related]for the next two weeks and will check the site and inform you of my experiences abroad. I intend to find out, aside from my main activities, what the attitudes of peoples and businesses are towards the U.S. I am hearing increasingly, of a good disposition toward collaborations with American firms in these nations.

    Be well and toil not so hard in the bitter vineyard.

    Hi Sam,

    Glad you’ve an interesting literary. Beware the Kimchi.

    Vineyard life continues. Given the atmosphere, does the following remind you of anything?

    http://cliptank.com/funny-clips/dave-chappelle-black-k-k-k-member.html

    Be happy in your work, as the saying goes.

    Bon voyage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    Tell me what “defeating the Lobby” looks like. Specific measures and sequence please.
     
    I have a dream... just kidding!

    As I've repeatedly indicated, it is my strong belief that ethical members of the Jewish community itself will be the ones that defeat The Lobby. More and more of them know in their heart of hearts that there is something fundamentally wrong in being a PEP (progressive except Palestine). They feel the hypocrisy of calling for mass immigration for the US while fiercely defending the ethnic homogeneity of the Jewish state. They can no longer shield these lies from their children and more and more of their children are no longer willing to perpetuate these lies. We can already see the fissures starting to develop. It's just a matter of time before the Zionist project is declared a resounding failure.


    Describe the post-Lobby world.
     
    If the damage caused by a non-restrictionist immigration policy can be mitigated, if not undone, what it looked like in a pre-Lobby world.

    “Why am I not surprised? My sense is that it probably has something to do with your eyewear. Something tells me your spectacles are designed to see only monkeys, but not 800 lb gorillas… just sayin’”

    On the other hand, it might have something to do with Arab ME business/travel 1973-90s and living in KSA 90s. Just sayin’

    “As I’ve repeatedly indicated, it is my strong belief that ethical members of the Jewish community itself will be the ones that defeat The Lobby.”

    How would they do that? Specifics please.

    “[ethical Jews know] there is something fundamentally wrong in being a PEP (progressive except Palestine)”

    What would you suggest they do to improve to the Israel-Palestinian relations? Specifics please.

    Here’s what I suggested (6 Sep 2016 #264 to alexander):

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-obstacle-to-peace/#comment-1558317

    Look forward to your critique.

    You seem in need of loyal confederates for a necktie party. No other opinion is welcome. No plans other than to “defeat The Lobby.” Or, to be more exact, to have someone else “defeat the lobby” by unknown means. No constructive suggestions for Israel-Palestine. Is finding fault more important than finding a future?

    “…the tail is indeed wagging the dog?”

    With respect, Geo, the only tail I’ve seen is the one you’re chasing in circles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    How would they do that? Specifics please.
     
    No problem. Incy. They would simply declare they no longer believe in what the Zionist project has become, i.e., an apartheid state. They would also publicly state that The Lobby no longer speaks for them. They would do the good work Philip Weiss is doing with his MW website that shines a light on the misdeeds of the Jewish state and The Lobby.

    I think it was Peter Beinart who once said:

    For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.”
     

    What would you suggest they do to improve to the Israel-Palestinian relations? Specifics please.
     
    Put the special relationship on a more normal footing.

    Here’s what I suggested (6 Sep 2016 #264 to alexander):
     
    For any of that to happen, pressure has to brought to bear on the Israelis. And for that to happen, the WH and The Congress have to have the support of the public in placing significant demands on the Jewish state. If DJT does the bidding of The Lobby and takes out the last country on their list of 7 countries in 5 years, I believe that the night flower will no longer be able to hide in the dark. Even more people will be willing to talk openly about the 800lb gorilla.

    Is finding fault more important than finding a future?
     
    At this stage, it is indeed more important to correctly identify the problem. Only after having successfully completed that stage does it make sense to move on to the next stage, putting forward proposals to resolve it.

    With respect, Geo, the only tail I’ve seen is the one you’re chasing in circles.

     

    That's ok, Incy. I'm sure I'll catch it sooner or later.
    , @Talha
    Hey Incitatus,

    Here’s what I suggested (6 Sep 2016 #264 to alexander)
     
    I like the suggestions you gave, fairly solid. It's a great starting point for negotiations and resolutions. I can see you've put a lot of thought into it, you came up with some things that weren't even on my radar.

    As to your comments on the Israel and US relationship. I'd say they are fairly accurate, but slightly dated. For sure Israel seemed to just fit in nicely into the grand top-dog imperial/capitalist hegemon scheme for the longest time. This was the time of Reagan, Bush, etc. seasoned conservatives like James Baker, Haig, Schultz, etc. But the relationship evolved. Israel knew its place in the grand scheme of things and seemed to be fairly content and the old-guard conservatives knew not to let it get too uppity and also knew where interests diverged.

    I believe we are at a new paradigm. There is no way an Israeli PM from the past could have given a speech deriding Reagan or Bush from the podium at the House and gotten standing ovations. Furthermore, it seems more and more that we seem to be getting a lot less gain from anything we do in the ME, but the only ones that do seem to be gaining are Israel (and Saudi at a distant second). Even after disastrous policies, the Neocons are still firmly in place and they are all (whether Jewish or not) firmly in Israel's corner.

    Peter Beinart (who is a progressive Jewish critic of Israel and her influence on US politics) nailed it fairly well:
    "The American Jewish establishment’s dominance of the Israel debate in Washington has never been more complete. In fact, it has reached the point of parody. As his top Israel advisers, Donald Trump has appointed three men — Jared Kushner (his son-in-law) and Jonathan Greenblatt and David Friedman (his former lawyers) — whose only qualifications are their Jewishness and their relationships to him. None has any relevant governmental experience or academic expertise.
    To grasp the absurdity of their appointments, imagine that Malia Obama had married a Palestinian-American Muslim and become a devout Muslim herself. Then imagine that her father had named his Palestinian Muslim son-in-law — who lacked any qualification other than his ethnic and religious background — to oversee the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Then imagine that President Obama had named two other unqualified Palestinian-American Muslims, who had worked with him in Chicago, to round out his Middle East team."
    http://forward.com/opinion/israel/382570/what-ta-nehisi-coates-tells-us-about-jared-kushner-israel-and-the-power-of/

    It is when you "swap hats" in the hypothetical that Beinart does that you realize how absolutely crazy this is.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • American Jews have a real problem vis-à-vis Israel’s domestic and foreign policies and what that entails for Jewish identity.

    Care to expand on that point a little further?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    “...are you onboard in trying to defeat The Lobby?”
     
    Geo,

    Tell me what “defeating the Lobby” looks like. Specific measures and sequence please. Describe the post-Lobby world.

    Tell me what “defeating the Lobby” looks like. Specific measures and sequence please.

    I have a dream… just kidding!

    As I’ve repeatedly indicated, it is my strong belief that ethical members of the Jewish community itself will be the ones that defeat The Lobby. More and more of them know in their heart of hearts that there is something fundamentally wrong in being a PEP (progressive except Palestine). They feel the hypocrisy of calling for mass immigration for the US while fiercely defending the ethnic homogeneity of the Jewish state. They can no longer shield these lies from their children and more and more of their children are no longer willing to perpetuate these lies. We can already see the fissures starting to develop. It’s just a matter of time before the Zionist project is declared a resounding failure.

    Describe the post-Lobby world.

    If the damage caused by a non-restrictionist immigration policy can be mitigated, if not undone, what it looked like in a pre-Lobby world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “Why am I not surprised? My sense is that it probably has something to do with your eyewear. Something tells me your spectacles are designed to see only monkeys, but not 800 lb gorillas… just sayin’”
     
    On the other hand, it might have something to do with Arab ME business/travel 1973-90s and living in KSA 90s. Just sayin’

    “As I’ve repeatedly indicated, it is my strong belief that ethical members of the Jewish community itself will be the ones that defeat The Lobby.”
     
    How would they do that? Specifics please.

    “[ethical Jews know] there is something fundamentally wrong in being a PEP (progressive except Palestine)”
     
    What would you suggest they do to improve to the Israel-Palestinian relations? Specifics please.

    Here’s what I suggested (6 Sep 2016 #264 to alexander):
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-obstacle-to-peace/#comment-1558317

    Look forward to your critique.

    You seem in need of loyal confederates for a necktie party. No other opinion is welcome. No plans other than to “defeat The Lobby.” Or, to be more exact, to have someone else “defeat the lobby” by unknown means. No constructive suggestions for Israel-Palestine. Is finding fault more important than finding a future?

    “...the tail is indeed wagging the dog?”

     

    With respect, Geo, the only tail I’ve seen is the one you’re chasing in circles.
    , @iffen
    Don't weasel past #402 as per your usual behavior.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @RobinG
    ".....an attempt at “guilt-by-association."

    Forget about Guilt by Association. Simply the fear of being accused....of entertaining someone.... who is associated with someone....who has defended someone.... who has been accused....of inadequately denouncing someone.... who is considered... anti-Semitic! is quite enough.

    And thus it came to pass that GW students withdrew their invitation for two Palestinian refugees to speak about their 1948 ethnic cleansing by Zionist terrorists, and their life in a camp in Lebanon. Facts were not important. (The students declared they were not interested in any counter-argument.) The accusation was sufficient.

    "Abby Brooks, the president of GW’s SJP chapter, said the organization supports the Nakba tour." Really? You could have fooled me.
    https://www.gwhatchet.com/2017/10/23/pro-palestinian-group-cancels-speaker-over-concerns-organizer-has-anti-semitic-ties/

    Get a handle on that capitalization problem, RobinG.

    Most of us have a good idea of what is meant by guilt by association, so leave off with the 1000 word explanations.

    Keep going with the ice pick mode of posting links while geo uses the copying and pasting of 10 pages sledge hammer approach.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha

    distinction between Jewish influence and the Israel lobby/Lobby
     
    Are you saying that they are the same? I would imagine the Israeli Lobby is under the umbrella of Jewish influence but is a specific sub-type that is considered by many to be pernicious. Why must calling out the Israeli Lobby's negative influence necessarily be conflated with Jewish influence in general?

    Let's take the influence of the Saudis on US policy. Sure Saudi influence can be accurately classified under the umbrella of Muslim influence in general - but criticizing the Saudi Lobby is hardly taken as criticizing the concept of Muslims having influence in the US in toto.

    Are you saying the Israeli Lobby (which pushes for Israeli-first policies that can hardly be described as being distinct from the Neocons*) represents the desires of all Jews in general?

    Peace.

    *Saudi lobby is basically the same as well.

    distinction between Jewish influence and the Israel lobby/Lobby

    Are you saying that they are the same?

    I am saying that it is fudge. Where does the influence on the Israel lobby/Lobby come from if not from Jews? Sure, my peeps are there, but does anyone seriously think the situation would be the same if there were no American Jews and only Evangelicals?

    Are you saying the Israeli Lobby (which pushes for Israeli-first policies that can hardly be described as being distinct from the Neocons*) represents the desires of all Jews in general?

    No, I know that some Muslims in your community speak out against (well, the stuff that you speak out against, Talha.) Just like there are Jews that speak out against Israeli policies.

    The difference is the position of American Jews in important sectors. If you Muslims get to that position we will take up that issue.

    American Jews have a real problem vis-à-vis Israel’s domestic and foreign policies and what that entails for Jewish identity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    “the wheel of a bus...bought and paid for by The Lobby and the sign on the back reads: remake the Middle East or bust!”
     
    You’re welcome to your opinion, Geo. I disagree.

    US interest in the ME:
    1. Safeguard stable energy (essential for global trade, consumerism, finance, and USD);
    2. Play off locals so none get too much control over #1;
    3. Advance and ensure US corporate interests (oil services, aircraft, financial products...);
    4. Stimulate weapons demand via limited regional conflicts (#2);
    5. Deter all potential future rivals.

    Example:
    Encourage Iraq to war with Revolutionary Iran (holding US hostages) in 1980. Promise Saddam US AID, loans, weapons transfers, satellite photos, and chemical and biological technology. Stay true thick and thin, poison gas attack (first use Nov 1980) after attack. After eight years of slaughter Iran is humbled, defiant and isolated. Ally Saddam is left with a large army with a lot of free time on it’s hands. Sans guerre, he no longer needs us. His military becomes a threat.

    Saddam’s problem is war debt owed OPEC siblings (especially Kuwait). They refuse to raise oil prices to enable repayment. Their stubbornness is folly considering the Iraqi army. But they must know that. Are we twisting their arms to keep prices low?

    Enter April Glaspie and “We [the US] have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait” (25 Jul 1990). A set up? Get Saddam to invade Kuwait, then insist he leave? He’d have two options. Withdraw: weakness probably leading to a coup. Stay and face armed force that destroys his military (2 Aug ‘90 - 28 Feb ‘91). Both US win/wins.

    Results:
    • US remains unrivaled (#1-5, USSR dissolves Dec ‘91);
    • Kuwait and KSA are further obliged to US, ensuring #1;
    • Kuwait and KSA pay US expenses, making it a sweet war indeed;
    • Saddam’s reversal deters aspiring imitation;
    • Israel, kept idle when scudded, loses a neighboring threat.

    Everybody’s happy (except Saddam)!

    Did Israel benefit more than US? Did it push the US into war? Don’t think so.

    You’re welcome to your opinion, Geo.

    And you are welcome to yours, Incy.

    Did Israel benefit more than US? Did it push the US into war? Don’t think so.

    Why am I not surprised? My sense is that it probably has something to do with your eyewear. Something tells me your spectacles are designed to see only monkeys, but not 800 lb gorillas… just sayin’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62
    More evidence that previous sightings of the 800lb gorilla were legitimate.

    Excerpts from Philip Weiss' latest article, Trump plays to the neocons and Netanyahu to get some establishment support:

    Were you as frightened by Donald Trump’s October 13 speech on Iran as I was? The president used the word “regime” 29 times in that speech — this “rogue regime”, this “fanatical regime”, this “radical regime,” etc. Plus he sloppily linked Iran to Al Qaeda and other “terrorist networks”–

    The regime remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and provides assistance to al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist networks.
     
    -----------

    This time round, the press is tiptoeing around the question. The most direct reference to Israel’s interest came from the president himself in a tweet when he learned that New York Senator Chuck Schumer was supporting the deal, this time around: “Tell that to Israel, Chuck!” Trump wrote...

    I don’t think we’ll ever defeat the lobby till we call it out. Neither the media nor the Democrats are yet prepared to do so.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/10/neocons-netanyahu-establishment/
     
    So, Incy, are you onboard in trying to defeat The Lobby?

    “…are you onboard in trying to defeat The Lobby?”

    Geo,

    Tell me what “defeating the Lobby” looks like. Specific measures and sequence please. Describe the post-Lobby world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Tell me what “defeating the Lobby” looks like. Specific measures and sequence please.
     
    I have a dream... just kidding!

