Blog Flux Directory Subscribe in NewsGator Online Subscribe with Bloglines http://www.wikio.com Blog directory
And, yes, I DO take it personally
Mandy: Great blog!
Mark: Thanks to all the contributors on this blog. When I want to get information on the events that really matter, I come here.
Penny: I'm glad I found your blog (from a comment on Think Progress), it's comprehensive and very insightful.
Eric: Nice site....I enjoyed it and will be back.
nora kelly: I enjoy your site. Keep it up! I particularly like your insights on Latin America.
Alison: Loquacious as ever with a touch of elegance -- & right on target as usual!
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
- Noam Chomsky
Send tips and other comments to: profmarcus2010@yahoo.com

And, yes, I DO take it personally

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Juan Cole on how Israel controls U.S. policy

you simply MUST read juan cole's excellent analysis of the bush, olmert, rice, khalilzad intrigue related to the un security council cease-fire resolution on gaza... it's complete, insightful, and probably pretty damn accurate...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, May 23, 2008

Stand Clear of the Fan

Israeli police question Olmert

Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, is being questioned for a second time by the police, as a part of a bribery investigation.

Friday's investigation will probe Olmert's alleged role in accepting money from Morris Talansky, an American Jewish businessman.


Olmert has denied accepting any bribe from
US businessman Morris Talansky [GALLO/GETTY]


Earlier, Israel's chief prosecutor had said that investigators suspected Olmert had taken envelopes of cash from Talansky, a New York based fundraiser.

[...]

Meanwhile, Talansky has said that he received nothing from Olmert in exchange for the money. He is due to give evidence in court on Sunday.

Prosecutors want Talansky to give evidence under oath before a court order banning him from leaving Israel expires on Monday.

Jacques Chen, Talansky's lawyer, said: "He is anxious to return to the US immediately thereafter."

Olmert's defence team, however, wants to put off Talansky's testimony, saying it needs more time to prepare for his cross-examination.

Israel announced on Wednesday that it had begun indirect peace talks with Syria in Turkey, a move that many Israelis think is meant only to divert attention from the inquiry into Olmert.

Ya'know....... I wondered why they were having those peace talks. But it still doesn't answer the question of why the U.S. was left out of them.

Labels: , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Israel's Ehud Olmert likely to resign as a way of sabotaging a Palestinian peace agreement?



two items of particular interest besides the potential resignation... the first is in the first paragaph and the second is in the last paragraph...
Aljazeera tv reported [Wednesday] that the prime minister of the Israeli occupation government, Ehud Olmert, will announce next week either his resignation or going into a leave for one hundred days.

During his absence, the foreign minister of the Israeli occupation government will be appointed as an acting prime minister for one hundred days.

At the end of this period, Olmert returns if he is vindicated (unlikely), or the acting prime minister, Livni, will be asked to form a new government.

What's interesting is that sudden changes like this one happened in Israel whenever there was possibility for reaching an agreement with the Palestinian Authority, like the assassination of Rabi, the removal of Peres, Netanyaho, and Barak.

did you catch them...?

1. "Israeli occupation government"
2. "sudden changes like this one happened in Israel whenever there was possibility for reaching an agreement with the Palestinian Authority"

just two more instances of perspectives we'd NEVER see on u.s. "news" outlets...

Labels: , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Iran - when I don't want 2 + 2 + 2 to add up to 6

ok... here's the first + 2, hadley in israel talking about iran with olmert...
Visiting US national security advisor Stephen Hadley was to discuss Iran's nuclear programme with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Tuesday night, public radio said.

A senior Israeli official confirmed the meeting was to take place but declined to give details.

The announcement came just hours after the deputy commander of Iran's army Mohammad Reza Ashtiani warned that his country would "eliminate Israel from the global arena" if it were attacked by the Jewish state.

