|
|
楼主 |
发表于 2009-3-8 03:20
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 I'm_zhcn 于 2009-3-8 03:31 编辑
Comments
1. Great article! Honest and strong. I especially like this:
"Let's be clear. This is corruption. When people won't tell you what they really care about (...)"
A German said once: "The (written) word has to be a fist, not an point finger. Strike, hit."
Keep on striking and don't let yourself get watered down.
Posted by: Me | March 06, 2009 at 12:29 PM
2. Bingo Phil.
Dealing with Iran is Israel's Job One. Expect maximum effort at removing any percieved impediment.
Posted by: doug | March 06, 2009 at 12:45 PM
3. It's corruption, all right. And it's also fear by the MSM to call the attacks against Freeman by its rightful name. The media debate about Freeman is still largely under the public news radar screen. Even Sam Stein, over at Huffington Post and the first blogger to ask a question at a presidential press conference, shades his story about Freeman in terms of questionable connections to China and Saudi Arabia. His only mention of the Israel Lobby is as the title of Stephen Walt's book. Stein can't be that stupid can he? No, because it's fear of the consequences of outing the Lobby in its campaign against Freeman.
The Washington Times and UPI are more like MSM tail lights because they have a limited readership. Nevertheless, long-time foreign affairs writer Arnaud de Borchgrave, who is connected to both, has a fearless piece about the Lobby's coordinated attack against Freeman.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/06/intelligence-analyst-in-chief/
Posted by: seethelight | March 06, 2009 at 12:53 PM
4. And now a few words for those gullible Palestinian and Arab leaders who entertain the same false hopes every time a new American administration comes to power.
It is time you realize that without a real revolution in Washington, one that would deliver the American government and people from the Zionist stranglehold, there is not the slightest chance in hell that America will be able to accomplish peace in Palestine.
Today, Israel tightly controls the American government, including Congress, as well as the media, especially the so-called agenda-setter media. Moreover, Israeli leaders are bragging about Israel’s predominance in American political life.
“We don’t ask our American friends to do this or that , we order them to do it,” suggested one Israeli official recently.
This means that as long as Israel continues to call the shots in Washington D.C. and as long a American officials such as Hillary Clinton continue to shake at the mere thought of upsetting the powerful Zionist lobby, which exploits America and her resources for the purpose of achieving Jewish-Zionist territorial aggrandizement in the Middle East, counting on America to bring peace to this region borders on illusive and delusional day-dreaming.
For sure, a country that is nearly hopelessly enslaved by Jewish money and Jewish power, is not free to achieve peace.
Such a state should be called the “United States of Israel,” not the “United States of America.”
The United States of Israel
Posted by: Dan Kelly | March 06, 2009 at 01:02 PM
5. Another great link, seethelight. Thanks.
Posted by: Doppler | March 06, 2009 at 01:17 PM
6. The main issue is, will the USA, after the dead of WW2, and the dead of the USA's civil war, and the death of apartheid S Africa, still OK the stealing of land by force, both literal (with full aid by the USA), and with economic support (the result)?
IN short, does Never Again apply across the world, or only to the jews? This is the cause. Does universal humanism apply, or not? witty has made his choice. And the rest of the human race? chris berel et al, Chris's Stools, have made their choice--much more directly than witty, who obviscates. . .An now its time for average USA masses to get off the pot, a pot made dire by US economy, by Madoff et al. Go back to Abramanhoff (sic), his K street, and Wall street now.
Posted by: Citizen | March 06, 2009 at 01:27 PM
7. Makes you wonder if American jews generally have any idea of how unbelievably offensive it is to see this kind of thing go on or this Rosen business with even him attacking a guy like Freeman. If they did you'd think they'd put the kibosh on it like crazy or respond to repudiate it, and indeed so would the Israelis even I would think.
How many people in U.S. government who know of Freeman are saying "those f'ing jews" behind closed doors, and how many are quietly making connections and talking about what they can do in response? And as to Israel, boy, the minute its influence slips there's gonna be lots of people I suspect who are gonna wanna pile on to see the worm turn 180 degrees and who will have a face of utter stone to whatever happens to it.
Ugly tactics breed ugly reactions; jeez, how hard a lesson is that to imbibe? Not pretty, not right, but as predictable as the sunrise.