    As I've repeatedly indicated, it is my strong belief that ethical members of the Jewish community itself will be the ones that defeat The Lobby. More and more of them know in their heart of hearts that there is something fundamentally wrong in being a PEP (progressive except Palestine). They feel the hypocrisy of calling for mass immigration for the US while fiercely defending the ethnic homogeneity of the Jewish state. They can no longer shield these lies from their children and more and more of their children are no longer willing to perpetuate these lies. We can already see the fissures starting to develop. It's just a matter of time before the Zionist project is declared a resounding failure.


    Describe the post-Lobby world.
     
    If the damage caused by a non-restrictionist immigration policy can be mitigated, if not undone, what it looked like in a pre-Lobby world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    If you are going to be the enforcer, you may need to talk with your main man, Walt; he seems to be going off script from you.
     
    No need to talk to either M or W. I had posted the article you referenced myself well before you did so. Any surprise either M or W have chosen to distance themselves from Phil's article given the provocative title he gave it? None, whatsoever. Had either M or W endorsed Phil's article, it would have been game over as far as the solid scholarship that went into producing their magnum opus, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. How did Walt put it? Oh, yeah... simply an attempt at “guilt-by-association.”

    Now, putting aside your feeble attempt to through Phil under the bus, let's address your weasely attempt to cast doubt on M&W's main thesis (the title of their book should give you a clue) by quoting his denial of the role of "Jewish influence":


    In our original article in the London Review of Books, in fact, we wrote that “it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence,’” and we pointed out that American Jews were less supportive of the decision to go to war than the American population at large.
     
    See, take it from a cut & paste pro, it's not as easy as it looks. The tricky part is to ensure you provide the full context whenever you try to base an argument by referencing a quote. Your clue was provided to you by Walt, when he stated: "In our original article in the London Review of Books, in fact, we wrote that..."

    Had you properly done your homework, you would have DuckDuckGoed the article that Walt referenced and you would have seen the full context in which the "Jewish influence" remark had been made (hint to PEAbrains: pay special attention to the bolded part):


    Although neoconservatives and other lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. In fact, Samuel Freedman reported just after the war started that "a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52% to 62%." Thus, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on "Jewish influence." Rather, the war was due in large part to the lobby's influence, and especially that of the neoconservatives within it.

    http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf
     

    So, you see, had you been a consummate cutter and paster you would have included this very important sentence. But you didn't.

    I think I can get into this copying and pasting. :)

    But how do you make them read it?
     

    As I've repeatedly reminded you in the past, cutting and pasting is an art, not a science. You need to dedicate yourself to learning the finer points. So, my advice, pay close attention to how the pros do it... and you might save yourself some embarrassment in the future.

    “…..an attempt at “guilt-by-association.”

    Forget about Guilt by Association. Simply the fear of being accused….of entertaining someone…. who is associated with someone….who has defended someone…. who has been accused….of inadequately denouncing someone…. who is considered… anti-Semitic! is quite enough.

    And thus it came to pass that GW students withdrew their invitation for two Palestinian refugees to speak about their 1948 ethnic cleansing by Zionist terrorists, and their life in a camp in Lebanon. Facts were not important. (The students declared they were not interested in any counter-argument.) The accusation was sufficient.

    “Abby Brooks, the president of GW’s SJP chapter, said the organization supports the Nakba tour.” Really? You could have fooled me.

    https://www.gwhatchet.com/2017/10/23/pro-palestinian-group-cancels-speaker-over-concerns-organizer-has-anti-semitic-ties/

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Get a handle on that capitalization problem, RobinG.

    Most of us have a good idea of what is meant by guilt by association, so leave off with the 1000 word explanations.

    Keep going with the ice pick mode of posting links while geo uses the copying and pasting of 10 pages sledge hammer approach.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Jews on the brain disease + dem Jews what did it = Judeo-centric.

    PEAbrain + neo-Nazi hunter = informed Goy-centric.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    Geo, I’ve never seen the Lobby as the gorilla. They’re along for the ride with many others. But Uncle Sam’s at the wheel.
     
    Uncle Sam is at the wheel, alright. But it's the wheel of a bus that has been bought and paid for by The Lobby and the sign on the back reads: remake the Middle East or bust!

    Ok, Incy. Tell you what, if DJT decides to "shock and awe" Iran, will that be sufficient proof that the tail is indeed wagging the dog?

    “the wheel of a bus…bought and paid for by The Lobby and the sign on the back reads: remake the Middle East or bust!”

    You’re welcome to your opinion, Geo. I disagree.

    US interest in the ME:
    1. Safeguard stable energy (essential for global trade, consumerism, finance, and USD);
    2. Play off locals so none get too much control over #1;
    3. Advance and ensure US corporate interests (oil services, aircraft, financial products…);
    4. Stimulate weapons demand via limited regional conflicts (#2);
    5. Deter all potential future rivals.

    Example:
    Encourage Iraq to war with Revolutionary Iran (holding US hostages) in 1980. Promise Saddam US AID, loans, weapons transfers, satellite photos, and chemical and biological technology. Stay true thick and thin, poison gas attack (first use Nov 1980) after attack. After eight years of slaughter Iran is humbled, defiant and isolated. Ally Saddam is left with a large army with a lot of free time on it’s hands. Sans guerre, he no longer needs us. His military becomes a threat.

    Saddam’s problem is war debt owed OPEC siblings (especially Kuwait). They refuse to raise oil prices to enable repayment. Their stubbornness is folly considering the Iraqi army. But they must know that. Are we twisting their arms to keep prices low?

    Enter April Glaspie and “We [the US] have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait” (25 Jul 1990). A set up? Get Saddam to invade Kuwait, then insist he leave? He’d have two options. Withdraw: weakness probably leading to a coup. Stay and face armed force that destroys his military (2 Aug ‘90 – 28 Feb ‘91). Both US win/wins.

    Results:
    • US remains unrivaled (#1-5, USSR dissolves Dec ‘91);
    • Kuwait and KSA are further obliged to US, ensuring #1;
    • Kuwait and KSA pay US expenses, making it a sweet war indeed;
    • Saddam’s reversal deters aspiring imitation;
    • Israel, kept idle when scudded, loses a neighboring threat.

    Everybody’s happy (except Saddam)!

    Did Israel benefit more than US? Did it push the US into war? Don’t think so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    You’re welcome to your opinion, Geo.
     
    And you are welcome to yours, Incy.

    Did Israel benefit more than US? Did it push the US into war? Don’t think so.
     
    Why am I not surprised? My sense is that it probably has something to do with your eyewear. Something tells me your spectacles are designed to see only monkeys, but not 800 lb gorillas... just sayin'
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • distinction between Jewish influence and the Israel lobby/Lobby

    Are you saying that they are the same? I would imagine the Israeli Lobby is under the umbrella of Jewish influence but is a specific sub-type that is considered by many to be pernicious. Why must calling out the Israeli Lobby’s negative influence necessarily be conflated with Jewish influence in general?

    Let’s take the influence of the Saudis on US policy. Sure Saudi influence can be accurately classified under the umbrella of Muslim influence in general – but criticizing the Saudi Lobby is hardly taken as criticizing the concept of Muslims having influence in the US in toto.

    Are you saying the Israeli Lobby (which pushes for Israeli-first policies that can hardly be described as being distinct from the Neocons*) represents the desires of all Jews in general?

    Peace.

    *Saudi lobby is basically the same as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    distinction between Jewish influence and the Israel lobby/Lobby

    Are you saying that they are the same?

    I am saying that it is fudge. Where does the influence on the Israel lobby/Lobby come from if not from Jews? Sure, my peeps are there, but does anyone seriously think the situation would be the same if there were no American Jews and only Evangelicals?

    Are you saying the Israeli Lobby (which pushes for Israeli-first policies that can hardly be described as being distinct from the Neocons*) represents the desires of all Jews in general?

    No, I know that some Muslims in your community speak out against (well, the stuff that you speak out against, Talha.) Just like there are Jews that speak out against Israeli policies.

    The difference is the position of American Jews in important sectors. If you Muslims get to that position we will take up that issue.

    American Jews have a real problem vis-à-vis Israel’s domestic and foreign policies and what that entails for Jewish identity.

    , @iffen
    Also you have an advantage that American Jews do not have. You can reject KSA and the ISIS caliphate and point to "good" Muslim states like Morocco, but the Jews are stuck with Israel.

    Maybe instead of concentrating on a two-state solution, we should look at a three or four state solution. If we had more Jewish states, American Jews wouldn't be locked in to supporting Israel. They could have a choice among the good, the bad or the ugly. :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sam Shama
    Hi Iffen & Incitatus,
    I've been swamped at work this past week and only just now taking a short window to read UR. I see activity. None unpredictable, none reaching standards which merit serious thought. I see you, Iffen, Incitatus, and the new commentator Tyrion, doing tireless work in aid of all normal-minded people who might stumble upon this site. What you say is correct of course, and I see, as I have for a time now, the conditions of our familiar interlocutors as mostly beyond redemption. There is no rhyme and little reason in their words. They are essentially gaoled in a chamber of their own, far too invested to escape the privations they suffer; of normal information and a normal world.

    I shall be travelling to Korea and then India [work related]for the next two weeks and will check the site and inform you of my experiences abroad. I intend to find out, aside from my main activities, what the attitudes of peoples and businesses are towards the U.S. I am hearing increasingly, of a good disposition toward collaborations with American firms in these nations.

    Be well and toil not so hard in the bitter vineyard.

    There is no rhyme and little reason in their words.

    Judeo-centric. New word for me.

    In case you missed my comment:

    Jews on the brain disease + dem Jews what did it = Judeo-centric.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    If the Israel Lobby is not Jewish influence, what is?
     
    Exactly. And we’re attacked as antisemites, Jew haters, pellet droppers, or rubber boot wearers for pointing that out. The nerve of some people, huh iffen?

    PD, we may need help from bigger brains, but I get the impression that M & W were trying to make a distinction between Jewish influence and the Israel lobby/Lobby.

    Since it eluded you and did not convince me, I question the value of their construction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    If you are going to be the enforcer, you may need to talk with your main man, Walt; he seems to be going off script from you.
     
    No need to talk to either M or W. I had posted the article you referenced myself well before you did so. Any surprise either M or W have chosen to distance themselves from Phil's article given the provocative title he gave it? None, whatsoever. Had either M or W endorsed Phil's article, it would have been game over as far as the solid scholarship that went into producing their magnum opus, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. How did Walt put it? Oh, yeah... simply an attempt at “guilt-by-association.”

    Now, putting aside your feeble attempt to through Phil under the bus, let's address your weasely attempt to cast doubt on M&W's main thesis (the title of their book should give you a clue) by quoting his denial of the role of "Jewish influence":


    In our original article in the London Review of Books, in fact, we wrote that “it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence,’” and we pointed out that American Jews were less supportive of the decision to go to war than the American population at large.
     
    See, take it from a cut & paste pro, it's not as easy as it looks. The tricky part is to ensure you provide the full context whenever you try to base an argument by referencing a quote. Your clue was provided to you by Walt, when he stated: "In our original article in the London Review of Books, in fact, we wrote that..."

    Had you properly done your homework, you would have DuckDuckGoed the article that Walt referenced and you would have seen the full context in which the "Jewish influence" remark had been made (hint to PEAbrains: pay special attention to the bolded part):


    Although neoconservatives and other lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. In fact, Samuel Freedman reported just after the war started that "a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52% to 62%." Thus, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on "Jewish influence." Rather, the war was due in large part to the lobby's influence, and especially that of the neoconservatives within it.

    http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf
     

    So, you see, had you been a consummate cutter and paster you would have included this very important sentence. But you didn't.

    I think I can get into this copying and pasting. :)

    But how do you make them read it?
     

    As I've repeatedly reminded you in the past, cutting and pasting is an art, not a science. You need to dedicate yourself to learning the finer points. So, my advice, pay close attention to how the pros do it... and you might save yourself some embarrassment in the future.

    Any surprise either M or W have chosen to distance themselves from Phil’s article given the provocative title he gave it? None, whatsoever. Had either M or W endorsed Phil’s article, it would have been game over as far as the solid scholarship

    Help a pea-brain out here.

    You are saying that in order to protect his own writing from a charge of anti-Semitism it was necessary for him to label Giraldi’s piece as anti-Semitic.

    (Talk about throwing somebody under the bus.)

    He either believes Giraldi’s piece is anti-Semitic or he made the accusation falsely for personal gain.

    I have to tell you geo, from the little that I have read by the man; I don’t see or sense that kind of intellectual dishonesty.

    Maybe there is another explanation that my pea-brain can’t see.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If the Israel Lobby is not Jewish influence, what is?

    Exactly. And we’re attacked as antisemites, Jew haters, pellet droppers, or rubber boot wearers for pointing that out. The nerve of some people, huh iffen?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    PD, we may need help from bigger brains, but I get the impression that M & W were trying to make a distinction between Jewish influence and the Israel lobby/Lobby.

    Since it eluded you and did not convince me, I question the value of their construction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    Thus, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on “Jewish influence.” Rather, the war was due in large part to the lobby’s influence, and especially that of the neoconservatives within it.

    This is an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too.

    If the Israel Lobby is not Jewish influence, what is?

    The lobby’s, not the Lobby’s, influence?

    Which lobby? The NRA?

    They should be more forthright and stop their doubletalk and go ahead and do like Giraldi did and blame America’s Jews.

    Hi Iffen & Incitatus,
    I’ve been swamped at work this past week and only just now taking a short window to read UR. I see activity. None unpredictable, none reaching standards which merit serious thought. I see you, Iffen, Incitatus, and the new commentator Tyrion, doing tireless work in aid of all normal-minded people who might stumble upon this site. What you say is correct of course, and I see, as I have for a time now, the conditions of our familiar interlocutors as mostly beyond redemption. There is no rhyme and little reason in their words. They are essentially gaoled in a chamber of their own, far too invested to escape the privations they suffer; of normal information and a normal world.

    I shall be travelling to Korea and then India [work related]for the next two weeks and will check the site and inform you of my experiences abroad. I intend to find out, aside from my main activities, what the attitudes of peoples and businesses are towards the U.S. I am hearing increasingly, of a good disposition toward collaborations with American firms in these nations.

    Be well and toil not so hard in the bitter vineyard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    There is no rhyme and little reason in their words.

    Judeo-centric. New word for me.

    In case you missed my comment:

    Jews on the brain disease + dem Jews what did it = Judeo-centric.
    , @Incitatus
    Hi Sam,

    Glad you’ve an interesting literary. Beware the Kimchi.

    Vineyard life continues. Given the atmosphere, does the following remind you of anything?

    http://cliptank.com/funny-clips/dave-chappelle-black-k-k-k-member.html

    Be happy in your work, as the saying goes.

    Bon voyage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    If you are going to be the enforcer, you may need to talk with your main man, Walt; he seems to be going off script from you.
     