Stewart Tuttle, the spokesman for the US embassy, said Hadley's talks with top Israeli officials would cover "issues of mutual interest, and a good guess is these will include Iran."

here's the second + 2, a story about israel test-firing a ballistic missile designed to be used against iran...
Israel has conducted a test of a ballistic missile aimed at simulating an Iranian attack on Israel.

The test of the "Blue Sparrow" on Tuesday came after Israel's foreign minister said in Qatar the day before that Iran represented "the extremists in the region" and was "a threat and challenge to the entire region".

Mohammed Rada Ashtiani, the deputy commander of the Iranian army, responded on Tuesday by saying that they would "eliminate it from the global arena" if Israel took any action against them.

Israel's missile test follows confirmation from a senior Israeli defence official that the US has agreed to connect the Jewish state to its ballistic missile early warning system "to protect" the regime against any missile attack.

and here's the third + 2 claiming that a u.s. strike on iran is "nearing," quoting on an anonymous source, "a leading member of america's jewish community"... (and, yes, it's from that notoriously right-wing nut-job news site, newsmax, so when you read it, think sock puppet...)
Contrary to some claims that the Bush administration will allow diplomacy to handle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a leading member of America’s Jewish community tells Newsmax that a military strike is not only on the table – but likely.

Israel is preparing for heavy casualties,” the source said, suggesting that although Israel will not take part in the strike, it is expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution.

“Look at Dick Cheney’s recent trip through the Middle East as preparation for the U.S. attack,” the source said.

Cheney’s hastily arranged 9-day visit to the region, which began on March 16, included stops in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Turkey, and the Palestinian territories.

Tensions in the region have been rising.

While Israel was conducting the largest homefront military exercises in its history last week, Israel’s National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer warned Tehran about expected attacks on the Jewish state.

“An Iranian attack will prompt a severe reaction from Israel, which will destroy the Iranian nation,” he said.

here's my view, for what it's worth... with the global financial markets still experiencing a slo-mo collapse, with the domestic economy swirling ever closer to the drain, with staggering, near-daily revelations about bush administration war crimes and criminal usurpations of executive power, the administration desperately needs more than the temporary distraction of a full-bore attack on obama's "elitism"... it needs something that will provide a MAJOR-LEAGUE distraction, and the ramping up of the rhetoric against iran and the increasing tempo of the war drums are not comforting signs at all...

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, January 11, 2008

Spinning into nausea: why should BUSH'S tears be any different?

stress...? exhaustion...? weakness...? overwhelming emotions...? calculated political ploy...? you won't see ANY of THOSE questions in ANY media stories on THIS event...
President Bush had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of Israel's Holocaust memorial Friday and told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz to halt the killing, the memorial's chairman said.

also not mentioned is the fact that this is bush's FIRST visit to israel in his 7+ years as president... instead, we get this carefully crafted piece of camouflage...
It was Bush's second visit to the Holocaust memorial, a regular stop on the visits of foreign dignitaries. His first was in 1998, as governor of Texas. The last U.S. president to visit was Bill Clinton in 1994.

Bush, making the most extensive Mideast trip of his presidency, was accompanied on his tour by a small party that included Rice and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

jeebus... the spin is absolutely nauseating...

Labels: , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Israel's response to Annapolis

f.u. AND the horse you rode in on...
Israel said Tuesday it is seeking bids to build more than 300 new homes in a disputed east Jerusalem neighborhood, drawing Palestinian condemnations that the move is undermining the newly revived peace talks held last week in Annapolis, Md.

A Housing Ministry spokesman said 307 units would be built in Har Homa, a Jewish neighborhood in east Jerusalem.