Posted by: Sin Nombre | March 06, 2009 at 01:38 PM
8. Jumping up and down about Israel, Leftists hide their real agenda, destruction of America/Western values.
Posted by: Suzanne | March 06, 2009 at 01:53 PM
9. Wasnt Dennis Ross an Israeli agent anyway? What the hell is he doing in the Obama administration? Or for that matter, why the hell are all these congressmen and woman getting money from AIPAC?
Posted by: Mike | March 06, 2009 at 02:09 PM
10. Brzezinski rejects Israel condition on Iran
Two former national security advisors urge the Obama administration to negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear program without time limits.
Time limits "create a sense of urgency and pressure which (prevents) serious exploration of the issues," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor for ex-president Jimmy Carter.
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, an advisor to then president George H.W. Bush, advised President Obama on Iran....
...Brzezinski also urged the White House not to be influenced by other concerned parties over Iran talks.
"We should be very careful not to become susceptible to interested parties" and their policies on Iran, he warned referring to Israeli media reports that Tel Aviv urged Clinton to impose a time frame for negotiations with Tehran.
Brzezinski rejects Israel condition on Iran
Posted by: Dan Kelly | March 06, 2009 at 02:15 PM
11. One of the disgraces of the Mondoweiss case is that his friends dare not speak their true agenda. Phil's phools appear to be an antisemitic cabal who seek to help Islamic fascists fulfill their fantasy of a second holocaust.
Posted by: chris berel | March 06, 2009 at 02:49 PM
12. Second holocaust
Islamic fascists
antisemetic cabal
L O L
God, you're a **ing retard.
And L O L @Suzanne. Western values?
Ethnic cleansing and genocide because God prefers you over another people - Manifest Destiny
Enslavement of an entire people because they are the Children of Ham or just generally inferior since they have dark skin - Slavery
Discrimination of people with dark skin and women, because they are WOmen - Segregation/Civil discrimination/Woman's suffrage/etc.
------
All this talk about Western values is total nonsense.
Zionism seems to combine the worst of neoconservative thought and general ignorance of history.
All our victories as a country came slowly with painful struggle.
We weren't born yesterday, a secular/technocratic democratic society.
We have deep-seated institutional problems and we only overcame past issues by constant activism and strife - from the bottom, UP.
But a complete moron like Suzanne and the rest of the ZioPuke want to perpetuate this false notion of American exceptionalism.
That it's really that we're inherently better than others. Our 'values' are superior. Yea, we've heard this bullshit before, and then came those who were deemed controversial and radical and anti-American.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Malcom X
etc. etc.
Zionism seems to be an ideology that hinges on historical ignorance and pathological hypocrisy and sanctimony.
No wonder Berel keeps regurgitating the same fascist rhetoric and calling everyone a Nazi/Islamist/blah blah when he can't intelligently debate what they're saying.
You people are scumbags.
Posted by: LD | March 06, 2009 at 03:32 PM
13. I think pressure on Israel without pressure on Hamas is a mistake.
It is in the US interest for there to be a viable peace, with a secure Israel and sovereign, self-governing and secure Palestine.
Right now Palestine is in a state of civil war, and the dividing partisonship revolves around what party, what agenda is in power in Palestine, and as the distinction whether to pursue a cosmopolitan reconciliation with Israel, or to determine to only resist.
The first step obviously is reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, so that there is a single Palestinian voice and government. That is FAR AWAY currently as it is still illegal to advocate for Fatah in Gaza, and that some unidentified number of Palestinians were summarily executed by Hamas and other cadre, potentially near to the number of civilians that were attributed to be killed by Israel.
Is that reconciliation possible? Is Hamas capable of introspection, and sober and prudent deliberation?
I hope so, because then some reconciliation is possible, some viable Palestinian state.
Otherwise there is only war indefinitely.
Posted by: Richard Witty | March 06, 2009 at 03:46 PM
14. I agree. The Palestinian leadership needs to reform. They need to stop using terror as well.
Posted by: LD | March 06, 2009 at 03:59 PM
15. "Makes you wonder if American jews generally have any idea of how unbelievably offensive it is to see this kind of thing go on or this Rosen business with even him attacking a guy like Freeman."
People see a guy like Freeman who takes money with both hands from the Chinese and Saudis and they don't want him anywhere near an intelligence agency.
Posted by: Julian | March 06, 2009 at 05:02 PM
16. as opposed to taking money from Jews. which is a-ok
Posted by: LD | March 06, 2009 at 05:20 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/06/intelligence-analyst-in-chief/ Posted by: seethelight | March 06, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Great link.
Posted by: MRW. | March 06, 2009 at 05:36 PM
17. that some unidentified number of Palestinians were summarily executed by Hamas and other cadre, potentially near to the number of civilians that were attributed to be killed by Israel.
How about US backed Fatah forces killing Hamas supporters?
The Gaza Bombshell, David Rose
After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever. ****************************************************************************
Richard, it would be interesting to hear, which media except the NYT you consider reliable on ME matters, and which journalists you consider trustworthy, can we assume David Rose is not among them?
Posted by: Committee for Historical Accuracy II | March 06, 2009 at 06:45 PM
18. Arnaud de Borchgrave, was on of the rare voices of reason. He knows very well what he is talking about. Does Hans Blix ring a bell? Does Seymore Hersh's term: stovepiping?
Iraq and the Golf of Tonkin,February 9, 2004
When this writer first heard from prominent neoconservatives in April 2002 that war was no longer a question of "if" but "when," the casus belli had little to do with WMDs. The Bush administration, they explained, starkly and simply, had decided to redraw the geopolitical map of the Middle East. The Bush Doctrine of pre-emption had become the vehicle for driving axis of evil practitioners out of power. Not online anymore:
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/03/02/World/Commentary.Truth.As.A.Second.Language-612586.shtml
Insight on the News - World
Issue: 03/02/04
Commentary: Truth as a Second Language By Arnaud De Borchgrave There have been so many half-truths and shadings of the truth, as well as disinformation, about Iraq, one is tempted to conclude that officials who lie to journalists and then believe what they read in the newspapers, or see and hear on TV and radio news, now can cause wars.
Credibility was America's most precious asset. But that's now been swept aside in a blizzard of palpably fraudulent stories. Talk, albeit off the record, with any political leader anywhere in the world, and if you can't reach him or her, talk off the record to their ambassadors in Washington. The nation's capital has finally made it as a bilingual city -- where truth is the second language. Seldom spoken, however.
Intelligence analysts, it now turns out, were fed dynamite corroboration about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi army defectors who, in turn, had been coached to lie about their firsthand knowledge of such weapons. The coaches, in this instance, were London-based Iraqi exile leaders, gnawed by naked ambition to oust Saddam and become Iraq's new top bananas. All this is bound to come out in the wash -- but not until March 2005 -- when President George W. Bush's appointed commissioners tell him what happened on his watch.
The State Department and the CIA developed a healthy skepticism of such exile leaders as Ahmad Chalabi, the president and founder of the Iraqi National Congress and now a member of the governing council in Baghdad. But Chalabi, a convicted bank embezzler in Jordan who was sentenced in abstentia to 22 years of hard labor on April 9, 1992, had powerful friends at the Pentagon and at the American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative think tank. And his well-rehearsed military defectors were given their "unimpeachable source" seal of approval.
Parallel with this massive disinformation campaign, Chalabi himself became an unimpeachable source for major media outlets.
Before the CIA decided -- quite recently -- to dismantle the firewalls separating "operations" from "analysis," what was the intelligence analyst to make of a firsthand, eyewitness, unnamed Iraqi colonel who said he had served in an artillery unit that had weapons of mass destruction in its train? Or of a major who testified that the much-touted mobile labs were designed to make deadly stuff on the run? Add to that the incessant beating of the tom-tom drums of war on TV when the battered analyst got home at night. War fever permeated 24/7 televisions, where talking heads dismissed anyone who dissented from the pell-mell rush to invade Iraq as an appeaser of tin-pot dictators.
What was John Doe the analyst to make of Vice President Dick Cheney on Aug. 26, 2002, when he signaled in a major speech the administration's intention to wage war because "there is no doubt" Saddam "has weapons of mass destruction" and is preparing to use them against the United States? Not only does Saddam have chem-bio WMDs, explained Cheney to a gazillion listeners around the world, but he has "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."
Almost alone in the mainstream media, the Knight Ridder chain's Washington Bureau (31 newspapers in the United States, none in Washington) blew the whistle: "While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq," said the first paragraph, "a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war." The government's "hawks", the article concluded, have "exaggerated" and "distorted" the evidence. And most of the mainstream media went along with the charade.
We all owe an apology to Hans Blix and his merry band of U.N. inspectors. They got it right. Bill O'Reilly of the O'Reilly Factor on Fox, angered that he had been so badly misled, turned against President Bush -- on the air, live. While the buck stops on the president's desk, he is hardly the one to blame. Garbage-in-garbage-out was the problem.
Small wonder the first Arabic-language U.S. satellite-TV station, named Al-Hurra (Arabic for "the free"), did not garner any hurrahs from the intended audience -- some 310 million Arabs in 22 Arab countries. America's message was blunted from the start by the Bush administration's benign neglect of the Middle East peace process, pushed aside as it was by the occupation of Iraq, and a much-heralded "road map" for a road that wasn't on the map. Which now is seen as a diversion to allow Ariel Sharon to complete his housekeeping chores in the West Bank and Gaza before drawing a new line in the sand.
Al-Hurra is seen by Arabs as a new vessel for the same merchandise -- the promotion of U.S. policies and interests as well as those of Israel. Ever since Prime Minister Sharon convinced Bush that Israel's war on Palestinian terrorism was an integral part of America's war on global terrorism, Sharon has moved his pieces on the Middle Eastern chess board to ensure the stillbirth of a Palestinian state. He has forged ahead with a 360-mile, $2 billion wall/fence/ditch that snakes deep into Palestinian territory and expropriates almost 15 percent of the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem). And if the barrier is extended along the Jordan River with a no-man's land on either side, as presently envisaged, Israel will have annexed 55 percent of the area designated to become a Palestinian state. Not by the remotest stretch of an Israeli's imagination -- dove or hawk -- could this possibly be seen as a future Palestinian state.
Sharon is posing as a conciliator who is preparing to evacuate Gaza, where 7,000 Jewish settlers cluster in heavily fortified enclaves, guarded by thousands of Israel Defense Forces soldiers, among 1.5 million Palestinians. Clearly this was untenable in the long run. The settlers will be compensated to resettle -- in the West Bank. And Sharon is planning to ask the United States to pay for the move. In an election year, Sharon knows that chutzpah takes on a new dimension. No politician can lay a glove on him.
U.S. ambassadors in Europe and the Middle East have been instructed to persuade governments in their regions about the geopolitical merits of the next phase of the Bush Doctrine. The idea is to breathe new life into NATO by extending the Western alliance's writ to Iraq and its security umbrella to Arab countries going the route of democratization. The new Iraqi government is yet to be created -- and yet to be consulted. For the others, the grand design is a no-brainer. It's dead on arrival.
Arnaud De Borchgrave is an editor at large for UPI, a sister wire service of Insight magazine.
Posted by: Committee for Historical Accuracy II | March 06, 2009 at 07:16 PM
19. By the time Borchgrave arrives at a position, it is already practically common knownledge, but the fact that he is the person who is permitted to express it for the first time at, say, the Washington Times (of which Insight Magazine is a subsidiary) is a tribute to the respect inspired by his decades-long personal connections with the intelligence world (not primarily the US 'intelligence community', but others).
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | March 06, 2009 at 09:03 PM
20. Witty: "I think pressure on Israel without pressure on Hamas is a mistake."
It would be nice to see pressure on both of them. But to date, as far as I can tell, there never has been any pressure on Israel
Posted by: Duscany | March 07, 2009 at 12:32 AM
21. @Duscany
Pressure Hamas ? With what!!!!!
What more can they possibly do ? Only idiots like Mr Witty have the audacity to "demand" equal pressure.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
The zionists have taken their land, the water, destroyed their houses, killed the children, uprooted the olive trees.
Still the palestinians are winning. By refusing to die or run away are they forcing the zionists to show their true nature, and by Jehosaphat-it is ugly.
Posted by: Dag Andersson | March 07, 2009 at 07:03 AM
22. Yeah, Witty is amazing in his blind thoughts. Just shows you how his brain is eroded by ideology. A regular assumption of his is that, despite nearly half a century of one-sided pressure, still current, he now says the pressured all this time need to allow for balance or context--he's like a NAZI back in
1945 pleading for equality of treatment before the Nuremberg Court. Ashkenazi, nazi.
Posted by: mmm | March 07, 2009 at 10:59 AM |
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2009-3-8 02:17
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