    No need to talk to either M or W. I had posted the article you referenced myself well before you did so. Any surprise either M or W have chosen to distance themselves from Phil's article given the provocative title he gave it? None, whatsoever. Had either M or W endorsed Phil's article, it would have been game over as far as the solid scholarship that went into producing their magnum opus, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. How did Walt put it? Oh, yeah... simply an attempt at “guilt-by-association.”

    Now, putting aside your feeble attempt to through Phil under the bus, let's address your weasely attempt to cast doubt on M&W's main thesis (the title of their book should give you a clue) by quoting his denial of the role of "Jewish influence":


    In our original article in the London Review of Books, in fact, we wrote that “it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence,’” and we pointed out that American Jews were less supportive of the decision to go to war than the American population at large.
     
    See, take it from a cut & paste pro, it's not as easy as it looks. The tricky part is to ensure you provide the full context whenever you try to base an argument by referencing a quote. Your clue was provided to you by Walt, when he stated: "In our original article in the London Review of Books, in fact, we wrote that..."

    Had you properly done your homework, you would have DuckDuckGoed the article that Walt referenced and you would have seen the full context in which the "Jewish influence" remark had been made (hint to PEAbrains: pay special attention to the bolded part):


    Although neoconservatives and other lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. In fact, Samuel Freedman reported just after the war started that "a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52% to 62%." Thus, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on "Jewish influence." Rather, the war was due in large part to the lobby's influence, and especially that of the neoconservatives within it.

    http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf
     

    So, you see, had you been a consummate cutter and paster you would have included this very important sentence. But you didn't.

    I think I can get into this copying and pasting. :)

    But how do you make them read it?
     

    As I've repeatedly reminded you in the past, cutting and pasting is an art, not a science. You need to dedicate yourself to learning the finer points. So, my advice, pay close attention to how the pros do it... and you might save yourself some embarrassment in the future.

    Thus, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on “Jewish influence.” Rather, the war was due in large part to the lobby’s influence, and especially that of the neoconservatives within it.

    This is an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too.

    If the Israel Lobby is not Jewish influence, what is?

    The lobby’s, not the Lobby’s, influence?

    Which lobby? The NRA?

    They should be more forthright and stop their doubletalk and go ahead and do like Giraldi did and blame America’s Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Hi Iffen & Incitatus,
    I've been swamped at work this past week and only just now taking a short window to read UR. I see activity. None unpredictable, none reaching standards which merit serious thought. I see you, Iffen, Incitatus, and the new commentator Tyrion, doing tireless work in aid of all normal-minded people who might stumble upon this site. What you say is correct of course, and I see, as I have for a time now, the conditions of our familiar interlocutors as mostly beyond redemption. There is no rhyme and little reason in their words. They are essentially gaoled in a chamber of their own, far too invested to escape the privations they suffer; of normal information and a normal world.

    I shall be travelling to Korea and then India [work related]for the next two weeks and will check the site and inform you of my experiences abroad. I intend to find out, aside from my main activities, what the attitudes of peoples and businesses are towards the U.S. I am hearing increasingly, of a good disposition toward collaborations with American firms in these nations.

    Be well and toil not so hard in the bitter vineyard.

    , @helena
    People have trouble understanding a Venn diagram these days.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If you are going to be the enforcer, you may need to talk with your main man, Walt; he seems to be going off script from you.

    No need to talk to either M or W. I had posted the article you referenced myself well before you did so. Any surprise either M or W have chosen to distance themselves from Phil’s article given the provocative title he gave it? None, whatsoever. Had either M or W endorsed Phil’s article, it would have been game over as far as the solid scholarship that went into producing their magnum opus, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. How did Walt put it? Oh, yeah… simply an attempt at “guilt-by-association.”

    Now, putting aside your feeble attempt to through Phil under the bus, let’s address your weasely attempt to cast doubt on M&W’s main thesis (the title of their book should give you a clue) by quoting his denial of the role of “Jewish influence”:

    In our original article in the London Review of Books, in fact, we wrote that “it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence,’” and we pointed out that American Jews were less supportive of the decision to go to war than the American population at large.

    See, take it from a cut & paste pro, it’s not as easy as it looks. The tricky part is to ensure you provide the full context whenever you try to base an argument by referencing a quote. Your clue was provided to you by Walt, when he stated: “In our original article in the London Review of Books, in fact, we wrote that…”

    Had you properly done your homework, you would have DuckDuckGoed the article that Walt referenced and you would have seen the full context in which the “Jewish influence” remark had been made (hint to PEAbrains: pay special attention to the bolded part):

    Although neoconservatives and other lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. In fact, Samuel Freedman reported just after the war started that “a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52% to 62%.” Thus, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on “Jewish influence.” Rather, the war was due in large part to the lobby’s influence, and especially that of the neoconservatives within it.

    http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf

    So, you see, had you been a consummate cutter and paster you would have included this very important sentence. But you didn’t.

    I think I can get into this copying and pasting. :)

    But how do you make them read it?

    As I’ve repeatedly reminded you in the past, cutting and pasting is an art, not a science. You need to dedicate yourself to learning the finer points. So, my advice, pay close attention to how the pros do it… and you might save yourself some embarrassment in the future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thus, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on “Jewish influence.” Rather, the war was due in large part to the lobby’s influence, and especially that of the neoconservatives within it.

    This is an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too.

    If the Israel Lobby is not Jewish influence, what is?

    The lobby’s, not the Lobby’s, influence?

    Which lobby? The NRA?

    They should be more forthright and stop their doubletalk and go ahead and do like Giraldi did and blame America’s Jews.
    , @iffen
    Any surprise either M or W have chosen to distance themselves from Phil’s article given the provocative title he gave it? None, whatsoever. Had either M or W endorsed Phil’s article, it would have been game over as far as the solid scholarship

    Help a pea-brain out here.

    You are saying that in order to protect his own writing from a charge of anti-Semitism it was necessary for him to label Giraldi’s piece as anti-Semitic.

    (Talk about throwing somebody under the bus.)

    He either believes Giraldi’s piece is anti-Semitic or he made the accusation falsely for personal gain.

    I have to tell you geo, from the little that I have read by the man; I don’t see or sense that kind of intellectual dishonesty.

    Maybe there is another explanation that my pea-brain can’t see.
    , @RobinG
    ".....an attempt at “guilt-by-association."

    Forget about Guilt by Association. Simply the fear of being accused....of entertaining someone.... who is associated with someone....who has defended someone.... who has been accused....of inadequately denouncing someone.... who is considered... anti-Semitic! is quite enough.

    And thus it came to pass that GW students withdrew their invitation for two Palestinian refugees to speak about their 1948 ethnic cleansing by Zionist terrorists, and their life in a camp in Lebanon. Facts were not important. (The students declared they were not interested in any counter-argument.) The accusation was sufficient.

    "Abby Brooks, the president of GW’s SJP chapter, said the organization supports the Nakba tour." Really? You could have fooled me.
    https://www.gwhatchet.com/2017/10/23/pro-palestinian-group-cancels-speaker-over-concerns-organizer-has-anti-semitic-ties/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62
    More evidence that previous sightings of the 800lb gorilla were legitimate.

    Excerpts from Philip Weiss' latest article, Trump plays to the neocons and Netanyahu to get some establishment support:

    Were you as frightened by Donald Trump’s October 13 speech on Iran as I was? The president used the word “regime” 29 times in that speech — this “rogue regime”, this “fanatical regime”, this “radical regime,” etc. Plus he sloppily linked Iran to Al Qaeda and other “terrorist networks”–

    The regime remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and provides assistance to al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist networks.
     
    -----------

    This time round, the press is tiptoeing around the question. The most direct reference to Israel’s interest came from the president himself in a tweet when he learned that New York Senator Chuck Schumer was supporting the deal, this time around: “Tell that to Israel, Chuck!” Trump wrote...

    I don’t think we’ll ever defeat the lobby till we call it out. Neither the media nor the Democrats are yet prepared to do so.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/10/neocons-netanyahu-establishment/
     
    So, Incy, are you onboard in trying to defeat The Lobby?

    If you are going to be the enforcer, you may need to talk with your main man, Walt; he seems to be going off script from you.

    Forward
    What Dennis Ross Gets Wrong About the ‘Israel Lobby’
    By Stephen M. Walt October 6, 2017

    Hochberg and Ross also make a crude attempt to link me to Valerie Plame, who was recently condemned for re-tweeting an anti-Semitic column that accused American Jews of being responsible for most if not all of our country’s recent wars. For the record, I thought the original column she retweeted was both wrong and offensive and Plame should never have promoted it in any way. simply an attempt at “guilt-by-association.”

    In our original article in the London Review of Books, in fact, we wrote that “it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence,’” and we pointed out that American Jews were less supportive of the decision to go to war than the American population at large.

    I think I can get into this copying and pasting. :)

    But how do you make them read it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    Geo, I’ve never seen the Lobby as the gorilla. They’re along for the ride with many others. But Uncle Sam’s at the wheel.
     
    Uncle Sam is at the wheel, alright. But it's the wheel of a bus that has been bought and paid for by The Lobby and the sign on the back reads: remake the Middle East or bust!

    Ok, Incy. Tell you what, if DJT decides to "shock and awe" Iran, will that be sufficient proof that the tail is indeed wagging the dog?

    More evidence that previous sightings of the 800lb gorilla were legitimate.

    Excerpts from Philip Weiss’ latest article, Trump plays to the neocons and Netanyahu to get some establishment support:

    Were you as frightened by Donald Trump’s October 13 speech on Iran as I was? The president used the word “regime” 29 times in that speech — this “rogue regime”, this “fanatical regime”, this “radical regime,” etc. Plus he sloppily linked Iran to Al Qaeda and other “terrorist networks”–

    The regime remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and provides assistance to al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist networks.

    ———–

    This time round, the press is tiptoeing around the question. The most direct reference to Israel’s interest came from the president himself in a tweet when he learned that New York Senator Chuck Schumer was supporting the deal, this time around: “Tell that to Israel, Chuck!” Trump wrote…

    I don’t think we’ll ever defeat the lobby till we call it out. Neither the media nor the Democrats are yet prepared to do so.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/10/neocons-netanyahu-establishment/

    So, Incy, are you onboard in trying to defeat The Lobby?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    If you are going to be the enforcer, you may need to talk with your main man, Walt; he seems to be going off script from you.

    Forward
    What Dennis Ross Gets Wrong About the ‘Israel Lobby’
    By Stephen M. Walt October 6, 2017


    Hochberg and Ross also make a crude attempt to link me to Valerie Plame, who was recently condemned for re-tweeting an anti-Semitic column that accused American Jews of being responsible for most if not all of our country’s recent wars. For the record, I thought the original column she retweeted was both wrong and offensive and Plame should never have promoted it in any way. simply an attempt at “guilt-by-association.”
    ...
    In our original article in the London Review of Books, in fact, we wrote that “it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence,’” and we pointed out that American Jews were less supportive of the decision to go to war than the American population at large.

     

    I think I can get into this copying and pasting. :)

    But how do you make them read it?

    , @Incitatus

    “...are you onboard in trying to defeat The Lobby?”
     
    Geo,

    Tell me what “defeating the Lobby” looks like. Specific measures and sequence please. Describe the post-Lobby world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62
    Latest installment from The Israel Project:

    Experts: Israeli ties with Arab Countries improving due to Iran Threat

    The praise offered by both Israel and Saudi Arabia to President Donald Trump for his speech on October 13 outlining a new United States policy towards Iran, Agence France-Presse reported Friday, is the latest outward sign that "shared concerns over Iran are indeed nudging" Israel and much of the Arab world closer together.

    The AFP report was carried by both The Times of Israel and Arab News.

    AFP quoted Netanyahu who said. "When Israel and the main Arab countries see eye-to-eye, you should pay attention, because something important is happening," and, who, last week, called Israel ties with the Arab the "best ever."

    While AFP observed that no Arab leaders have publicly echoed Netanyahu's sentiments, neither have they contradicted him.

    Uzi Rabi, a Tel Aviv University professor and expert on Saudi Arabia, told AFP that there are indications of "coordination" between Israel and Saudi Arabia concerning the threat both face from Iran.

    “There are Saudis meeting Israelis everywhere now, functioning relations based on shared interests,” Rabi observed.

    “For several of the Sunni Arab states in the region, particularly in the Gulf, there is a growing sense that the major contemporary faultlines in the region now revolve around the perceived threat from Iran and militant Islamism,” Kristian Ulrichsen, a professor focused on Gulf affairs at Rice University told AFP.

    Ulrichsen expected that in the coming years, economic and security ties between Israel and the Arab world will become more open.
     
    As I've previously indicated, The Lobby’s grand strategy is comprised of 3 parts:

    Act I – get the dumb clod to attack the Sunnis
    Act II – get the dumb clod to take a Sunni turn
    Act III – get the dumb clod to get the Sunnis (led by KSA) and the Shia (les by IRI) to slaughter each other in a 100 year war (preferably longer) while the villa inexorably expands in the jungle
     
    With the benefit of hindsight, things are starting to come into sharper focus. I now see the brilliance in the sequencing of these acts. It was necessary to take down Saddam first as this exposed the Sunni Arabs (led by KSA) to the vulnerability of the Shia (led by Iran). The Jewish state would then form a partnership with the Sunni Arabs to confront their arch nemesis, the Shia Arc, comprised off Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.

    As NutnYahoo's quote - "When Israel and the main Arab countries see eye-to-eye, you should pay attention, because something important is happening," - indicates, the groundwork has been laid for Act II, and Act III is not too far in the offing.

    With the benefit of hindsight, things are starting to come into sharper focus. I now see the brilliance in the sequencing of these acts. It was necessary to take down Saddam first as this exposed the Sunni Arabs (led by KSA) to the vulnerability of the Shia (led by Iran). The Jewish state would then form a partnership with the Sunni Arabs to confront their arch nemesis, the Shia Arc, comprised off Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.

    It looks like I may not have been too far off the mark.

    Here’s an excerpt from Pat Buchanan latest article, Are Our Mideast Wars Forever?

    [MORE]

    Bottom line: The U.S. goal of crushing the ISIS caliphate is almost attained. But if our victory in the war against ISIS leaves Iran in the catbird seat in Baghdad and Damascus, and its corridor from Tehran to Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut secure, is that really a victory?

    Do we accept that outcome, pack up and go home? Or do we leave our forces in Syria and Iraq and defy any demand from Assad to vacate his country?

    Sunday’s editorial in The Washington Post, “The Next Mideast Wars,” raises the crucial questions now before us.

    Would President Trump be willing to fight a new war to keep Iran from consolidating its position in Iraq and Syria? Would the American people support such a war with U.S. troops?…

    Why would Israel wish to provoke a war with Syria?

    Because the Israelis see the outcome of the six-year Syrian civil war as a strategic disaster.

    Hezbollah, stronger than ever, was part of Assad’s victorious coalition. Iran may have secured its land corridor from Tehran to Beirut. Its presence in Syria could now be permanent.

    And only one force in the region has the power to reverse the present outcome of Syria’s civil war – the United States.

    Bibi Netanyahu knows that if war with Syria breaks out, a clamor will arise in Congress to have the U.S. rush to Israel’s aid.

    Closing its Sunday editorial the Post instructed the president:

    “A failure by the United States to defend its allies or promote new political arrangements for (Syria and Iraq) will lead only to more war, the rise of new terrorist threats, and, ultimately, the necessity of more U.S. intervention.”

    The interventionist Post is saying: The situation is intolerable. Confront Assad and Iran now, or fight them later.

    Trump is being led to the Rubicon. If he crosses, he joins Bush II in the history books.

    http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2017/10/23/mideast-wars-forever/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    I may not have articulated the case properly.

    I didn't try to analyze motives or geostrategy -- I'm strictly a cut-and-paste guy: I based the things I said on things Jeff Engel said (look at the video -- the first part will make you puke: HOWDY!)
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?310832-1/book-discussion-desert-reflections-gulf-war

    Jeff Engel is an historian who is director of either the James Baker institute or the George Bush Institute -- I forget which -- at Southern Methodist or Texas A&M -- I forget which. He examined the archives of G H W Bush's papers paying special attention to the decision making process to go to war or not to go to war.

    Recall that in 1981 Israel bombed Osirak, which made Saddam determined to pursue a nuclear weapon.

    Notice how Israel was protected and kept OUT of the fight; iirc some Israeli tribal leader went to DC and demanded gas masks & a bundle of money for other protections for Israelis. Also, US manned a Patriot missile battery to protect Israel; something weird happened and 30 or so US military were killed while manning the Patriot battery. Israelis griped that they had to go into shelters and were frightened; an old man died of a heart attack. A holocaust.

    Here's a lengthy quote of what Jeff Engel concluded after studying Bush's documents.
    First, regarding Israel:


    Clearly he was constrained by the concerns of the Israeli-Arab dynamic. Now of course Israel is not a member of the coalition but many of the members of the coalition shall we say were not fond of the Israelis. Consequently he was constrained in the need to keep the war from going on long enough for the Israelis for the Israelis to want to retaliate for being hit by Saddam Hussein.
    And at the same time, harken back to what I said earlier about the DESIRE among many in the Middle East for an Arab solution. He was concerned if you went further towards Baghdad and in fact took over Baghdad and deposed Saddam Hussein by force that this would create greater Enmity within the coalition among his Arab members who would view that in some way as a re-establishment of western colonialism. [we'll come back to this point]
     
    Regarding the decision to invade-- Engel's conclusions are not dispositive inasmuch as they do not touch every party involved, but it's at the top of the heap of highly credible historic evidence. Make your own decisions.

    We should be frank about what moved them to act. It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.
    Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response. Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
    Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
    None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
    Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history.

    . . .

    I argue Bush took the dramatic step into the Gulf Crisis because he saw it as a bridge to a better world. His New World Order, a phrase unveiled in response to Hussein’s invasion, was not just a catchy phrase; it was rather the culmination of a long and difficult journey of intellectual discovery. . . .

    [In the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989], During the Spring and Summer of 1990 Bush told Global leaders that their alliance required an enemy to survive. In his words the new enemy was instability itself.
    . . .

    In December of 1989 in fact after meeting with Mikhail Gorbechev on the choppy seas off the coast of Malta Bush even lost his temper when pushed by reporters to declare the Cold War over because he simply did not know the answer to the next obvious and fundamental question: What Came Next?
    He said, and I quote: "IS THE COLD WAR THE SAME? I mean is it raging like before in the times of THE BERLIN BLOCKADE? Absolutely NOT. Things have moved dramatically. But IF I Signal to you that THERE'S NO COLD WAR THAN it’s What are you doing with those troops in Europe? I mean, come on!” END QUOTE

    Bush saw in the Gulf War AN OPPORTUNITY as well as in invasion, a point that I will make by way of conclusion. .. He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II.

    Ultimately this vision of a new world order based on sovereignty and stability is what drove his thinking when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In a similar vein he said, “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence. End quote.

    AND he TOLD Gorbechav THE exact SAME THING ON THE EVE OF THE AMERICAN AIR WAR and then subsequently on the eve of the American GROUND WAR as well. THAT LIBERATION OF KUWAIT WAS not an end in itself but SOMETHING BIGGER.

    AND GORBACHEV we should recall ATTEMPTED TO MEDIATE a truce between the world and Iraq . He did so twice, in fact: FIRST on the eve of the air war and then a second time WHEN THE GROUND WAR APPEARED IMMINENT. He CALLED Bush repeatedly on the telephone during this period HOPING TO SAVE LIVES, hoping to save HIS FORMER ALLY in Baghdad and I think hoping to KEEP the world from seeing TOO VIVIDLY a DEMONSTRATION of potentially AMERICAN hegemonic POWER.
     

    Regarding the decision to go or not to go into Baghdad and take down Saddam, this passage is extremely important, not just for the thinking process at the time but for how that same thinking process still has a hold on policy makers in DC. Here's what Engel said:

    But there’s a very important distinction here which I would like to make which I think was a revelation to me within the archives and that a there has always been a question when the decision comes — when the study of the decision comes up about whether or not American forces should have continued on to Baghdad in 1991. This was not a discussion within the White House for a very important reason: The ultimate goal or one of the the ultimate goals beyond the liberation of Kuwait was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. There was a 100 percent certainty on the part of high level American officials that this was going to happen anyway.

    Saddam Hussain had been embarrassed; his own people rising up against him, his own army was out to get him. If he lived weeks it would have been a shock instead of days. 999 times out of 1,000 I think that is exactly how things would have played out, that Saddam would not have survived.

    Unfortunately from the Bush administration’s perspective, George H. W. Bush’s perspective, Saddam rolled the dice and made it. But I think that given the question and those odds again I suspect they would take the same bet again."
     

    In fact, never in recent history has a people abandoned its beleaguered leader and clamored for the invader to save it; Allies bombed the hell out of Germany with the goal of forcing the German people to abandon their government, but it did not happen. Japan, similar. North Korea? Didn't happen. Viet Nam -- I don't know that much about it, but obviously, the VietNamese did not rush to the American embrace. Assad is still Syria's sovereign.
    US Congress Foreign Affairs committee Ed Royce & Elliot Engel, & senators like Cotton have their dicks in a sling because Iran will not capitulate; they can't stand it; they'll impose more sanctions, more demonizing attempts to destabilize Iran because they are bullies who can't stand someone who does not capitulate to their "better world."

    The London monument is announced. According to the architect, it is ‘architecture as emotion’ but looking at it, it isn’t obvious what emotion it portrays. https://www.dezeen.com/2017/10/24/david-adjaye-wins-competition-design-national-holocaust-memorial-london-uk/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62
    For those who may not have an opportunity to view the video or for those who prefer the written word, I have reproduced what I think was the most pertinent question that host Henrik Palmgren put to Prof. MacDonald... and I'm paraphrasing here, so bear with me as I borrow the language that our adversaries like to throw around here at Unz - i.e., it went something like "what got you interested in this "Jew thing" or why, like geo, do you have "Jews on the brain" disease?

    Here is Prof. MacDonald"s response (starting @ 15:15):

    When I started reading about Jewish involvement in immigration policy, that was the one that really put me over the top. When it’s something like psychoanalysis, you can undo that... you can undo that.

    But when you’re importing over 60 million people, you can’t undo that, very well. That’s setting up a massive ethnic conflict... and that is radically opposed to the interests of the white majority. And the whole point of Ch 7 of Culture of Critique... this was a Jewish project. They had lost the battle of 1924; Jews were not as influential, as dominant, as they became after WWII, they lost that. 40 years later they got the immigration law of 1965. That dramatically changed the country. It took a while because at first it was designed not to really change the ethnic balance. But once you got the principle in: that you couldn’t bias immigration towards Western Europe, as it always had been. That principle was gone and so that allowed immigration from all peoples of the world. And now you have whites gradually declining in America, 60%/65% or less than that. And it’s gonna continue. All the projections are that we are going to be a minority, unless we do something.

    And this is a disaster. This is an absolute cataclysmic disaster for the white majority. And it is the result of Jewish activism. So that’s a fundamental statement made. When I started reading about that, that’s when I got angry. I started really getting involved. And I said, I got to be an activist. I got to more than this academic, spinning these things in my computer. I got to really get out there, because this is just an absolute travesty. And it’s not something that the white majority ever wanted, they never voted for it, and they don’t deserve it. So that’s when I started really getting involved.
     
    Clearly statements that an antisemite would make, clearly someone motivated by hatred, clearly his anger is motivated by irrational fears. This man and his work must be shunned. Right adversaries?

    So, what we have here is called a double whammy:

    1) The domestic policy wing of The Lobby has taken it upon itself to change the demographics of the population to lessen the chances of pogroms occurring in America

    2) The foreign policy wing of The Lobby has taken upon itself to get the dumb clod to launch a phony GWOT to remake the MENA to regime change those countries deemed hostile to the Jewish state in an effort to enhance the security of the people living in the villa in the jungle, at the expense, in terms of blood and treasure, of The Dumb Goyim who are slowly being left behind in what looks more and more like the jungle.

    And the kicker is this: us Dumb Goyim are the ones who are put on the defensive by having to explain why we don't favour these policies, while the Zionists and their useful tools are not obliged to defend these same devastating policies... they just sit there and call The Dumb Goyim Jew-haters for having the temerity of 1) noticing the effects of these policies and 2) speaking openly about it. What they'd like is for us to keep our mouths shut and just take it. Right adversaries?

    why, like geo, do you have “Jews on the brain” disease?

    Jews on the brain disease + dem Jews what done it = Judeocentric

    I found this word when reading J. Goldberg on M&W’s Lobby. He used it in place of anti-Semitism. I think that it does not work in that Judeocentric would be an extreme form of anti-Semitism and also it doesn’t describe what M&W wrote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cloak And Dagger
    I have always believed that Israelis having superior intellect was a false narrative, however, I would like to see where you sourced it to be 95?

    https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

    If we assume that the 20% non-Jews (Muslims, basically) in the country have the same low IQ as their neighbouring brethren, the Jews in Israel are still under-performing at 98 IQ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62
    For those who may not have an opportunity to view the video or for those who prefer the written word, I have reproduced what I think was the most pertinent question that host Henrik Palmgren put to Prof. MacDonald... and I'm paraphrasing here, so bear with me as I borrow the language that our adversaries like to throw around here at Unz - i.e., it went something like "what got you interested in this "Jew thing" or why, like geo, do you have "Jews on the brain" disease?

    Here is Prof. MacDonald"s response (starting @ 15:15):

    When I started reading about Jewish involvement in immigration policy, that was the one that really put me over the top. When it’s something like psychoanalysis, you can undo that... you can undo that.

    But when you’re importing over 60 million people, you can’t undo that, very well. That’s setting up a massive ethnic conflict... and that is radically opposed to the interests of the white majority. And the whole point of Ch 7 of Culture of Critique... this was a Jewish project. They had lost the battle of 1924; Jews were not as influential, as dominant, as they became after WWII, they lost that. 40 years later they got the immigration law of 1965. That dramatically changed the country. It took a while because at first it was designed not to really change the ethnic balance. But once you got the principle in: that you couldn’t bias immigration towards Western Europe, as it always had been. That principle was gone and so that allowed immigration from all peoples of the world. And now you have whites gradually declining in America, 60%/65% or less than that. And it’s gonna continue. All the projections are that we are going to be a minority, unless we do something.

    And this is a disaster. This is an absolute cataclysmic disaster for the white majority. And it is the result of Jewish activism. So that’s a fundamental statement made. When I started reading about that, that’s when I got angry. I started really getting involved. And I said, I got to be an activist. I got to more than this academic, spinning these things in my computer. I got to really get out there, because this is just an absolute travesty. And it’s not something that the white majority ever wanted, they never voted for it, and they don’t deserve it. So that’s when I started really getting involved.
     
    Clearly statements that an antisemite would make, clearly someone motivated by hatred, clearly his anger is motivated by irrational fears. This man and his work must be shunned. Right adversaries?

    So, what we have here is called a double whammy:

    1) The domestic policy wing of The Lobby has taken it upon itself to change the demographics of the population to lessen the chances of pogroms occurring in America

    2) The foreign policy wing of The Lobby has taken upon itself to get the dumb clod to launch a phony GWOT to remake the MENA to regime change those countries deemed hostile to the Jewish state in an effort to enhance the security of the people living in the villa in the jungle, at the expense, in terms of blood and treasure, of The Dumb Goyim who are slowly being left behind in what looks more and more like the jungle.

    And the kicker is this: us Dumb Goyim are the ones who are put on the defensive by having to explain why we don't favour these policies, while the Zionists and their useful tools are not obliged to defend these same devastating policies... they just sit there and call The Dumb Goyim Jew-haters for having the temerity of 1) noticing the effects of these policies and 2) speaking openly about it. What they'd like is for us to keep our mouths shut and just take it. Right adversaries?

    That’s a great quote because it is succinct but really what more do people need to know.
    I wonder why the term ‘social engineering’ isn’t used, because that is what has been effected – a massive social engineering campaign.
    Back in the early 90s I was talking to someone about the problems in Bangladesh and I asked why people weren’t moved off the delta if it was so hard to scratch a living in that area. And I was told in no uncertain terms that !!social engineering!! was not an option. ironic lols.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @RobinG
    As much as certain people promote the “War for Israel” meme, one can’t discount the “strategic denial” aspect of the hegemony chess game. Obviously goes for ME as well as Africa.

    Thanks to Denk for link to Engdahl's article -

    In late 2007, Dr. J. Peter Pham, a Washington insider who advises the US State and Defense Departments, stated openly that among the aims of the new AFRICOM, is the objective of “protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance … a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.”
     
    https://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-s-war-on-libya-is-directed-against-china-africom-and-the-threat-to-china-s-national-energy-security/26763

    As much as certain people promote the “War for Israel” meme, one can’t discount the “strategic denial” aspect of the hegemony chess game.

    I agree. The hegemony chess game was neglected under GW Bush because everything was about Israel. For example South American was getting off the leash. Obama rebalanced it and got South America back under control and got involved in Africa as well (30 thousand Chinese workers were forced to be evacuated from Libya) while giving a cold shoulder to Netanyahu and making a deal with Iran and dragging his feet in Syria.

    My point about Iraq 1990-1991 war is a as follows. The invasion of Kuwait by Hussain was the opportunity to do what has been done 13 years later. It is possible that via some intelligence services game Hussain was misled and induced to invade Kuwait. Nobody but Israel and possibly American MIC was to benefit from it. GHW Bush paid Israel $500 million to stay away so he could build Arab coalition that just took Kuwait back and did not move against Hussain. Middle East was stabilized and status quo was maintained. This however was not what Israel and neocons wanted. The opportunity was wasted. GHW Bush was not forgiven for it and could not be trusted, particularly after his confrontation with Yitzhak Shamir in late summer 1991, to have a second term. Tom Friedman and William Safire started anti Bush campaign in NYT that chiefly focused on nonexistent economical problems. And then came “It’s the economy, stupid” slogan that fooled people and made them overlook not only Ross Perot, which did to Bush what Teddy Roosevelt did to Taft in 1912, but certainly the Israel unhappiness with Bush. GHW Bush had to go because he tried to play the hegemony chess game and Israel did not like it. If GHW Bush did what he was expected to do perhaps the twin towers would be still standing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    I may not have articulated the case properly.

    I didn't try to analyze motives or geostrategy -- I'm strictly a cut-and-paste guy: I based the things I said on things Jeff Engel said (look at the video -- the first part will make you puke: HOWDY!)
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?310832-1/book-discussion-desert-reflections-gulf-war

    Jeff Engel is an historian who is director of either the James Baker institute or the George Bush Institute -- I forget which -- at Southern Methodist or Texas A&M -- I forget which. He examined the archives of G H W Bush's papers paying special attention to the decision making process to go to war or not to go to war.

    Recall that in 1981 Israel bombed Osirak, which made Saddam determined to pursue a nuclear weapon.

    Notice how Israel was protected and kept OUT of the fight; iirc some Israeli tribal leader went to DC and demanded gas masks & a bundle of money for other protections for Israelis. Also, US manned a Patriot missile battery to protect Israel; something weird happened and 30 or so US military were killed while manning the Patriot battery. Israelis griped that they had to go into shelters and were frightened; an old man died of a heart attack. A holocaust.

    Here's a lengthy quote of what Jeff Engel concluded after studying Bush's documents.
    First, regarding Israel:


    Clearly he was constrained by the concerns of the Israeli-Arab dynamic. Now of course Israel is not a member of the coalition but many of the members of the coalition shall we say were not fond of the Israelis. Consequently he was constrained in the need to keep the war from going on long enough for the Israelis for the Israelis to want to retaliate for being hit by Saddam Hussein.
    And at the same time, harken back to what I said earlier about the DESIRE among many in the Middle East for an Arab solution. He was concerned if you went further towards Baghdad and in fact took over Baghdad and deposed Saddam Hussein by force that this would create greater Enmity within the coalition among his Arab members who would view that in some way as a re-establishment of western colonialism. [we'll come back to this point]
     
    Regarding the decision to invade-- Engel's conclusions are not dispositive inasmuch as they do not touch every party involved, but it's at the top of the heap of highly credible historic evidence. Make your own decisions.

    We should be frank about what moved them to act. It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.
    Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response. Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
    Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
    None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
    Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history.

    . . .

    I argue Bush took the dramatic step into the Gulf Crisis because he saw it as a bridge to a better world. His New World Order, a phrase unveiled in response to Hussein’s invasion, was not just a catchy phrase; it was rather the culmination of a long and difficult journey of intellectual discovery. . . .

    [In the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989], During the Spring and Summer of 1990 Bush told Global leaders that their alliance required an enemy to survive. In his words the new enemy was instability itself.
    . . .

    In December of 1989 in fact after meeting with Mikhail Gorbechev on the choppy seas off the coast of Malta Bush even lost his temper when pushed by reporters to declare the Cold War over because he simply did not know the answer to the next obvious and fundamental question: What Came Next?
    He said, and I quote: "IS THE COLD WAR THE SAME? I mean is it raging like before in the times of THE BERLIN BLOCKADE? Absolutely NOT. Things have moved dramatically. But IF I Signal to you that THERE'S NO COLD WAR THAN it’s What are you doing with those troops in Europe? I mean, come on!” END QUOTE

    Bush saw in the Gulf War AN OPPORTUNITY as well as in invasion, a point that I will make by way of conclusion. .. He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II.

    Ultimately this vision of a new world order based on sovereignty and stability is what drove his thinking when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In a similar vein he said, “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence. End quote.

    AND he TOLD Gorbechav THE exact SAME THING ON THE EVE OF THE AMERICAN AIR WAR and then subsequently on the eve of the American GROUND WAR as well. THAT LIBERATION OF KUWAIT WAS not an end in itself but SOMETHING BIGGER.

    AND GORBACHEV we should recall ATTEMPTED TO MEDIATE a truce between the world and Iraq . He did so twice, in fact: FIRST on the eve of the air war and then a second time WHEN THE GROUND WAR APPEARED IMMINENT. He CALLED Bush repeatedly on the telephone during this period HOPING TO SAVE LIVES, hoping to save HIS FORMER ALLY in Baghdad and I think hoping to KEEP the world from seeing TOO VIVIDLY a DEMONSTRATION of potentially AMERICAN hegemonic POWER.
     

    Regarding the decision to go or not to go into Baghdad and take down Saddam, this passage is extremely important, not just for the thinking process at the time but for how that same thinking process still has a hold on policy makers in DC. Here's what Engel said:

    But there’s a very important distinction here which I would like to make which I think was a revelation to me within the archives and that a there has always been a question when the decision comes — when the study of the decision comes up about whether or not American forces should have continued on to Baghdad in 1991. This was not a discussion within the White House for a very important reason: The ultimate goal or one of the the ultimate goals beyond the liberation of Kuwait was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. There was a 100 percent certainty on the part of high level American officials that this was going to happen anyway.

    Saddam Hussain had been embarrassed; his own people rising up against him, his own army was out to get him. If he lived weeks it would have been a shock instead of days. 999 times out of 1,000 I think that is exactly how things would have played out, that Saddam would not have survived.

    Unfortunately from the Bush administration’s perspective, George H. W. Bush’s perspective, Saddam rolled the dice and made it. But I think that given the question and those odds again I suspect they would take the same bet again."
     

    In fact, never in recent history has a people abandoned its beleaguered leader and clamored for the invader to save it; Allies bombed the hell out of Germany with the goal of forcing the German people to abandon their government, but it did not happen. Japan, similar. North Korea? Didn't happen. Viet Nam -- I don't know that much about it, but obviously, the VietNamese did not rush to the American embrace. Assad is still Syria's sovereign.
    US Congress Foreign Affairs committee Ed Royce & Elliot Engel, & senators like Cotton have their dicks in a sling because Iran will not capitulate; they can't stand it; they'll impose more sanctions, more demonizing attempts to destabilize Iran because they are bullies who can't stand someone who does not capitulate to their "better world."

    You’ve posted this passage from Jeff Engel before, no?

    All of this, and no mention of the “Viet Nam syndrome” that Bush Sr. was curing? And why the BS about sovereignty? Wasn’t Iraq’s oil that Kuwait was stealing an infringement on sovereignty?

    GHW reluctant? Sure. Then who orchestrated the whole thing? Is this Engle jerking off, or jerking his readers around? Puke is right.

    Read More
    • Agree: ChuckOrloski
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Incitatus

    "I’d recommend Guantanamo."
     
    Hellenic style exile and eternal shame is free. Cost of one Guantanamo prisoner: $10+ million/yr. Phil King isn’t worth that. Compromise? 10 years in a Newark NJ Econ-O-Lodge with 24-hr looped reruns of ‘I Dream of Jeannie’ and ‘Gilligan’s Island’. Call it ‘enhanced interrogation’.

    “Actually, its [Giraldi’s crusade] narrowness is its strength.”
     
    Maybe. But excluding context lets others - the trigger men - off scott-free. Makes scapegoating easy, as Eric Ludendorff might say.

    “They all should be tried for treason.”
     
    I’m no lawyer. I’d settle for Launching Aggressive War and Crimes Against Peace. But why quibble?

    “As far as the mission to remake the Middle East is concerned, The Lobby is the éminence grise...”
     
    Yes and no. They get their piece, to be sure. Saudis and Kuwaitis don’t do too badly. KSA is a proxy regional superpower, now with it’s very own $15 billion Thaad (look out Iran!). Sabahs in Kuwait get major logistics contracts. Khalifas in Bahrain get the Fifth Fleet ($$$). All three can slap-down Shiites without Uncle Sam wagging a finger. Talk about money. Even Pakistan, despite the bomb and Osama’s rest stop, cleared $78.3 billion since 1948!

    The head of the food chain is Uncle Sam. Took a lot of oil to make $150+ billion for six Waltons. Just ask Rex.

    “Was that guest’s name Madeleine Jana Korbel Albright (born Marie Jana Korbelová)?”
     
    No, though Albright was equally wise. Spent many unsuccessful hours combing the C-Span archive. Wasn’t a celebrity think tank guru, neocon, or ‘We Think It’s Worth It’ Albright. The banality of the statement, by a pedestrian guest and unchallenged by the host, is haunting.

    “So. Incy, all in all I must say that while your position on The Lobby has been evolving somewhat, for some reason, you still prefer to talk about the monkeys in the room, rather than the 800 lb gorilla. Still not sure why that is. I’m hoping it’s not because you have an ulterior motive.”
     
    Geo, I’ve never seen the Lobby as the gorilla. They’re along for the ride with many others. But Uncle Sam’s at the wheel. My motive? To kill time. And maybe change Uncle Sam’s bad behavior. Better roads. Fewer 52% operational F-35s.

    “I would counsel caution.”
     
    Moi? Take heart. As I was telling Wally, ‘Duck-and Cover’ is back! Nuclear armed B-52s on 24-hr standby! Makes one pine for a school desk or back-yard bombshelter.

    Geo, I’ve never seen the Lobby as the gorilla. They’re along for the ride with many others. But Uncle Sam’s at the wheel.

    Uncle Sam is at the wheel, alright. But it’s the wheel of a bus that has been bought and paid for by The Lobby and the sign on the back reads: remake the Middle East or bust!

    Ok, Incy. Tell you what, if DJT decides to “shock and awe” Iran, will that be sufficient proof that the tail is indeed wagging the dog?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    More evidence that previous sightings of the 800lb gorilla were legitimate.

    Excerpts from Philip Weiss' latest article, Trump plays to the neocons and Netanyahu to get some establishment support:

    Were you as frightened by Donald Trump’s October 13 speech on Iran as I was? The president used the word “regime” 29 times in that speech — this “rogue regime”, this “fanatical regime”, this “radical regime,” etc. Plus he sloppily linked Iran to Al Qaeda and other “terrorist networks”–

    The regime remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and provides assistance to al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist networks.
     
    -----------

    This time round, the press is tiptoeing around the question. The most direct reference to Israel’s interest came from the president himself in a tweet when he learned that New York Senator Chuck Schumer was supporting the deal, this time around: “Tell that to Israel, Chuck!” Trump wrote...

    I don’t think we’ll ever defeat the lobby till we call it out. Neither the media nor the Democrats are yet prepared to do so.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/10/neocons-netanyahu-establishment/
     
    So, Incy, are you onboard in trying to defeat The Lobby?
    , @Incitatus

    “the wheel of a bus...bought and paid for by The Lobby and the sign on the back reads: remake the Middle East or bust!”
     
    You’re welcome to your opinion, Geo. I disagree.

    US interest in the ME:
    1. Safeguard stable energy (essential for global trade, consumerism, finance, and USD);
    2. Play off locals so none get too much control over #1;
    3. Advance and ensure US corporate interests (oil services, aircraft, financial products...);
    4. Stimulate weapons demand via limited regional conflicts (#2);
    5. Deter all potential future rivals.

    Example:
    Encourage Iraq to war with Revolutionary Iran (holding US hostages) in 1980. Promise Saddam US AID, loans, weapons transfers, satellite photos, and chemical and biological technology. Stay true thick and thin, poison gas attack (first use Nov 1980) after attack. After eight years of slaughter Iran is humbled, defiant and isolated. Ally Saddam is left with a large army with a lot of free time on it’s hands. Sans guerre, he no longer needs us. His military becomes a threat.

    Saddam’s problem is war debt owed OPEC siblings (especially Kuwait). They refuse to raise oil prices to enable repayment. Their stubbornness is folly considering the Iraqi army. But they must know that. Are we twisting their arms to keep prices low?

    Enter April Glaspie and “We [the US] have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait” (25 Jul 1990). A set up? Get Saddam to invade Kuwait, then insist he leave? He’d have two options. Withdraw: weakness probably leading to a coup. Stay and face armed force that destroys his military (2 Aug ‘90 - 28 Feb ‘91). Both US win/wins.

    Results:
    • US remains unrivaled (#1-5, USSR dissolves Dec ‘91);
    • Kuwait and KSA are further obliged to US, ensuring #1;
    • Kuwait and KSA pay US expenses, making it a sweet war indeed;
    • Saddam’s reversal deters aspiring imitation;
    • Israel, kept idle when scudded, loses a neighboring threat.

    Everybody’s happy (except Saddam)!

    Did Israel benefit more than US? Did it push the US into war? Don’t think so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    I may not have articulated the case properly.

    I didn't try to analyze motives or geostrategy -- I'm strictly a cut-and-paste guy: I based the things I said on things Jeff Engel said (look at the video -- the first part will make you puke: HOWDY!)
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?310832-1/book-discussion-desert-reflections-gulf-war

    Jeff Engel is an historian who is director of either the James Baker institute or the George Bush Institute -- I forget which -- at Southern Methodist or Texas A&M -- I forget which. He examined the archives of G H W Bush's papers paying special attention to the decision making process to go to war or not to go to war.

    Recall that in 1981 Israel bombed Osirak, which made Saddam determined to pursue a nuclear weapon.

    Notice how Israel was protected and kept OUT of the fight; iirc some Israeli tribal leader went to DC and demanded gas masks & a bundle of money for other protections for Israelis. Also, US manned a Patriot missile battery to protect Israel; something weird happened and 30 or so US military were killed while manning the Patriot battery. Israelis griped that they had to go into shelters and were frightened; an old man died of a heart attack. A holocaust.

    Here's a lengthy quote of what Jeff Engel concluded after studying Bush's documents.
    First, regarding Israel:


    Clearly he was constrained by the concerns of the Israeli-Arab dynamic. Now of course Israel is not a member of the coalition but many of the members of the coalition shall we say were not fond of the Israelis. Consequently he was constrained in the need to keep the war from going on long enough for the Israelis for the Israelis to want to retaliate for being hit by Saddam Hussein.
    And at the same time, harken back to what I said earlier about the DESIRE among many in the Middle East for an Arab solution. He was concerned if you went further towards Baghdad and in fact took over Baghdad and deposed Saddam Hussein by force that this would create greater Enmity within the coalition among his Arab members who would view that in some way as a re-establishment of western colonialism. [we'll come back to this point]
     
    Regarding the decision to invade-- Engel's conclusions are not dispositive inasmuch as they do not touch every party involved, but it's at the top of the heap of highly credible historic evidence. Make your own decisions.

    We should be frank about what moved them to act. It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.
    Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response. Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
    Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
    None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
    Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history.

    . . .

    I argue Bush took the dramatic step into the Gulf Crisis because he saw it as a bridge to a better world. His New World Order, a phrase unveiled in response to Hussein’s invasion, was not just a catchy phrase; it was rather the culmination of a long and difficult journey of intellectual discovery. . . .

    [In the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989], During the Spring and Summer of 1990 Bush told Global leaders that their alliance required an enemy to survive. In his words the new enemy was instability itself.
    . . .

    In December of 1989 in fact after meeting with Mikhail Gorbechev on the choppy seas off the coast of Malta Bush even lost his temper when pushed by reporters to declare the Cold War over because he simply did not know the answer to the next obvious and fundamental question: What Came Next?
    He said, and I quote: "IS THE COLD WAR THE SAME? I mean is it raging like before in the times of THE BERLIN BLOCKADE? Absolutely NOT. Things have moved dramatically. But IF I Signal to you that THERE'S NO COLD WAR THAN it’s What are you doing with those troops in Europe? I mean, come on!” END QUOTE

    Bush saw in the Gulf War AN OPPORTUNITY as well as in invasion, a point that I will make by way of conclusion. .. He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II.

    Ultimately this vision of a new world order based on sovereignty and stability is what drove his thinking when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In a similar vein he said, “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence. End quote.

    AND he TOLD Gorbechav THE exact SAME THING ON THE EVE OF THE AMERICAN AIR WAR and then subsequently on the eve of the American GROUND WAR as well. THAT LIBERATION OF KUWAIT WAS not an end in itself but SOMETHING BIGGER.

    AND GORBACHEV we should recall ATTEMPTED TO MEDIATE a truce between the world and Iraq . He did so twice, in fact: FIRST on the eve of the air war and then a second time WHEN THE GROUND WAR APPEARED IMMINENT. He CALLED Bush repeatedly on the telephone during this period HOPING TO SAVE LIVES, hoping to save HIS FORMER ALLY in Baghdad and I think hoping to KEEP the world from seeing TOO VIVIDLY a DEMONSTRATION of potentially AMERICAN hegemonic POWER.
     

    Regarding the decision to go or not to go into Baghdad and take down Saddam, this passage is extremely important, not just for the thinking process at the time but for how that same thinking process still has a hold on policy makers in DC. Here's what Engel said:

    But there’s a very important distinction here which I would like to make which I think was a revelation to me within the archives and that a there has always been a question when the decision comes — when the study of the decision comes up about whether or not American forces should have continued on to Baghdad in 1991. This was not a discussion within the White House for a very important reason: The ultimate goal or one of the the ultimate goals beyond the liberation of Kuwait was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. There was a 100 percent certainty on the part of high level American officials that this was going to happen anyway.

    Saddam Hussain had been embarrassed; his own people rising up against him, his own army was out to get him. If he lived weeks it would have been a shock instead of days. 999 times out of 1,000 I think that is exactly how things would have played out, that Saddam would not have survived.

    Unfortunately from the Bush administration’s perspective, George H. W. Bush’s perspective, Saddam rolled the dice and made it. But I think that given the question and those odds again I suspect they would take the same bet again."
     

    In fact, never in recent history has a people abandoned its beleaguered leader and clamored for the invader to save it; Allies bombed the hell out of Germany with the goal of forcing the German people to abandon their government, but it did not happen. Japan, similar. North Korea? Didn't happen. Viet Nam -- I don't know that much about it, but obviously, the VietNamese did not rush to the American embrace. Assad is still Syria's sovereign.
    US Congress Foreign Affairs committee Ed Royce & Elliot Engel, & senators like Cotton have their dicks in a sling because Iran will not capitulate; they can't stand it; they'll impose more sanctions, more demonizing attempts to destabilize Iran because they are bullies who can't stand someone who does not capitulate to their "better world."

    S2C,

    F.Y.I., below is a good refresher course on P.M. Begin’ s order to travel long distance, evade Iraqi antiaircraft defense, & bomb the Osirak reactor. In the video are characters like Alexander Haig who admired Begin’s daring attack and French President Chirac who helped forward President Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    If disaster relief depends on blind loyalty to a foreign power, can it be long before 911 police response requires a similar oath?
     
    Well put.

    “Cabal” is defined as “a secret political clique or faction.” AIPAC, Netanyahu, neocons are pretty public.
     
    Agreed. That's why the title of Stephen Sniegoski's book is The Transparent Cabal.

    Those responsible for this nonsense should get a one-way ticket abroad.
     
    I'd recommend Guantanamo.

    Giraldi’s crusade – if intended to reverse disastrous wars since 1990 – is worthy. If a bit narrow. What’s next? ‘The Lobby French Style’? On down the line
     
    Actually, its narrowness is its strength. As you know, these other foreign lobbies pale in comparison to the damage being done by The Lobby.

    Would we have invaded Iraq ‘03 without:... Should they enjoy safe harbor? Were they hypnotized by AIPAC?
     
    The names you named are just as guilty as the neocons. They all should be tried for treason.

    A river of trillions waters many livelihoods. Does ‘the Lobby’ control it? Don’t think so.
     
    As far as the mission to remake the Middle East is concerned, The Lobby is the éminence grise behind it. Just take a look again at the pic at the top of the page of Phil's previous article, How I Got Fired. My sense is our host, Ron Unz, must have at least endorsed that pic, if not picked it out himself. And as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

    A C-Span guest sang the siren song in 2003. We spend all this money on the best military in history – why not use it? Helmuth von Moltke Jüngere reincarnate.
     
    Was that guest's name Madeleine Jana Korbel Albright (born Marie Jana Korbelová)?
    Here's what Colin Powell had to say about her:

    In his memoirs, Powell recalled that he almost had "an aneurysm" when Albright challenged him to explain "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
     

    “…a clear majority of American Jews…are supportive of the nuclear agreement with Iran and do not favor another Middle Eastern War…” is accurate. Many (most?) didn’t favor Iraq ‘03.
     
    That's what the maven keeps telling us. But when he and Brother Nathaneal had a showdown, the maven blinked. As a result, I am more inclined to put more stock in what Brother Nathanael has to say. And here's what he told Phil who was deliberating whether to recant the previous article he wrote, you know... the one with the provocative title:

    Do NOT re-write your Article, dear Phil, and I speak as a former Jew, now an Orthodox Christian.

    I grew up in an upper-middle class B’nai B’rith synagogue and believe me, MOST American Jews support the warmongering program of the establishment Jewish Lobbies and think tanks.

    I speak with authority here having grown up INSIDE the Jewish community. Oh, many Jews might say to the goyim, ‘I’m against all this war talk.’ BUT with their fellow Jewish ‘lantsmen’ BEHIND CLOSED DOORS they’re ALL for war against Israel’s perceived enemies.

    Every Sabbath Shacharit (morning) service growing up in the 50′s we sang Hatikvah, the Israeli National Anthem. It was part of our ‘religion’ that what’s bad for Israel is bad for all Jews.

    Today that would include all the nations that oppose and/or countering the Zionist project: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and now Russia.

    Do NOT re-write your Article. You would be voicing a falsehood. +Brother Nathanael Kapner
     

    So. Incy, all in all I must say that while your position on The Lobby has been evolving somewhat, for some reason, you still prefer to talk about the monkeys in the room, rather than the 800 lb gorilla. Still not sure why that is. I'm hoping it's not because you have an ulterior motive.

    To my surprise, I noticed two of our more thoughful commenters agreed with your comment. Until we know more about where Incitatus is coming from, I would counsel caution.

    “I’d recommend Guantanamo.”

    Hellenic style exile and eternal shame is free. Cost of one Guantanamo prisoner: $10+ million/yr. Phil King isn’t worth that. Compromise? 10 years in a Newark NJ Econ-O-Lodge with 24-hr looped reruns of ‘I Dream of Jeannie’ and ‘Gilligan’s Island’. Call it ‘enhanced interrogation’.

    “Actually, its [Giraldi’s crusade] narrowness is its strength.”

    Maybe. But excluding context lets others – the trigger men – off scott-free. Makes scapegoating easy, as Eric Ludendorff might say.

    “They all should be tried for treason.”

    I’m no lawyer. I’d settle for Launching Aggressive War and Crimes Against Peace. But why quibble?

    “As far as the mission to remake the Middle East is concerned, The Lobby is the éminence grise…”

    Yes and no. They get their piece, to be sure. Saudis and Kuwaitis don’t do too badly. KSA is a proxy regional superpower, now with it’s very own $15 billion Thaad (look out Iran!). Sabahs in Kuwait get major logistics contracts. Khalifas in Bahrain get the Fifth Fleet ($$$). All three can slap-down Shiites without Uncle Sam wagging a finger. Talk about money. Even Pakistan, despite the bomb and Osama’s rest stop, cleared $78.3 billion since 1948!

    The head of the food chain is Uncle Sam. Took a lot of oil to make $150+ billion for six Waltons. Just ask Rex.

    “Was that guest’s name Madeleine Jana Korbel Albright (born Marie Jana Korbelová)?”

    No, though Albright was equally wise. Spent many unsuccessful hours combing the C-Span archive. Wasn’t a celebrity think tank guru, neocon, or ‘We Think It’s Worth It’ Albright. The banality of the statement, by a pedestrian guest and unchallenged by the host, is haunting.

    “So. Incy, all in all I must say that while your position on The Lobby has been evolving somewhat, for some reason, you still prefer to talk about the monkeys in the room, rather than the 800 lb gorilla. Still not sure why that is. I’m hoping it’s not because you have an ulterior motive.”

    Geo, I’ve never seen the Lobby as the gorilla. They’re along for the ride with many others. But Uncle Sam’s at the wheel. My motive? To kill time. And maybe change Uncle Sam’s bad behavior. Better roads. Fewer 52% operational F-35s.

    “I would counsel caution.”

    Moi? Take heart. As I was telling Wally, ‘Duck-and Cover’ is back! Nuclear armed B-52s on 24-hr standby! Makes one pine for a school desk or back-yard bombshelter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Geo, I’ve never seen the Lobby as the gorilla. They’re along for the ride with many others. But Uncle Sam’s at the wheel.
     
    Uncle Sam is at the wheel, alright. But it's the wheel of a bus that has been bought and paid for by The Lobby and the sign on the back reads: remake the Middle East or bust!

    Ok, Incy. Tell you what, if DJT decides to "shock and awe" Iran, will that be sufficient proof that the tail is indeed wagging the dog?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    I looked at SC's take on 1990-1991 Iraq and I think he gives too much credence to those who emphasize Saudi Arabia and Gulf States influence. Basically this is the usual disinfo to keep people away form looking at Israel connection. The question whether Hussein was misled and drawn into invading Kuwait still stands. And we can try answer it form the qui bono position. It was the end of the Cold War. We were talking about peace dividends and getting relaxed. And then we had to get involve in the ME going after our asset who we used against Iran. To me it was just too convenient for both MIC and Israel. Then I distinctly remember that Bush was not enthused and had to have is arms twisted to commit to the war. And then he did not go all the way. He did not took the opportunity to go to Bagdad 13 years before his son wen there. To Bagdad from where they could decide to turn right and go to Teheran or let and go to Damascus. The neocons were furious and they never forgave him. On top of it after the war when he had the highest popularity of any president ever he confronted Yitzhak Shamir about settlements and threatened to hold the money for Israel. These two offenses explain why Clinton was brought from Arkansas to replace him. Bush could not be trusted anymore. Bush was the last president who stood up to Israel interests.

    As much as certain people promote the “War for Israel” meme, one can’t discount the “strategic denial” aspect of the hegemony chess game. Obviously goes for ME as well as Africa.

    Thanks to Denk for link to Engdahl’s article –

    In late 2007, Dr. J. Peter Pham, a Washington insider who advises the US State and Defense Departments, stated openly that among the aims of the new AFRICOM, is the objective of “protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance … a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.”

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-s-war-on-libya-is-directed-against-china-africom-and-the-threat-to-china-s-national-energy-security/26763

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    As much as certain people promote the “War for Israel” meme, one can’t discount the “strategic denial” aspect of the hegemony chess game.

    I agree. The hegemony chess game was neglected under GW Bush because everything was about Israel. For example South American was getting off the leash. Obama rebalanced it and got South America back under control and got involved in Africa as well (30 thousand Chinese workers were forced to be evacuated from Libya) while giving a cold shoulder to Netanyahu and making a deal with Iran and dragging his feet in Syria.

    My point about Iraq 1990-1991 war is a as follows. The invasion of Kuwait by Hussain was the opportunity to do what has been done 13 years later. It is possible that via some intelligence services game Hussain was misled and induced to invade Kuwait. Nobody but Israel and possibly American MIC was to benefit from it. GHW Bush paid Israel $500 million to stay away so he could build Arab coalition that just took Kuwait back and did not move against Hussain. Middle East was stabilized and status quo was maintained. This however was not what Israel and neocons wanted. The opportunity was wasted. GHW Bush was not forgiven for it and could not be trusted, particularly after his confrontation with Yitzhak Shamir in late summer 1991, to have a second term. Tom Friedman and William Safire started anti Bush campaign in NYT that chiefly focused on nonexistent economical problems. And then came "It's the economy, stupid" slogan that fooled people and made them overlook not only Ross Perot, which did to Bush what Teddy Roosevelt did to Taft in 1912, but certainly the Israel unhappiness with Bush. GHW Bush had to go because he tried to play the hegemony chess game and Israel did not like it. If GHW Bush did what he was expected to do perhaps the twin towers would be still standing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    I looked at SC's take on 1990-1991 Iraq and I think he gives too much credence to those who emphasize Saudi Arabia and Gulf States influence. Basically this is the usual disinfo to keep people away form looking at Israel connection. The question whether Hussein was misled and drawn into invading Kuwait still stands. And we can try answer it form the qui bono position. It was the end of the Cold War. We were talking about peace dividends and getting relaxed. And then we had to get involve in the ME going after our asset who we used against Iran. To me it was just too convenient for both MIC and Israel. Then I distinctly remember that Bush was not enthused and had to have is arms twisted to commit to the war. And then he did not go all the way. He did not took the opportunity to go to Bagdad 13 years before his son wen there. To Bagdad from where they could decide to turn right and go to Teheran or let and go to Damascus. The neocons were furious and they never forgave him. On top of it after the war when he had the highest popularity of any president ever he confronted Yitzhak Shamir about settlements and threatened to hold the money for Israel. These two offenses explain why Clinton was brought from Arkansas to replace him. Bush could not be trusted anymore. Bush was the last president who stood up to Israel interests.

    I may not have articulated the case properly.

    I didn’t try to analyze motives or geostrategy — I’m strictly a cut-and-paste guy: I based the things I said on things Jeff Engel said (look at the video — the first part will make you puke: HOWDY!)

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?310832-1/book-discussion-desert-reflections-gulf-war

    Jeff Engel is an historian who is director of either the James Baker institute or the George Bush Institute — I forget which — at Southern Methodist or Texas A&M — I forget which. He examined the archives of G H W Bush’s papers paying special attention to the decision making process to go to war or not to go to war.

    Recall that in 1981 Israel bombed Osirak, which made Saddam determined to pursue a nuclear weapon.

    Notice how Israel was protected and kept OUT of the fight; iirc some Israeli tribal leader went to DC and demanded gas masks & a bundle of money for other protections for Israelis. Also, US manned a Patriot missile battery to protect Israel; something weird happened and 30 or so US military were killed while manning the Patriot battery. Israelis griped that they had to go into shelters and were frightened; an old man died of a heart attack. A holocaust.

    Here’s a lengthy quote of what Jeff Engel concluded after studying Bush’s documents.
    First, regarding Israel:

    Clearly he was constrained by the concerns of the Israeli-Arab dynamic. Now of course Israel is not a member of the coalition but many of the members of the coalition shall we say were not fond of the Israelis. Consequently he was constrained in the need to keep the war from going on long enough for the Israelis for the Israelis to want to retaliate for being hit by Saddam Hussein.
    And at the same time, harken back to what I said earlier about the DESIRE among many in the Middle East for an Arab solution. He was concerned if you went further towards Baghdad and in fact took over Baghdad and deposed Saddam Hussein by force that this would create greater Enmity within the coalition among his Arab members who would view that in some way as a re-establishment of western colonialism. [we'll come back to this point]

    Regarding the decision to invade– Engel’s conclusions are not dispositive inasmuch as they do not touch every party involved, but it’s at the top of the heap of highly credible historic evidence. Make your own decisions.

    We should be frank about what moved them to act. It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.
    Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response. Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
    Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
    None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
    Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history.

    . . .

    I argue Bush took the dramatic step into the Gulf Crisis because he saw it as a bridge to a better world. His New World Order, a phrase unveiled in response to Hussein’s invasion, was not just a catchy phrase; it was rather the culmination of a long and difficult journey of intellectual discovery. . . .

    [In the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989], During the Spring and Summer of 1990 Bush told Global leaders that their alliance required an enemy to survive. In his words the new enemy was instability itself.
    . . .

    In December of 1989 in fact after meeting with Mikhail Gorbechev on the choppy seas off the coast of Malta Bush even lost his temper when pushed by reporters to declare the Cold War over because he simply did not know the answer to the next obvious and fundamental question: What Came Next?
    He said, and I quote: “IS THE COLD WAR THE SAME? I mean is it raging like before in the times of THE BERLIN BLOCKADE? Absolutely NOT. Things have moved dramatically. But IF I Signal to you that THERE’S NO COLD WAR THAN it’s What are you doing with those troops in Europe? I mean, come on!” END QUOTE

    Bush saw in the Gulf War AN OPPORTUNITY as well as in invasion, a point that I will make by way of conclusion. .. He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II.

    Ultimately this vision of a new world order based on sovereignty and stability is what drove his thinking when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In a similar vein he said, “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence. End quote.

    AND he TOLD Gorbechav THE exact SAME THING ON THE EVE OF THE AMERICAN AIR WAR and then subsequently on the eve of the American GROUND WAR as well. THAT LIBERATION OF KUWAIT WAS not an end in itself but SOMETHING BIGGER.

    AND GORBACHEV we should recall ATTEMPTED TO MEDIATE a truce between the world and Iraq . He did so twice, in fact: FIRST on the eve of the air war and then a second time WHEN THE GROUND WAR APPEARED IMMINENT. He CALLED Bush repeatedly on the telephone during this period HOPING TO SAVE LIVES, hoping to save HIS FORMER ALLY in Baghdad and I think hoping to KEEP the world from seeing TOO VIVIDLY a DEMONSTRATION of potentially AMERICAN hegemonic POWER.

    Regarding the decision to go or not to go into Baghdad and take down Saddam, this passage is extremely important, not just for the thinking process at the time but for how that same thinking process still has a hold on policy makers in DC. Here’s what Engel said:

    But there’s a very important distinction here which I would like to make which I think was a revelation to me within the archives and that a there has always been a question when the decision comes — when the study of the decision comes up about whether or not American forces should have continued on to Baghdad in 1991. This was not a discussion within the White House for a very important reason: The ultimate goal or one of the the ultimate goals beyond the liberation of Kuwait was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. There was a 100 percent certainty on the part of high level American officials that this was going to happen anyway.

    Saddam Hussain had been embarrassed; his own people rising up against him, his own army was out to get him. If he lived weeks it would have been a shock instead of days. 999 times out of 1,000 I think that is exactly how things would have played out, that Saddam would not have survived.

    Unfortunately from the Bush administration’s perspective, George H. W. Bush’s perspective, Saddam rolled the dice and made it. But I think that given the question and those odds again I suspect they would take the same bet again.”

    In fact, never in recent history has a people abandoned its beleaguered leader and clamored for the invader to save it; Allies bombed the hell out of Germany with the goal of forcing the German people to abandon their government, but it did not happen. Japan, similar. North Korea? Didn’t happen. Viet Nam — I don’t know that much about it, but obviously, the VietNamese did not rush to the American embrace. Assad is still Syria’s sovereign.
    US Congress Foreign Affairs committee Ed Royce & Elliot Engel, & senators like Cotton have their dicks in a sling because Iran will not capitulate; they can’t stand it; they’ll impose more sanctions, more demonizing attempts to destabilize Iran because they are bullies who can’t stand someone who does not capitulate to their “better world.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
    S2C,

    F.Y.I., below is a good refresher course on P.M. Begin' s order to travel long distance, evade Iraqi antiaircraft defense, & bomb the Osirak reactor. In the video are characters like Alexander Haig who admired Begin's daring attack and French President Chirac who helped forward President Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.

    https://youtu.be/PeHc4vbQrNY
    , @RobinG
    You've posted this passage from Jeff Engel before, no?

    All of this, and no mention of the "Viet Nam syndrome" that Bush Sr. was curing? And why the BS about sovereignty? Wasn't Iraq's oil that Kuwait was stealing an infringement on sovereignty?

    GHW reluctant? Sure. Then who orchestrated the whole thing? Is this Engle jerking off, or jerking his readers around? Puke is right.
    , @helena
    The London monument is announced. According to the architect, it is 'architecture as emotion' but looking at it, it isn't obvious what emotion it portrays. https://www.dezeen.com/2017/10/24/david-adjaye-wins-competition-design-national-holocaust-memorial-london-uk/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62
    I highly recommend all Unzers who are keen on understanding how The Lobby operates to view this video of Red Ice host Henrik Palmgren interviewing Prof. Kevin MacDonald.

    Enjoy!

    https://youtu.be/HyRw2vAKxdI

    For those who may not have an opportunity to view the video or for those who prefer the written word, I have reproduced what I think was the most pertinent question that host Henrik Palmgren put to Prof. MacDonald… and I’m paraphrasing here, so bear with me as I borrow the language that our adversaries like to throw around here at Unz – i.e., it went something like “what got you interested in this “Jew thing” or why, like geo, do you have “Jews on the brain” disease?

    Here is Prof. MacDonald”s response (starting @ 15:15):

    When I started reading about Jewish involvement in immigration policy, that was the one that really put me over the top. When it’s something like psychoanalysis, you can undo that… you can undo that.

    But when you’re importing over 60 million people, you can’t undo that, very well. That’s setting up a massive ethnic conflict… and that is radically opposed to the interests of the white majority. And the whole point of Ch 7 of Culture of Critique… this was a Jewish project. They had lost the battle of 1924; Jews were not as influential, as dominant, as they became after WWII, they lost that. 40 years later they got the immigration law of 1965. That dramatically changed the country. It took a while because at first it was designed not to really change the ethnic balance. But once you got the principle in: that you couldn’t bias immigration towards Western Europe, as it always had been. That principle was gone and so that allowed immigration from all peoples of the world. And now you have whites gradually declining in America, 60%/65% or less than that. And it’s gonna continue. All the projections are that we are going to be a minority, unless we do something.

    And this is a disaster. This is an absolute cataclysmic disaster for the white majority. And it is the result of Jewish activism. So that’s a fundamental statement made. When I started reading about that, that’s when I got angry. I started really getting involved. And I said, I got to be an activist. I got to more than this academic, spinning these things in my computer. I got to really get out there, because this is just an absolute travesty. And it’s not something that the white majority ever wanted, they never voted for it, and they don’t deserve it. So that’s when I started really getting involved.

    Clearly statements that an antisemite would make, clearly someone motivated by hatred, clearly his anger is motivated by irrational fears. This man and his work must be shunned. Right adversaries?

    So, what we have here is called a double whammy:

    1) The domestic policy wing of The Lobby has taken it upon itself to change the demographics of the population to lessen the chances of pogroms occurring in America

    2) The foreign policy wing of The Lobby has taken upon itself to get the dumb clod to launch a phony GWOT to remake the MENA to regime change those countries deemed hostile to the Jewish state in an effort to enhance the security of the people living in the villa in the jungle, at the expense, in terms of blood and treasure, of The Dumb Goyim who are slowly being left behind in what looks more and more like the jungle.

    And the kicker is this: us Dumb Goyim are the ones who are put on the defensive by having to explain why we don’t favour these policies, while the Zionists and their useful tools are not obliged to defend these same devastating policies… they just sit there and call The Dumb Goyim Jew-haters for having the temerity of 1) noticing the effects of these policies and 2) speaking openly about it. What they’d like is for us to keep our mouths shut and just take it. Right adversaries?

    Read More
    • Agree: Cloak And Dagger
    • Replies: @helena
    That's a great quote because it is succinct but really what more do people need to know.
    I wonder why the term 'social engineering' isn't used, because that is what has been effected - a massive social engineering campaign.
    Back in the early 90s I was talking to someone about the problems in Bangladesh and I asked why people weren't moved off the delta if it was so hard to scratch a living in that area. And I was told in no uncertain terms that !!social engineering!! was not an option. ironic lols.
    , @iffen
    why, like geo, do you have “Jews on the brain” disease?

    Jews on the brain disease + dem Jews what done it = Judeocentric

    I found this word when reading J. Goldberg on M&W's Lobby. He used it in place of anti-Semitism. I think that it does not work in that Judeocentric would be an extreme form of anti-Semitism and also it doesn't describe what M&W wrote.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    If disaster relief depends on blind loyalty to a foreign power, can it be long before 911 police response requires a similar oath?
     
    Well put.

    “Cabal” is defined as “a secret political clique or faction.” AIPAC, Netanyahu, neocons are pretty public.
     
    Agreed. That's why the title of Stephen Sniegoski's book is The Transparent Cabal.

    Those responsible for this nonsense should get a one-way ticket abroad.
     
    I'd recommend Guantanamo.

    Giraldi’s crusade – if intended to reverse disastrous wars since 1990 – is worthy. If a bit narrow. What’s next? ‘The Lobby French Style’? On down the line
     
    Actually, its narrowness is its strength. As you know, these other foreign lobbies pale in comparison to the damage being done by The Lobby.

    Would we have invaded Iraq ‘03 without:... Should they enjoy safe harbor? Were they hypnotized by AIPAC?
     
    The names you named are just as guilty as the neocons. They all should be tried for treason.

    A river of trillions waters many livelihoods. Does ‘the Lobby’ control it? Don’t think so.
     
    As far as the mission to remake the Middle East is concerned, The Lobby is the éminence grise behind it. Just take a look again at the pic at the top of the page of Phil's previous article, How I Got Fired. My sense is our host, Ron Unz, must have at least endorsed that pic, if not picked it out himself. And as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

    A C-Span guest sang the siren song in 2003. We spend all this money on the best military in history – why not use it? Helmuth von Moltke Jüngere reincarnate.
     
    Was that guest's name Madeleine Jana Korbel Albright (born Marie Jana Korbelová)?
    Here's what Colin Powell had to say about her:

    In his memoirs, Powell recalled that he almost had "an aneurysm" when Albright challenged him to explain "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
     

    “…a clear majority of American Jews…are supportive of the nuclear agreement with Iran and do not favor another Middle Eastern War…” is accurate. Many (most?) didn’t favor Iraq ‘03.
     
    That's what the maven keeps telling us. But when he and Brother Nathaneal had a showdown, the maven blinked. As a result, I am more inclined to put more stock in what Brother Nathanael has to say. And here's what he told Phil who was deliberating whether to recant the previous article he wrote, you know... the one with the provocative title:

    Do NOT re-write your Article, dear Phil, and I speak as a former Jew, now an Orthodox Christian.

    I grew up in an upper-middle class B’nai B’rith synagogue and believe me, MOST American Jews support the warmongering program of the establishment Jewish Lobbies and think tanks.

    I speak with authority here having grown up INSIDE the Jewish community. Oh, many Jews might say to the goyim, ‘I’m against all this war talk.’ BUT with their fellow Jewish ‘lantsmen’ BEHIND CLOSED DOORS they’re ALL for war against Israel’s perceived enemies.

    Every Sabbath Shacharit (morning) service growing up in the 50′s we sang Hatikvah, the Israeli National Anthem. It was part of our ‘religion’ that what’s bad for Israel is bad for all Jews.

    Today that would include all the nations that oppose and/or countering the Zionist project: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and now Russia.

    Do NOT re-write your Article. You would be voicing a falsehood. +Brother Nathanael Kapner
     

    So. Incy, all in all I must say that while your position on The Lobby has been evolving somewhat, for some reason, you still prefer to talk about the monkeys in the room, rather than the 800 lb gorilla. Still not sure why that is. I'm hoping it's not because you have an ulterior motive.

    To my surprise, I noticed two of our more thoughful commenters agreed with your comment. Until we know more about where Incitatus is coming from, I would counsel caution.

    To my surprise, I noticed two of our more thoughful commenters agreed with your comment. Until we know more about where Incitatus is coming from, I would counsel caution.

    George, I do my best to address the substance of someone’s comments and try to avoid ascribing motivation to them, except for the obvious trolls, though I don’t always succeed. Regarding these specific comments from Incitatus, I agree with his statements prima facie, but I think he/she would be foolish to assume that because I agree with this comment, I would blindly agree with any other of his/her comments, and looking through some of her/his previous ones, I find many that I disagree with violently.

    I read your finer points in critiquing his assertions and I agree that his/her points are not inclusive or comprehensive and don’t address “the gorilla in the room”. Nonetheless, I find it possible to agree with the points that he/she does address, and augment the areas he/she doesn’t in subsequent posts, as you have done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @ChuckOrloski
    Re, Jeff Engel: "Bush 1 went to war in Iraq in order to redeem the promise to those who fought in WW II, to establish a New World Order."

    S2C,

    Lots of 7-course healthy (U.R. comment) meals are falling from the table of your "obsession" with WW II.

    One question.

    Millions of Soviet soldiers fought WW II to great Allied victory.

    Do you think Jeff Engel counted Stalin's military forces as worthy of War Profiteer "Papa" Bush's redemptive promise to "establish a New World Order?"

    I for one consider the 1991 President H.W. Bush's proclamation of the N.W.O. as open to the communism-free "Motherland" Russia. (Sigh) I recall NYT Abe Rosenthal's gushing Op-Ed and his glorifying the N.W.O. arrival.

    Point is that the New World Order managers would love to include present-day ZUSA nemesis, Putin's Rus. (SIGH)

    I realize my attempt to take you into the "weeds." But weeds serve a vital filtration purpose in the preservation of "wetlands" against contamination. I will stop with the following WW II related question.

    Curious, by chance, have you read Suvorov's rather military-statistic loaded book, "The Chief Culprit?" To date, Anglo-Zionists seem to prefer his work tucked away in-the-weeds.

    Thank you.

    I looked at SC’s take on 1990-1991 Iraq and I think he gives too much credence to those who emphasize Saudi Arabia and Gulf States influence. Basically this is the usual disinfo to keep people away form looking at Israel connection. The question whether Hussein was misled and drawn into invading Kuwait still stands. And we can try answer it form the qui bono position. It was the end of the Cold War. We were talking about peace dividends and getting relaxed. And then we had to get involve in the ME going after our asset who we used against Iran. To me it was just too convenient for both MIC and Israel. Then I distinctly remember that Bush was not enthused and had to have is arms twisted to commit to the war. And then he did not go all the way. He did not took the opportunity to go to Bagdad 13 years before his son wen there. To Bagdad from where they could decide to turn right and go to Teheran or let and go to Damascus. The neocons were furious and they never forgave him. On top of it after the war when he had the highest popularity of any president ever he confronted Yitzhak Shamir about settlements and threatened to hold the money for Israel. These two offenses explain why Clinton was brought from Arkansas to replace him. Bush could not be trusted anymore. Bush was the last president who stood up to Israel interests.

    Read More
    • Disagree: SolontoCroesus, ChuckOrloski
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    I may not have articulated the case properly.

    I didn't try to analyze motives or geostrategy -- I'm strictly a cut-and-paste guy: I based the things I said on things Jeff Engel said (look at the video -- the first part will make you puke: HOWDY!)
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?310832-1/book-discussion-desert-reflections-gulf-war

    Jeff Engel is an historian who is director of either the James Baker institute or the George Bush Institute -- I forget which -- at Southern Methodist or Texas A&M -- I forget which. He examined the archives of G H W Bush's papers paying special attention to the decision making process to go to war or not to go to war.

    Recall that in 1981 Israel bombed Osirak, which made Saddam determined to pursue a nuclear weapon.

    Notice how Israel was protected and kept OUT of the fight; iirc some Israeli tribal leader went to DC and demanded gas masks & a bundle of money for other protections for Israelis. Also, US manned a Patriot missile battery to protect Israel; something weird happened and 30 or so US military were killed while manning the Patriot battery. Israelis griped that they had to go into shelters and were frightened; an old man died of a heart attack. A holocaust.

    Here's a lengthy quote of what Jeff Engel concluded after studying Bush's documents.
    First, regarding Israel:


    Clearly he was constrained by the concerns of the Israeli-Arab dynamic. Now of course Israel is not a member of the coalition but many of the members of the coalition shall we say were not fond of the Israelis. Consequently he was constrained in the need to keep the war from going on long enough for the Israelis for the Israelis to want to retaliate for being hit by Saddam Hussein.
    And at the same time, harken back to what I said earlier about the DESIRE among many in the Middle East for an Arab solution. He was concerned if you went further towards Baghdad and in fact took over Baghdad and deposed Saddam Hussein by force that this would create greater Enmity within the coalition among his Arab members who would view that in some way as a re-establishment of western colonialism. [we'll come back to this point]
     
    Regarding the decision to invade-- Engel's conclusions are not dispositive inasmuch as they do not touch every party involved, but it's at the top of the heap of highly credible historic evidence. Make your own decisions.

    We should be frank about what moved them to act. It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.
    Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response. Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
    Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
    None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
    Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history.

    . . .

    I argue Bush took the dramatic step into the Gulf Crisis because he saw it as a bridge to a better world. His New World Order, a phrase unveiled in response to Hussein’s invasion, was not just a catchy phrase; it was rather the culmination of a long and difficult journey of intellectual discovery. . . .

    [In the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989], During the Spring and Summer of 1990 Bush told Global leaders that their alliance required an enemy to survive. In his words the new enemy was instability itself.
    . . .

    In December of 1989 in fact after meeting with Mikhail Gorbechev on the choppy seas off the coast of Malta Bush even lost his temper when pushed by reporters to declare the Cold War over because he simply did not know the answer to the next obvious and fundamental question: What Came Next?
    He said, and I quote: "IS THE COLD WAR THE SAME? I mean is it raging like before in the times of THE BERLIN BLOCKADE? Absolutely NOT. Things have moved dramatically. But IF I Signal to you that THERE'S NO COLD WAR THAN it’s What are you doing with those troops in Europe? I mean, come on!” END QUOTE

    Bush saw in the Gulf War AN OPPORTUNITY as well as in invasion, a point that I will make by way of conclusion. .. He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II.

    Ultimately this vision of a new world order based on sovereignty and stability is what drove his thinking when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In a similar vein he said, “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence. End quote.

    AND he TOLD Gorbechav THE exact SAME THING ON THE EVE OF THE AMERICAN AIR WAR and then subsequently on the eve of the American GROUND WAR as well. THAT LIBERATION OF KUWAIT WAS not an end in itself but SOMETHING BIGGER.

    AND GORBACHEV we should recall ATTEMPTED TO MEDIATE a truce between the world and Iraq . He did so twice, in fact: FIRST on the eve of the air war and then a second time WHEN THE GROUND WAR APPEARED IMMINENT. He CALLED Bush repeatedly on the telephone during this period HOPING TO SAVE LIVES, hoping to save HIS FORMER ALLY in Baghdad and I think hoping to KEEP the world from seeing TOO VIVIDLY a DEMONSTRATION of potentially AMERICAN hegemonic POWER.
     

    Regarding the decision to go or not to go into Baghdad and take down Saddam, this passage is extremely important, not just for the thinking process at the time but for how that same thinking process still has a hold on policy makers in DC. Here's what Engel said:

    But there’s a very important distinction here which I would like to make which I think was a revelation to me within the archives and that a there has always been a question when the decision comes — when the study of the decision comes up about whether or not American forces should have continued on to Baghdad in 1991. This was not a discussion within the White House for a very important reason: The ultimate goal or one of the the ultimate goals beyond the liberation of Kuwait was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. There was a 100 percent certainty on the part of high level American officials that this was going to happen anyway.

    Saddam Hussain had been embarrassed; his own people rising up against him, his own army was out to get him. If he lived weeks it would have been a shock instead of days. 999 times out of 1,000 I think that is exactly how things would have played out, that Saddam would not have survived.

    Unfortunately from the Bush administration’s perspective, George H. W. Bush’s perspective, Saddam rolled the dice and made it. But I think that given the question and those odds again I suspect they would take the same bet again."
     

    In fact, never in recent history has a people abandoned its beleaguered leader and clamored for the invader to save it; Allies bombed the hell out of Germany with the goal of forcing the German people to abandon their government, but it did not happen. Japan, similar. North Korea? Didn't happen. Viet Nam -- I don't know that much about it, but obviously, the VietNamese did not rush to the American embrace. Assad is still Syria's sovereign.
    US Congress Foreign Affairs committee Ed Royce & Elliot Engel, & senators like Cotton have their dicks in a sling because Iran will not capitulate; they can't stand it; they'll impose more sanctions, more demonizing attempts to destabilize Iran because they are bullies who can't stand someone who does not capitulate to their "better world."
    , @RobinG
    As much as certain people promote the “War for Israel” meme, one can’t discount the “strategic denial” aspect of the hegemony chess game. Obviously goes for ME as well as Africa.

    Thanks to Denk for link to Engdahl's article -

    In late 2007, Dr. J. Peter Pham, a Washington insider who advises the US State and Defense Departments, stated openly that among the aims of the new AFRICOM, is the objective of “protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance … a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.”
     
    https://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-s-war-on-libya-is-directed-against-china-africom-and-the-threat-to-china-s-national-energy-security/26763
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    If disaster relief depends on blind loyalty to a foreign power, can it be long before 911 police response requires a similar oath?
     
    Well put.

    “Cabal” is defined as “a secret political clique or faction.” AIPAC, Netanyahu, neocons are pretty public.
     
    Agreed. That's why the title of Stephen Sniegoski's book is The Transparent Cabal.

    Those responsible for this nonsense should get a one-way ticket abroad.
     
    I'd recommend Guantanamo.

    Giraldi’s crusade – if intended to reverse disastrous wars since 1990 – is worthy. If a bit narrow. What’s next? ‘The Lobby French Style’? On down the line
     
    Actually, its narrowness is its strength. As you know, these other foreign lobbies pale in comparison to the damage being done by The Lobby.

    Would we have invaded Iraq ‘03 without:... Should they enjoy safe harbor? Were they hypnotized by AIPAC?
     
    The names you named are just as guilty as the neocons. They all should be tried for treason.

    A river of trillions waters many livelihoods. Does ‘the Lobby’ control it? Don’t think so.
     
    As far as the mission to remake the Middle East is concerned, The Lobby is the éminence grise behind it. Just take a look again at the pic at the top of the page of Phil's previous article, How I Got Fired. My sense is our host, Ron Unz, must have at least endorsed that pic, if not picked it out himself. And as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

    A C-Span guest sang the siren song in 2003. We spend all this money on the best military in history – why not use it? Helmuth von Moltke Jüngere reincarnate.
     
    Was that guest's name Madeleine Jana Korbel Albright (born Marie Jana Korbelová)?
    Here's what Colin Powell had to say about her:

    In his memoirs, Powell recalled that he almost had "an aneurysm" when Albright challenged him to explain "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
     

    “…a clear majority of American Jews…are supportive of the nuclear agreement with Iran and do not favor another Middle Eastern War…” is accurate. Many (most?) didn’t favor Iraq ‘03.
     
    That's what the maven keeps telling us. But when he and Brother Nathaneal had a showdown, the maven blinked. As a result, I am more inclined to put more stock in what Brother Nathanael has to say. And here's what he told Phil who was deliberating whether to recant the previous article he wrote, you know... the one with the provocative title:

    Do NOT re-write your Article, dear Phil, and I speak as a former Jew, now an Orthodox Christian.

    I grew up in an upper-middle class B’nai B’rith synagogue and believe me, MOST American Jews support the warmongering program of the establishment Jewish Lobbies and think tanks.

    I speak with authority here having grown up INSIDE the Jewish community. Oh, many Jews might say to the goyim, ‘I’m against all this war talk.’ BUT with their fellow Jewish ‘lantsmen’ BEHIND CLOSED DOORS they’re ALL for war against Israel’s perceived enemies.

    Every Sabbath Shacharit (morning) service growing up in the 50′s we sang Hatikvah, the Israeli National Anthem. It was part of our ‘religion’ that what’s bad for Israel is bad for all Jews.

    Today that would include all the nations that oppose and/or countering the Zionist project: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and now Russia.

    Do NOT re-write your Article. You would be voicing a falsehood. +Brother Nathanael Kapner
     

    So. Incy, all in all I must say that while your position on The Lobby has been evolving somewhat, for some reason, you still prefer to talk about the monkeys in the room, rather than the 800 lb gorilla. Still not sure why that is. I'm hoping it's not because you have an ulterior motive.

    To my surprise, I noticed two of our more thoughful commenters agreed with your comment. Until we know more about where Incitatus is coming from, I would counsel caution.

    “To my surprise, I noticed two of our more thoughful commenters agreed with your comment. Until we know more about where Incitatus is coming from, I would counsel caution.”

    geokat62,

    Top notch counsel… you can invoice me for that! (Sigh)

    Always I keep in mind what Orwell warned about “ideologues” and how they cherish “telling people how to think.”

    Regarding where Incitatus is “coming from,” his advanced guile-technique makes such sincere & vital attempt IMPOSSIBLE.

    (SIGH)

    One can not confidently brand Inzitatus as a “Minor League” Hasbara practitioner, but rarely does he take on The Lobby with conviction. There is no protest included in his comments for holding Israel accountable for all the unnecessary & immoral M.E. and N. Africa wars. Nicht!

    And were The Maven Shama activated on this comment thread, they’d be falling over one another with self-admiration. (Sigh) Incitatus has cunningly shifted gear and moved into a (dumb goyim) ally-seeking mode.

    In conclusion, I avoid telling you “how to think,” but an amber caution light should flash whenever an InZitatus comment appears.

    Be well!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    Can’t have people thinking for themselves, can we?
     
    I know this may be challenging for a PEAbrain to grasp, so I'll repeat it for the umpteenth time. This has nothing to do with independence of thought, but everything to do with "knowing who's who in the zoo."

    Got it, Mr. PEAbody? sheesh!

    everything to do with “knowing who’s who in the zoo.”

    We always need to know which side a person is on before consider what they have to say.

    Nice to know that you have come around to my way of looking at things. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Can’t have people thinking for themselves, can we?

    I know this may be challenging for a PEAbrain to grasp, so I’ll repeat it for the umpteenth time. This has nothing to do with independence of thought, but everything to do with “knowing who’s who in the zoo.”

    Got it, Mr. PEAbody? sheesh!

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    everything to do with “knowing who’s who in the zoo.”

    We always need to know which side a person is on before consider what they have to say.

    Nice to know that you have come around to my way of looking at things. :)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    both can’t be true

    It is true for me as an individual.

    It cannot be extended to a censorious government.

    I do not advocate for such governmental censoring. I support the 1st Amendment and oppose "hate speech" laws.

    Even though I believe liberal democracy is in free fall, I intend to support it until the day before the Armageddon. At that point we face Popper’s Paradox (hat tip to Talha) and I admit that I likely will break bad on the subject.

    “I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.” hat-tip Popper.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @RobinG
    Streaming Now ---
    https://www.hudson.org/events/1475-countering-violent-extremism-qatar-iran-and-the-muslim-brotherhood102017

    No need to say how skewed this is. Just heard (on CSPAN) how anti-Semitism threatens dear little Israel, how Qatar is evil for harboring Hamas supporters, etc.

    thank you, RobinG.

    I think Rurik discussed replacing Tillerson w/ Cotton and moving Pompeo somewhere else?? I think Pompeo just met with Foundation for Defense of Democracies (which is, of course, anything but), an ominous prospect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.