Israel captured the eastern part of the city in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed the area. The Palestinians claim east Jerusalem as the capital of a future state.

as gary kamiya says in today's edition of salon...
Annapolis will fail to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians because it was not intended to succeed. It was a charade. And in the Middle East, charades don't just leave things the way they are -- they make them much worse. The tragedy is that Olmert seems to realize the urgency of cutting a two-state deal. But there is a giant gap between seeing the goal and achieving it, and only the United States can fill it. Olmert can take the politically explosive yet necessary steps only if the United States clearly states in advance what needs to be done and then forces both sides to do it. Bush completely failed to do that. He called for the conference almost in passing. He never set an agenda. He refused to outline what the U.S. vision of peace is. Going forward, the only thing he offered the two beleaguered leaders, Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, was a promise to monitor the process -- which in these circumstances is like promising a dying man that if he calls you on your cellphone, you'll be sure to check the message.

yep... charade... that says it all...

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Where are the "calls to step down" for George?

huh...? where...? why isn't everybody in the country screaming for his head...?
Calls Mount for Olmert Bush to Step Down

Blistering Critique of Israel's United States Role in Lebanon Iraq War Shakes His Governing Coalition the White House

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert President George W. Bush faced rising calls Tuesday for his resignation ... after an official investigation found "serious failings" in his conduct of the war in Lebanon Iraq... .

[...]

But some Israeli U.S. analysts, citing the country's previous experience with postwar investigations, predicted that it is a matter of time before Olmert Bush steps aside or is ousted from office, given the report's sharp indictment of the government's competence and the army's fitness.

there isn't a head of state anywhere in the world that would have lasted 4+ years after starting an illegal war based on lies... why is george bush still in office...?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Typical WaPo nonsense

they can't help themselves...

Pratfall in Damascus

that's the snarky headline for today's op-ed excoriating nancy pelosi for having the courage and initiative to attempt what condi either can't or won't do - break a sweat trying to bring peace to israel and syria... they continue on to both ridicule and condemn her effort, and then to use the bush administration's hateful axis of evil rhetoric to describe assad and syria... way to help out, wapo...

[UPDATE]

think progress has the background and, more accurately than my feeble attempt, labels it a vicious smear... and, they point out the obvious...
Fred Hiatt and the Post editorial page get it wrong on Pelosi just like they got it wrong on the recent Iraq legislation, the U.S. Attorney scandal, the CIA leak investigation, the decision to invade Iraq, and on and on and on.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Monday, April 02, 2007

Why should we believe Olmert on Iran any more than we do Bush?

deny, deny... spin, spin... it never stops, does it...?
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert dismissed as baseless Sunday suggestions that Israel was working with the United States in drawing up contingency plans for conflict with Iran.

"Declarations that there is an American plan to strike Iran that is being coordinated with Israel which would at the same time attack Syria and Lebanon is not familiar to me, and is a baseless rumour," Olmert told a Jerusalem news conference.

"I hope no one takes action based on baseless rumours," he said.

and the u.s. government and its captive media, after ratcheting up the invective against iran in connection with the uk-iran crisis, continues to engage in its usual double standard...
One of the least endearing features of Washington’s political/media hierarchy is its propensity for selective outrage, like what is now coming from George W. Bush about the “inexcusable behavior” of the Iranian government in holding 15 British sailors whom Bush has labeled “hostages.”

This is the same President Bush who often mocks the very idea that international law should apply to him; he’s fond of the punch line: “International law? I better call my lawyer.” But Bush becomes a pious defender of international law when it suits his geopolitical interests.

The major U.S. news media predictably follows along, getting into an arms-crossed harrumph over foreigners trampling on the inviolate principles of international law, the same rules that should never constrain U.S. actions.

why should WE follow the rules...? we're big enough and powerful enough to do as we damn well please...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Why are the Dems stripping the war authorization provision?

why is this happening...?
Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday.

do you suppose it has anything to do with cheney saying THIS to aipac yesterday...?
Congress does, of course, play a critical role in the defense of the nation and the conduct of a war. That role is defined and limited by the Constitution. After all, the military answers to one commander-in-chief in the White House, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill.

and here's the wussiness in action...
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview that there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.

"It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," she said of the now-abandoned provision.

"I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y.

Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran.

i don't think anybody is under any illusion that leaving such a provision in the bill will prevent bush from acting against iran... he's made it perfectly clear that he does what he goddam well pleases... and besides, as juan cole makes clear...
Those who said that such a provision would take the military option off the table with regard to Iran are simply wrong. It just required that the president make the case for a war to the legislature, which declares war. The option was still there if the legislature wanted it to be.

and, like me, professor cole is flummoxed at the ceaseless drum-banging for a war against iran... furthermore, he doesn't see that ultimately it will help israel either...
[A]fter the Iraq fiasco it is amazing to me that Washington is still talking about going to war against Middle Eastern countries that pose no threat to the US mainland. The US got where it is after World War II by mostly avoiding direct military campaigns and occupations. The US does not have the resources to occupy two Middle Eastern oil states, and trying to do so will break it as surely as imperial overstretch broke its predecessors among the great powers. Those who think all this is good for Israel are being short-sighted. If the US spirals down into a non-entity over the next 30 years as a result of over-stretch, Israel will be left without a great power patron and might well not survive. The Europeans are fed up with its militarism and itchy trigger finger, and it hasn't made any friends in its own region.

but, meanwhile, israel keeps adding to the drum-banging by encouraging the united states to "stand firm..."

olmert at the same aipac conference...

[Israel's Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert called Iran the greatest threat to the Jewish state and said it was building sophisticated weaponry systems and trying to create nuclear capacity.

[...]

Israel is widely assumed to have the region's only nuclear arsenal and Olmert has refused to rule out military strikes as a last resort for denying Iran the bomb.

Olmert told AIPAC, a Washington-based Israel lobbying group, that diplomacy was the preferred solution to forcing the Iranians to reconsider their nuclear position.

[...]

"All of you who are concerned about the security and the future of the state of Israel understand the importance of strong American leadership addressing the Iranian threat and I'm sure that you will not hamper or restrain that strong leadership unnecessarily," Olmert said.

don't worry, ehud... the dems have got your back...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

A shadow battle against the shadow government that wants war with Iran

robert parry, as usual, offers a first-rate analysis and summary of the ugly disease that took us into iraq and is poised to strike iran...
One intelligence source told me that Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, has explored the possibility of resigning if Bush presses forward with air attacks against Iran, a war strategy that might be done in coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Though Pace has given no public signal on resigning, he has undercut Bush’s case for an expanded Middle East war by challenging the administration claims about Iran’s alleged sponsorship of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and by telling Congress that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have eroded American military capability to confront another crisis.

[...]

One intelligence source directed me to a paragraph in Seymour Hersh’s new article in The New Yorker, referring to Bush’s order for hair-trigger preparations on going to war with Iran so he can attack within 24 hours.

[...]

By creating such a tight time frame for action, Bush would negate the possibility for the Pentagon brass and Congress to mount any serious opposition to a presidential order on Iran, even if they are convinced Bush’s actions will be catastrophic.

The tradition of the U.S. military is to implement presidential orders regardless of doubts. Perhaps months later, a dissenting commander might quietly resign.

That practice and the 24-hour window may help explain why several U.S. generals are pondering now how to stop Bush from blindsiding them with a new war. One of their tactics appears to be leaking indications of their strong opposition to the press.

[...]

But one source told me that the resistance – from the Pentagon, Blair and even Democrats in Congress – appears to be having an effect on Bush’s decision-making. This source said he believed Bush had planned to launch an attack on Iran, possibly as early as this week, but was getting “weak knees.”

[...]

But one source told me that the resistance – from the Pentagon, Blair and even Democrats in Congress – appears to be having an effect on Bush’s decision-making. This source said he believed Bush had planned to an attack on Iran, possibly as early as this week, but was getting “weak knees.”

if bush is getting "weak knees," it will be the first time that anything has come between his fantasy world and reality...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments