open Democracy News Analysis - Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes", - Comments

brolly3 on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

brolly3 — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:56:49 +0100

peter.sire, You explanation for the decision to invade and occupyn Iraq is right on the ball. I would just add another couple of points. There were rumours that Saddam intended to trade some of his oil for Euros rather than Dollars, which would not suit the US if adopted by other producers as well. The US mint printing presses are for Dollars and not Euros, so it could hare been inconveniant to say the least. The other point is that the neocons have a lot of Likud sympathisers within their ranks and knocking out Iraq was one of their goals. 9/11 provided the opportunity. Of course, if Iraq had proved easier, then who knows what would have happened to Syria. Iran presented a much bigger problem from this point of view.

PFS on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

PFS — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:08:48 +0100

It's pointless looking for a "gotcha" fact to topple Bush or Blair. Whether or not it is shown to have been their agenda, they will continue to justify it on the basis that there was evidence of WMDs, flouting by Saddam of UN resolutions etc. In fact, I don't think that oil was the reason for the invasion. It is traded by the shipload while on the open seas and is accessible to anyone who wants to pay for it. I believe that, apart from unfinished Bush family business, the trigger for the invasion was the fact that the US was being asked to remove its bases from Saudi as they were causing too much trouble with the bin Laden-minded factions in that country. Iraq with its maverick dictator to justify occupation appeared a convenient replacement for a continuing Middle East presence. It just hasn't turned out as convenient as they expected. However, beating up on leaders doesn't help much when there are sufficient voters who are willing to re-elect them. They can justifiably claim that their actions have been democratically legitimised. It is those who wittingly or unwittingly put wealth before ethics when they choose their governments who are responsible. The solution in my view is to persuade the unwitting that they are directly responsible for the death and suffering of the politically oppressed and economically exploited around the globe when it comes to voting for their governments - or indeed when it comes to their consumer choices.

thewritegrrl on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

thewritegrrl — Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:16:38 +0100

I wrote this about a month and a half ago and as it never got published, I wanted to put this in the forum for feedback. While this may be old news, I'm still curious what others think. It has been seven weeks since The Sunday London Times published a leaked British document detailing the Bush administration's intention to invade Iraq—threat or no threat—and roughly two weeks since the American mainstream press began covering the story. As news of the document slowly gains national airtime, discussion by Americans overseas is already heated. “We’re definitely talking about it,” says Carrie Ballard, a member of Democrats Abroad in the Netherlands. “The memo is critically important and I think it’s imperative that it be discussed everywhere and people make up their minds about it.” The Downing Street Memo, confidential minutes dealing with the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, suggests the Bush Administration was determined to oust Saddam Hussein—a move leading to cooked intelligence and other impeachable offenses. Within days of its publication, 88 Congressional members petitioned the President for answers and within weeks, their ranks rose to 122. President Bush has so far failed to publicly respond. “If the memo is proven to be factual, I think the guy needs to leave the job,” says Donna DuCarme, Chair of the Netherland’s Branch Democrats Abroad, the official Democratic Party organization for Americans living abroad. “We know the facts weren’t straight—that’s not a question anymore. It is our issue as a nation to hold our government accountable. If not, we get the government we deserve.” As House members push for a formal inquiry, discussion of issues surrounding the memo has reached a crescendo overseas. “A stain on a blue dress is nothing compared to the stain on America right now,” says Linda Deak, a member of the Netherland’s branch of American Voices Abroad, a coalition of expatriate groups dedicated to promoting peace and democracy. “I became enraged during Clinton’s impeachment and I say use your American voice and stand up strong. This is an illegal war.” To date, treatment of the memo in the American mainstream press has been limited compared to European outlets, with much domestic reporting focusing on the lack of coverage. A case in point, David Letterman informed Bill Clinton about the memo during his talk show—a sign that corporate media has dragged its feet on a story considered major elsewhere. “I think (the American media) has confused patriotism with journalism,” says Deak, who believes that American television networks, fearful of being labeled “unpatriotic” and losing viewers—not to mention revenue—have remained uncritical of the Bush Administration. “People in our country are now being educated by commercials and getting their life skills from playing Nintendo. It’s a sad situation. The media’s role should be to provoke,” she says. Her thoughts are echoed by Brian Walsh from Ohio, who has lived in Holland for five years. “Fox News is all flashing lights, but the BBC has some substance. They uncover the news themselves rather than waiting for people or the government to tell them what’s happening,” says Walsh, who feels local, European news casts a more critical eye. “There’s really no comparison whatsoever.” A search of the major news networks' transcripts from May 1-June 20 show that CNN covered the Downing Street Memo in 30 segments, compared to 294 for missing high school graduate Natalee Holloway and 633 for Michael Jackson, according to Arianna Huffington’s website. Many networks say they initially passed on the story because the memo didn’t reveal much the public didn’t already know. The July 23, 2002 minutes suggest that the U.S. government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations with nuclear capacity; that intelligence was being manufactured around the case for war; and show how Bush’s public assurances of "war as a last resort" contradict private statements. Neither Bush nor Blair has denied the document’s authenticity. For Michael Smith, who discovered the memo, the idea of it being overlooked as news was unfathomable. “Not reportable, are you kidding me?” Smith was quoted in an interview with the Washington Post last week. Smith also cautioned that the media stands at a crossroads because “you can be inaccurate just as much by ignoring something as you can by writing it up and getting it wrong,” he said. As the issue continues to attract attention at home, not only Democrats are calling for a bushwhacking over the memo. Craig Roberts, a conservative pundit and former Reagan Assistant Treasury secretary, weighed in on the subject and pushed for the President’s impeachment. “This (memo) is the mother of all smoking guns. Why isn’t Bush in the dock?” he wrote in a syndicated column several weeks after the memo’s publication. While many critics see the memo as proof of Bush's duplicity, others like Colleen Graffy, former Chairman of the UK branch of Republicans Abroad, believe it has been overblown. “The memo misses an essential point—that Saddam Hussein was continuing to flout international law at a crucial period. It would have been irresponsible and negligent after 911 for our government not to look where the next potential threat was,” says Graffy, also a Pepperdine University law professor and who resides in London. “(With Saddam) we tried everything in the tool kit of diplomacy and it was not working. Where is the lie?” But for many, the memo smacks of Watergate, though Watergate did not result in military and civilian deaths, which rank at 1,728 and 25,426 respectively. “Our government said they were going after Osama then went right for Hussein,” says DuCarme. “We’re going from crisis to crisis. Now there are thousands of dead Iraqis and Americans based on lies. It’s going to war for no good reason.” Walsh concurs. “The President has undermined the constitution and knowingly mislead Congress. I think that’s definite grounds for impeachment,” he says. As debate continues, public support for the war has waned to an all time low. According to a recent Gallop poll, sixty percent of Americans favor a partial or complete withdrawal of American troops. Coupled with a yawning federal deficit and ongoing instability in Iraq, the Downing Street memo is just a further call for government accountability—from Americans at home, as well as abroad. “If Bush lied and thousands have died,” asks Ballard “when does it stop?”

brolly3 on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

brolly3 — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:01:15 +0100

rickgibsonlaw, In your post to me on another string, I detected your recent attempt to stick labels on me in a patronsing way and I responded by saying I would not play your game' On this string you have not attempted the same tactic so I think I am entitled to answer your questions. ["Let me ask you some very direct questions. "First, did you approve of Saddam Hussein's rule? Second, what do you want done in Iraq now? Do you want the US to just leave? Third, what is your solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict? Do you believe that permitting the Palestinians to return to Israel proper will lead to lasting peace between the two peoples?"] OK. Question One. This must be rhetorical because there isn't anyone around who would say yes. The question for me is was the invasion necessary and worth the price being paid. It is on this point I have to say no. I believe that Saddam's murderous activities were largely in the past and that he had been pinned down, was militarily weak and no longer a danger to his neighbours or anyone else. I never bought the WMD justification and neither did most of the CIA or British Intelligence. The heads of these orgaizations were more or less coerced or bribed into saying what the politicians wanted to hear. Certainly this was the case in the UK, where the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee has been rewarded with being made head of MI5, the top job, although almost everything he was persuaded to say turned out to be wrong. As to the future of the Iraqi people, having said that they were not being persecuted in 2003 as they were in the past, Saddam represented no more of an authoritarian rule than is the case in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East and ex-Soviet Central Asia. Question two. Yes, I think that foreign troops should leave and let the Iraqis sort out their own affairs. This might lead to civil war but this is by no means certain. Many Iraqis outside of the so-called Interim Government have written articles in UK newspapers to this effect and are much more hopeful that a settlement could be worked out.This may not go at all smoothly to begin with but could still be a better option. The Interim Government does not enjoy any real support from the bulk of the people and are known to be lining their pockets. It is clear that the majority of Shias apart from Sunnis, want the coalition to leave. While there are Anglo-Saxon forces in a Muslim country as occupiers, there will be continuing strife. Only the Kurds in the North are in favour of the coalition remaining. I believe that the US and the UK want to remain indefinitely albeit with fewer troops involved. The fourteen military bases being constructed were never intended to be just for the short term. Question three. I think that the US should exert maximum pressure on Israel to reach a settlement based on returning all of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians. As for the right of return, this should apply to Palestinian territory. Now I don't for one moment believe that there will be any worthwhile settlement because Israel is too afraid. So what I think should happen and the reality of what will happen are two different things. The Israelis do not trust the Arabs. The problem is that this creates an impasse. As long as there is no settlement Israel will be in mortal danger and if there is, Israel could still be in the same situation. Who knows where this is all leading. With one and a half billion Muslims, it only needs a tiny percentage to be disaffected for terror to continue for years to come. I don't believe the war on terror can be won because it is is being fought in the wrong way.

rickgibsonlaw on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

rickgibsonlaw — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:11:51 +0100

Joeanna: The whole Middle East issue is not so frightfully complex. There are two peoples who claim the same land. Justice says that there should a compromise between them; zealots say that one side's rights should prevail in full over the other. The US has consistently supported a reasonable compromise. Until relatively recently, the Arab world -- supported by Europe and the UN -- has sought to destroy Israel. Recently, thank God, the Palestinians have started to show some interest in compromise. We are a long way from a solution, but the situation is far more hopeful than it has ever been before. In my opinion, it is somewhat perverse to be stirring up this whole argument at this point. Under Abbas, the Palestinians are no longer all in lockstep, seeking war. Abbas is sincerely interested in peace, or so I judge. Likewise, Sharon is now moving toward compromise. He is pushing his own people to withdraw from Gaza, a move opposed by Jewish extremists. But,folks like Brolly,want to keep harping on the evils of the Jews. What good does that do? What is needed is understanding and compromise. And one thing. The Jews right to the land is based on history. They were there two thousand years ago. They were expelled by the Romans. But they never lost the memory of home,and they never found another place which was theirs. Their claim is as well-founded as that of any other people on Earth; it is certainly older than that of most. This does not disparage the Palestinian claim to the same land. This is the tragedy of the situation: one land,two peoples.

rickgibsonlaw on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

rickgibsonlaw — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:39:15 +0100

Brolly: Let me ask you some very direct questions. First, did you approve of Saddam Hussein's rule? Second, what do you want done in Iraq now? Do you want the US to just leave? Third, what is your solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict? Do you believe that permitting the Palestinians to return to Israel proper will lead to lasting peace between the two peoples?

Joeanna Nee on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

Joeanna Nee — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 13:44:41 +0100

Dear Rick, I have just read and reread your exchange with Brolly. You keep saying he is the one who is not answering, or cracking and then you called him Anti-semetic for having an view that just because someone is Jewish doesnt give them a right to automatically have citizenship in another country. What part of "Im on of them" in reference to being Jewish did you miss? Oh, right, it doesnt fit YOUR arguement. Now, if we were all to follow that logic, than I should be able to have citizenship in Ireland and Poland since my great grandparents emmigrated from both countries. The Native people of America should have the right to say get the hell of my Island Manhatten. You really arent as smart as you think you are. Why do I get this impression that you must be a defense lawyer? You ignore tangible facts that might derail your case, you insinuate someone who is usually so lucid is loosing it, hmmm those tactics sound familiar ... oh right I learned them from my Professor-a defense lawyer!! Now, If I can take the time to read and reread the exchanges between you both, I think you owe it to one another to do the same. You both have some salient points, but differ on how the middle-east conflict should be handled. Leave out the incindiary comments, and you just might have a decent discussion. We, as Americans, for decades have tried to mediate some sort of solution to create peace between the two. I think we should stay the hell out of it, but I digress. A true compromise is one where neither party leaves the table happy. If one did then it really wouldnt have been fair. As for my opinion on it, religion seems to make people possessive and aggressive. I dont think that is what the creator intended, to have his children bickering and killing over land. He says he is everywhere, to take care of one another. Sometimes, I truly believe people enjoy the fighting. It seems to give them some sense of belonging, which was actually proven in some studies done in the 60's when they used a group of students-some where considered inmated, others gaurds and they were video taped. As the study went on, the groups began to polarize. The "guards" began to become more aggressive and cruel, while the prisoners began to become more combative towards the guards. The "convicts" actually went on a hunger strike and they had to stop the study. Power corrupts, so does money --absolute power corrupts absolutely. I also found some of your terms rick like "permitted to have elections" to be arrogant. Who are we to "permit" anyone, in their own country to have elections. What if they decided they wanted to be communist, or marxist or have a monarchy-would it have been "permitted"? You dont care what the Iraqi people think of us? WOW! "They should hate Hussein" "they should hate the insurgents" shoulda woulda coulda. Speculative, Rick. What if some of the insurgents are Iraqis? Iraqis that hate us, want us out of their damn country? It that kind of arrogance that really pisses me off. Do you really think the natives of what was decided to be called America by another country, were tickled to death to us taking over their lands and then giving them the crappiest peices of land to call their own. Hows that for arrogance? Thank GOD I am not a friggin Republican. Thak God Im not a Democrat. Thak God I make up my own mind about a person on their own merits and not for what a group stands for, before I decide that they represent me. I AM AN INDEPENDENT AND PROUD OF IT! Independenty your, Joeanna :)

brolly3 on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

brolly3 — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 02:11:53 +0100

[“The subject keeps changing with you, does it not? We start discussing one thing, your logic starts to disappear and you immediately change the subject”]. I can say exactly the same thing about you. So where does this get us? [“Again,why do you object to being identified as someone on the Left? I would use a more specific word if you prefer. Don't be ashamed of who you are.”] I am not ashamed of who I am. It is your patronising and sarcastic choice of phrase that I take exception to. [“As for Vietnam, the reason it does not belong in this particular discussion is that we were talking about Iraq. Iraq is a fairly complex issue. So is Vietnam. Things get confusing if one keeps flipping back and forth.”] It is very relevant because it is an example of how in trying to achieve a particular outcome a terrible mistake was made. Very costly in lives apart from money. Lyndon Johnson, an American President and Commander-in-Chief, lied to Congress and the American people. I refer to Gulf of Tonkin incident. To many of us but obviously not you, Bush fixed the intelligence around the policy, which is pretty much the same thing in my book (and hundreds of millions of others worldwide and in your country too.) It took ten years before the US withdrew and after 58,000 US lives had been lost. It is certainly relevant in that it is absolutely clear that the bulk of Iraqis (this is shown in a Zogby poll) want the US forces to leave. The puppet interim government, whose Ministers are lining their pockets from all accounts, are the only ones who want the US to remain. So one harks back to Vietnam and asks the question, how long will it take the US to realize that it is an alien power in the Muslim Middle East and is not welcome. [“So why do you raise Vietnam? You say that,if the US made a mistake in the 1960s, it is conceivable that it might have done the same in Iraq. Don't go all wobbly on me Brolly. You do not think Vietnam was a mistake. You think it was a crime. "Mistake" means basically well intentioned, but messed up in execution. You do not think the US has been well-intentioned at any point in the last 50 years. You think that the US is an international serial murderer”] So now you are resorting to putting words into my mouth. A fine example of debating technique – I don’t think! When I said that Vietnam was a mistake I meant exactly that. Your definition of ‘mistake’ is not the only one that can be applied. It tends to favour the view that you wish to assign to me. There is no inconsistency between describing it as a mistake and in asserting, at the same time, that there was great inhumanity on both sides but that the US is supposed to abhor that conduct. I do not hold that the end justifies the means to the extent that you do. Especially when it is often the case that the outcome is not what was sought and only results in unnecessary carnage. I question whether carpet bombing and Napalming of people is quite as necessary as you seem to think in pursuit of spreading democracy and freedom. [“Why you object to be called a leftie. You refuse to be honest in your own opinions. You are not fooling anyone by hiding your ideological committments.”] Again you are resorting to patronisation and sarcasm. Why should I try to fool you? Who the hell are you that I need to disguise my views? You are engaging in typical McArthyite mudslinging. I have no ideological commitments. Never having been interested in joining any political party. You are the one that has claimed an ideological commitment. To me, political parties are like religions, none of them have a monopoly of the truth because the ‘truth’ is mostly relative and is a function of historical happenstance. It seems to me your game has descended to trying to bait me. If I join you in this silly game, we will jointly provide amusement for the others on this thread and for no other purpose. [“As far as it goes, I agree with you that the Vietnam War, from the Vietnamese perspective,was about nationalism. That is why we lost. We thought we were fighting Communism -- which we were-- but did not realize that we were perceived as taking over the position of the French, who were frank imperialists. In my view, that was our mistake. You ask me why Iraqis should not feel bitter hatred for their children being blown up by US bombs. I did not answer, because I often do not answer obviously rhetorical questions. Since you ask again, let me answer. I do not greatly care how the Iraqis feel about America. I expect them to hate Hussein, for all of his crimes. I expect them to hate the insurgency, which is presently blowing up children. I expect them to support their new government, which is their only hope for a decent future. And,when this all works out for the best, I do hope that future generations of Iraqis will have the decency who liberated them,but the US does not do this for gratitude. (Good thing,too, or we would be all broken up about the French.) ] Well you have evaded the question. Well done. Perhaps a new Government is their only hope for the future but it should be one of their own choice and not one that is manoeuvred into place by the US. This is already happening by the way the voting system has been designed. [“And, oh my goodness, lets not have another go at the WMD. It a regular King Charles' head with you people. I have explained previously why I do not share the obsession of the Left with this issue. I have also said a number of times that there was no connection between Hussein and 9/11. As for Paul Bremer's orders, I assume he was doing the best that he could. As I understand it,the new Iraqi government does not feel bound by anything in particular that he did, so I do not see why it makes any difference what he did on economic issues.] This answer is surely a cop out. Why do you think that Paul Bremer was just doing “the best he can”. Do you really think that his best was so innocuous. I would think that prescribing the future economic system of a country that has been invaded and has no proper democratic structure, is a clear indication of the intent of the occupiers to determine the economic ownership and institutions of the country. The fact that the Iraqis will not let the US get away with it, doesn’t exonerate the US from attempting to act in contradiction to its avowed aims of bringing democracy to Iraq. It is quite amazing how you try to reduce the most significant acts to having no importance. [We then go on to your next obsession, hatred of the Jews. You say: "Do you think that Israel is entirely justified in denying the Palestinians the right of return, when Jews who were not even born in Israel have the automatic right of citizenship. Is this just? Answer the question." Yes, I believe that Israel is justified in denying a right of return to Palestinians. (a) The purpose of the State of Israel is to provide a national home -- and a place of refuge -- for the Jewish people. As the 20th century showed, the Jews need a place of refuge. Israel is their historic home. If the Palestians were permitted to return, it would destroy Israel as a Jewish state-- as you know. The Palestinian Right of Return, so-called, is simply code for the destruction of Israel, as we both know. It sounds nice, but what it really means is goodbye Israel.] So where is the historic home of all those Palestinians? Not in Palestine I presume. What gives one people the divine right over some land and not others with an equal claim. Who decided that Palestine was to be the place of refuge for the Jewish people? Was it the Palestinians or the Americans or the British. Who? You make a pronouncement and then think that you have supplied a completely logical basis. In my view this is an assertion that you have turned into a fact. Yes, there is the possibility of the Arabs wanting to destroy Israel. This has been plain for many years. But I don’t see how the present policies will avoid this outcome. The hatred that is being engendered is likely to have worse repercussions that any risk that could have been taken in the past. If only more slack had been cut in the past, we might not have reached the present impasse. It is a great pity that Rabin was assassinated by right wing ideologues. Yes, it wasn’t the act of only one man. Israel is vulnerable to attacks by its enemies and no amount of US protection will make it less so. The neocon idea of democratising the Middle East, whose real aim was to install a series of client, Israel friendly states, was in their calculation the only hope for avoiding catastrophe in the future. The way they have gone about it has aggravated the situation and made it so much less likely. This is the sort of mistake that so many of us refer to and which you seem to be unable to understand. You accuse me of anti-Semitism when in fact those that support the present policies that are inherently self – defeating, are the actual anti-Semites in effect if not in intention.. [(b) Is it unjust to the Palestinians to be booted out of their homes in Israel? Yes, it is; it was; I am sorry for them. But what is the solution? If you return them to Israel, what chance do you think that the two peoples have of living in peace in one nation? That is simply not going to happen. A two-state solution, in which the land is divided between the two peoples is the only possible solution, which respects Palestinian rights, but does not destroy the Jewish state.] So where is the real effort in bringing this about. Certainly not invading Iraq. The road to peace in the Middle East, if ever it existed, was not through the bloody bombing of Baghdad. That is the foolish and unrealistic view of the neocons, who showed the grossest incompetence in all their judgements prior to and after the invasion. It will certainly not be realized by parcelling up the Palestinian territory into tiny, separated Cantons. It will not be achieved in any lasting way by continuing to hold on to the West Bank settlements. If you believe that Palestinian rights are to be respected, as you say, then you must support an economically viable and connected Palestinian state. [(c) But is it not unjust to have a Palestinian from Haifa stuck living in Jericho? (Yes, I do know the geography.) In an ideal world, no one would be displaced from their home. In the real world, every nation got its land by taking it from some one else. In the real world,we have to make some level of pragmatic adjustment. I see no huge injustice to the Palestinian people in being confined to the West Bank and Gaza. I see no reason why they must rule from the river to the sea.] Well, that’s you talking and not them. Do you understand the difference? If they resist, it is what THEY want to do. It is not in your gift or anyone else’s to tell them what they should want. They may have a different idea of what is pragmatic and be prepared to fight for it. Your ‘reasonable’ sounding utterances are those that come from one side of the fence. From another perspective they are not so reasonable and may in fact seem to be very prejudiced. This is not to say that there is no room for negotiation but it will not succeed while Bush is so biased to one side, for whatever reason – religious, political clout of the Jews in the US, or whatever else. [“Here is the difference between you and me, Brolly. I care about both the Jews AND the Palestinians. I want both of these peoples to have a home. You, on the other hand, care only about the Palestinians. You do not give a damm about the survival of Israel.”] Absolute rubbish. You once again are arrogating to yourself the concern for all and attributing to me to an indifference to the Israelis. I am much more in touch with the reality of the situation than you are. I recognize that the pendulum has swung so far away from where it should be in terms of both people, that it can only result in disaster unless it returns to the centre. You fail to see this and falsely accuse me. You are the traitor – your one sided view inevitably takes you there despite your protestations. [And do you know what that tells me? You do not care about the Palestinians. To you, they are just an abstraction. They are a stick that you can use to beat the Jews. You know perfectly well that the Palestinian Right of Return is never going to happen. You know that a two-state solution is the only practical one. So why do you oppose it? Because if there was peace in the Middle East, what reason would you have to hate the Jews? Don't worry, Brolly. There will be peace in the Middle East, based on a two-state solution, but I am sure that you will be able to think of another good reason to hate the] I have not said anywhere at any time that I oppose a two State solution. You have this terrible habit of putting words into my mouth. I have said it before and it is getting monotonous. As for the right of return, it is entirely legitimate to point out the inherent hypocrisy of the view that the Palestinians should not have this right. If you cannot stand hearing it, too bad. It is revealing that you don’t like the truth. Whether it will ever come about is entirely another matter. How many Israelis are you going to accuse of hating the Jews. There are many tens of thousands that have identical views as myself. So tell me, do you really believe they hate themselves. Or is it that they can see the shape of things to come if the extremists in Israeli society prevail. Please answer this question before making out that I am the lone Jew hater. Message was edited by: brolly3

rickgibsonlaw on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

rickgibsonlaw — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 00:42:25 +0100

Brolly: The subject keeps changing with you, does it not? We start discussing one thing, your logic starts to disappear and you immediately change the subject. Again,why do you object to being identified as someone on the Left? I would use a more specific word if you prefer. Don't be ashamed of who you are. As for Vietnam, the reason it does not belong in this particular discussion is that we were talking about Iraq. Iraq is a fairly complex issue. So is Vietnam. Things get confusing if one keeps flipping back and forth. So why do you raise Vietnam? You say that,if the US made a mistake in the 1960s, it is conceivable that it might have done the same in Iraq. Don't go all wobbly on me Brolly. You do not think Vietnam was a mistake. You think it was a crime. "Mistake" means basically well intentioned, but messed up in execution. You do not think the US has been well-intentioned at any point in the last 50 years. You think that the US is an international serial murderer. Here is why you object to be called a leftie. You refuse to be honest in your own opinions. You are not fooling anyone by hiding your ideological committments. As far as it goes, I agree with you that the Vietnam War, from the Vietnamese perspective,was about nationalism. That is why we lost. We thought we were fighting Communism -- which we were-- but did not realize that we were perceived as taking over the position of the French, who were frank imperialists. In my view, that was our mistake. You ask me why Iraqis should not feel bitter hatred for their children being blown up by US bombs. I did not answer, because I often do not answer obviously rhetorical questions. Since you ask again, let me answer. I do not greatly care how the Iraqis feel about America. I expect them to hate Hussein, for all of his crimes. I expect them to hate the insurgency, which is presently blowing up children. I expect them to support their new government, which is their only hope for a decent future. And,when this all works out for the best, I do hope that future generations of Iraqis will have the decency who liberated them,but the US does not do this for gratitude. (Good thing,too, or we would be all broken up about the French.) And, oh my goodness, lets not have another go at the WMD. It a regular King Charles' head with you people. I have explained previously why I do not share the obsession of the Left with this issue. I have also said a number of times that there was no connection between Hussein and 9/11. As for Paul Bremer's orders, I assume he was doing the best that he could. As I understand it,the new Iraqi government does not feel bound by anything in particular that he did, so I do not see why it makes any difference what he did on economic issues. We then go on to your next obsession, hatred of the Jews. You say: "Do you think that Israel is entirely justified in denying the Palestinians the right of return, when Jews who were not even born in Israel have the automatic right of citizenship. Is this just? Answer the question." Yes, I believe that Israel is justified in denying a right of return to Palestinians. (a) The purpose of the State of Israel is to provide a national home -- and a place of refuge -- for the Jewish people. As the 20th century showed, the Jews need a place of refuge. Israel is their historic home. If the Palestians were permitted to return, it would destroy Israel as a Jewish state-- as you know. The Palestinian Right of Return, so-called, is simply code for the destruction of Israel, as we both know. It sounds nice, but what it really means is goodbye Israel. (b) Is it unjust to the Palestinians to be booted out of their homes in Israel? Yes, it is; it was; I am sorry for them. But what is the solution? If you return them to Israel, what chance do you think that the two peoples have of living in peace in one nation? That is simply not going to happen. A two-state solution, in which the land is divided between the two peoples is the only possible solution,which respects Palestinian rights, but does not destroy the Jewish state. (c) But is it not unjust to have a Palestinian from Haifa stuck living in Jericho? (Yes, I do know the geography.) In an ideal world, no one would be displaced from their home. In the real world, every nation got its land by taking it from some one else. In the real world,we have to make some level of pragmatic adjustment. I see no huge injustice to the Palestinian people in being confined to the West Bank and Gaza. I see no reason why they must rule from the river to the sea. Here is the difference between you and me, Brolly. I care about both the Jews AND the Palestinians. I want both of these peoples to have a home. You, on the other hand, care only about the Palestinians. You do not give a damm about the survival of Israel. And do you know what that tells me? You do not care about the Palestinians. To you, they are just an abstraction. They are a stick that you can use to beat the Jews. You know perfectly well that the Palestinian Right of Return is never going to happen. You know that a two-state solution is the only practical one. So why do you oppose it? Because if there was peace in the Middle East, what reason would you have to hate the Jews? Don't worry, Brolly. There will be peace in the Middle East, based on a two-state solution, but I am sure that you will be able to think of another good reason to hate the Jews.

brolly3 on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

brolly3 — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:58:34 +0100

rickgibsonlaw, You are talking out of the back of your hat. Your richly sarcastic use of the word 'leftie' is a complete giveaway. When I use the word right or rightwing, I do not turn it in to 'rightie'. Your contempt and own hatred show through. As for leaving Vietnam out of a discussion about US foreign policy, why on earth should it not be included. Because you say so. That, my friend, is not a good enough reason. If the US made a terrible mistake in the 1960's, it is conceivable that it could have made another in rushing to war with Iraq. The fight to stop the spread of tyranny, as you describe the Vietnam misadventure, was nothing of the sort. It was a misbegotten idea about a domino theory that Communism would sweep the whole of South-East Asia and that the Soviet Union was gaining increasing influence in the region. The Vietnamese were and are nationalists, and the fight with the French and then the US, and later the Chinese, which was also a Communist state, was about evicting foreign occupiers and invaders. As for your answering my points, you have not done so. I asked you why Iraqis, who have seen their children dismembered by US bombs, should not feel bitter hatred for an invader, when their country did not attack the US. You keep saying that this was a consequence of war. It was, but it was one that American started. Where are the WMD? Didn't Rumsfeld and Bush himself acknowlege ( it's on record before you attempt to deny this) that Saddam had no connection with 9/11. I have mentioned Paul Bremer and the notorious economic amd legal Orders several times on this thread. These were intended to open up Iraq to foreign investors who could own up to 100% of the industries that they bought and who could repatriate up to 100% of the profit. The US that proclaims the right of people in each country to have the freedom to make their own decisions, had no democratic mandate from the Iraqi people whatsoever and you are silent on the subject. So tell me, where was the democratic mandate for Paul Bremer to issue over 100 orders. Do you think that Israel is entirely justified in denying the Palestinians the right of return, when Jews who were not even born in Israel have the automatic right of citizenship. Is this just? Answer the question. I well know about the demographic fear of the Israelis but should this be allowed to stand in he way of what is equitable? As for your repeated nonsense of my being anti-semitic, the truth is that you cannot stand my putting the case for an equitable settlement rather than one dictated by the Israelis, with the US standing behind them. Do you think your rant alleging my anti-semitism is taken seriously by any others apart from a few diehards, who have no idea of the damage they are doing to the Jewish cause. Are you Jewish? Well, if you have been to Israel as you claim, you will know that there are many tens of thouands that fear for the future because of Sharon's policies. As I said before, you are in actuality the anti-semite, because you cannot see where the neocon policies are leading to and how much potential they have to harm Israel in the future, as well as the present. Your feverish accusations of my being an anti-semite are as ludicrous as the rest of your feeble, evasive diatribe. I doubt that you have ever been to Israel. You simply come across as slippery and not credible because you are getting more shrill with each response.

rickgibsonlaw on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

rickgibsonlaw — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:33:11 +0100

Brolly, Brolly, Brolly, you are starting to crack; you are getting incoherent. Lets try to keep this in some kind of order. First, what is the problem with you Lefties in admitting that you are a Leftie? So what? I know plenty of Lefties. Why not be proud of who you are? I have no problem with you calling me a right-winger. It is what I am. I am a member of the Republican Party. I voted for Bush. I have no problem saying so. Second, you keep frantically changing the subject whenever I corner you. Now, you are descending into accustations of ignorance and blatant appeals to emotion. It just will not do. You need to stay focused on one subject,and cite to facts. I answered you point by point. You have not done the same. You have not, because you can not. You are wrong,and you must know it, or you would at least try to sustain the argument. I have been to Israel several times. I am intimately familiar with the country and its conditions. Look, you are applying a double standard. Your basic argument is that, if you can find ANY violence by Jews or Americans, that makes them equivalent to our enemies. What you do not do is weigh the level of the violence or the context of the violence. No, the US does not target civilians, a fact that is well understood by anyone familiar with our military activies. As I said, civilians get hit anyway, because that is the nature of war. There is,however, a tremendous moral distinction between deliberately targeting civilians and accidently hitting them. You keep bringing up Vietnam. I gather that much of your hatred of America arises out of being against that war. That war, however, is a complex subject, which is quite tangential to the current discussion. You think that you can just wave that war at me, and I will collpase a corner admitting that oh yes, Americans are monsters. Well, no. I do not propose to go into a discussion of Vietnam at this stage of the game. Let me just say that while the US obviously made a number of mistakes in that war -- we lost-- our ends were to prevent the spread of tyranny, which was a proper and moral goal. Why exactly you think Vietnam is relevant to your dislike of Jews remains a mystery to me. As for being anti-Semitic, you just are. It is an objective thing. I have no idea of what motivates you personally. What I see in your behavior, however, is that you spread hatred against Israel and against Jews. I am sorry for your loss, if you had relatives who died in the Holaucaust, but that makes your anti-semitism, worse, not better. You should know better. And do not try to pass off this, I have failed to understand your points. I understand you backwards and forwards. You hate America and you hate Jews. I assume that you justify that hatred to yourself with some noble-sounding idealistic belief system, although you have not articulated one. You are a totally typical Leftie. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall you no longer openly espouse socialism, but you do still hang onto the hatred of America and the hatred of capitalism. At this point, you guys are in favor of nothing; your entire perspective is negative.

brolly3 on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

brolly3 — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 19:49:28 +0100

rickgibsonlaw, This discussion is going nowhere. You have signally failed to understand the points I have made. You have responded in a typrical rightist fashion (two can play at your left/right game). Have you ever been to Irael? I very much doubt it.You have ever bothered to see, let alone understand what is going on. Sharon was criticised for the massacres.He knew full well what was likely to happen but did nothing to prevent it. Have you never heard of the legal doctrine of 'accessory before the fact'. So the US doesn't target civilians. Go tell this to the Iraqi families whose children were torn apart by bombs. They would certainly appreciate the fine distinctions you make, especially since their country was not threatening the US, when it was attacked. Oh, yes, you referred to this as an experiemnt in demcoracy. Go tell this to the Vietnamese villagers and the people of Hanoi and the children that ran down the roads burning. What was this awful war about? If it was so vital to US interests, why was it not fought to the bitter end? Why did it stop? You have got a screw loose my well protected, self-indulgent friend. As long as you and others like you are unwilling to realize the consequences of your actions, so long will you country and unfortunately others, pay the price. No amount of rhetoric from the likjes of George Bush and Tony Blair will make the slightest bit of difference. these physical cowards are protected by day and by night, so it is easy to play the great wart leaders. Churchill deliberately put himself in harms way in his younger days, so no one could accuse him of not experienciung what others had to during the war. That is why he was repsected by the British people. tony Blair and Bush have no such respect among the British.Note that I said among the British, before you go off half cocked and say that Americans respect Bush. As for me being anti-semitic, this is a laugh. It is precisely because the Jewish people have supporters like you that they are in the greatest danger. Unless the unjust situation of the Palestinians is addressed, they will be exposed.The historic context is one thing but the present reality is another. I lost family members in the Holocaust in Poland and Lithuania, so you are the very last person who can lecture me on anti-semitism and its consequences. I have experienced it first hand. Your smugness and righteousness impels you to make light of anything that doesn't meet with your narrow and sanctimonious views. Have a nice day.

GTJ on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

GTJ — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:52:57 +0100

"Here we go again. You are singing the same old song of the Left. The West is the moral equivalent of our enemies. We are just as bad as they are. There are no moral distinctions between their behavior and ours. This is, and always has been, a load of nonsense. This argument is always made by comparing things that no sane person would think were equivalent." Hey Osama you shouldn't have set off those bombs in the London Tube killing innocent civilians. That wasn't me that was the Coalition for Islamic Assassinations. Well whoever it was it shouldn't have happened. I think that they thought there was an important military person on one of those trains, and that's why they set off the bombs. Well there wasn't. Oh well they must have gotten the intelligence wrong. They'll do better next time. What about those innocent civilians. I guess we'll just have to call them collateral damage. Ring any bells ? (The above should not be taken as somehow expressing a lack of sympathy for the British people. My condolences to the British contributors. I hope that none of them or their families were killed or injured. I should also say that the response of the British people and their police appears to have been responsible and dignified, as befits a civilised society). Message was edited by: GTJ

rickgibsonlaw on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

rickgibsonlaw — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:38:05 +0100

Brolly: Here we go again. You are singing the same old song of the Left. The West is the moral equivalent of our enemies. We are just as bad as they are. There are no moral distinctions between their behavior and ours. This is, and always has been, a load of nonsense. This argument is always made by comparing things that no sane person would think were equivalent. Lets go down the list of your arguments. First, you assert that the military operations of the U.S. - led Coalition forces in Iraq are the equivalent of the Islamic terror bombers. (a) An initial point. You had asserted that the "Christians and the Jews" were just as bad as Islam. You were arguing that "Christian and Jewish" exremists were the same as Islamic extremists. Actions by the U.S. and British governments hardly qualify as actions by "Christian and Jewish" extremists. Unless you are going to argue that Bush and Blair are in the control of extreme Christians and Jews. (b) There is a huge moral distinction between targeting military targetts in a war and deliberately killing civilians as an act of terror. Like Israel, the Coalition forces always aim at military targets and try hard not to hit civilians. Of course some civilians are hit, but that is not intentional. (c) By refusing to acknowledge the moral distinction set out in (b), you are essentially arguing that ANY violence by the West, at any time,is illegitimate,immoral and the equivalent of terrorism. In short, we can not defend ourselves, according to you, because your morality forbids violence by anyone -- except our enemies. Second, you give a little list of the bad things which the Jews have done which make them as bad as Islamic terrorists: (a) Sharon was found complicit in the Lebanon massacres in 1980 whatever. (b) The US used napalm in Vietnam. (c) The Stern Gang killed people in the 1940s. (d) British TV shows well-protected Israeli snipers deliberately killing Palestinian children who were doing nothing but throwing stones. Lets go down your list: (a) What was Sharon's crime? He failed to stop Christian Arabs from killing Muslim Arabs. Under Israeli law -- which is extremely respectful of human rights-- that was inaction for which Sharon was rightly criticized. Having a sense of morality, Isreal knew that Sharon should have acted to stop this. But what really happened? Non-Jews killed non-Jews and the Jews got blamed. Sharon killed no one in this incident. The Jews killed no one in this incident. This is morally equivalent to terror bombing? You do not see the double standard here? (b) Are you blaming Vietnam on the Jews? If so, this discussion will get even stranger. If not, let me just say that your point is irrelevant to your attack on Jews. (c) The Stern Gang? Oh come on, that was 60 years ago. There have been a series of wars in the Middle East that have never ended and the best you can do is the Stern Gang? But let me deal with your point directly rather than dismissing it. Yes, the Stern Gang were Jewish terrorists. They prove that YES, YES, YES, Jews have not always and everywhere been 100% morally pure. And that is your Left argument. If you can show one instance, no matter how long ago, and no matter how small, of the West being unjust, then you have PROVEN that we are just as bad as they are. (d) British TV shows Israeli snipers deliberately killing Palestinian children. You need to be a bit more specific. TV shows alot of things. I know of no real evidence,in a form that its accuracy can be checked,supporting any such claim. If you have any such evidence, cite me to it. And lets return to my indictment of you, Brolly. You are an anti-Semite. That means that you are prejudiced against Jews,and spread hatred against them. Again, if you want to dislike America, OK. We are a big country. We can take it. But the Jews are a small and very vulnerable people. Morally, it is very, very different to attack America and to attack the Jews. As to the Jews -- given the history of the Holaucaust -- everyone should be very, very careful with their evidence when attacking Jews. I find it just astonishing that some many of you on the European Left can assume this stance of utter moral superiority while spreading anti-Semitism. Europe almost destroyed the Jewish people 60 years ago. This was one of the greatest crimes in history, and all of Europe was complicit in it. What created the atmosphere in which the Holaucaust was possible was routine anti-Semitism. The European Left is now doing it again. But, unlike your Nazis predecessors, the current generation of Europeans is oh so very different. You have a whole new set of reasons for hating the Jews.

brolly3 on "Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes""

brolly3 — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:23:43 +0100

rickgibsonlaw, [You and I usually disagree, but I have felt that debating with you is often productive. You have a good mind, and a good deal of insight and knowledge. That said, I was very sad to see your most recent post. You expressed views that are: (a) savagely anti-Semitic (also anti-Christian,as far as that goes) and (b) based on no facts. I am astonished that you would express such ignorant and illiberal views. You write the following,in response to David Thompson: **"I would ask you what is so different about Muslim fundamentalism, and its Christian and Jewish variants. They all show intolerance and have extremist activists. The difference between the Jewish extremists and their Muslim counterparts is down to numbers, with the knowledge that the pool from which Jewish fundamentalists can be drawn is only a small faction of the Muslim number. There are Jewish ‘terrorists’ who have killed Palestinians on a number of occasions in the last few years. Who knows how much more active they would be, if there were a billion Jews."** Let me answer your question, Brolly. Muslim extremists deliberately kill men, women and children. They deliberately target civilians. They do this, on purpose, as a matter of policy, in Israel, in Iraq, in America and now in England. These are facts.] I don’t know if I am out of my mind or it is the complete reverse and it is you and those that think like you. If dropping bombs on Baghdad and elsewhere, when it known that at least some of this ordnance would kill men, women and children, who are innocent of any crime against America or the West, in the name of an experiment to bring’ freedom and democracy’ to the Middle East, is not a wilful crime, then I don’t know what is. The end justifying the means, is the watchword of ideological fanatics. There is indeed a moral equivalence between coalition actions and the terrorists. If the West is civilised it would hesitate to bring death and destruction to others, outside of being actually attacked by the nation concerned. Iraq did not attack the US. You simply do not realize what affect this has upon Muslims, who can hark back to the Crusades, when Christians came among them and slaughtered them. They can remember that the US aided and abetted Saddam in his brutal war with Iran, giving details of their military positions, so that Saddam could use chemical weapons against them. tens of thousands of Iranian youth endured terrible deaths. They can remember the killing of tens , perhaps a few hundred thousand, poor Iraqi conscripts in the dessert in 1990, when they were incinerated. It became known as the ‘Turkey Shoot’ and happened AFTER the Iraqi army was in full retreat back to Basra. [There are no equivalents on the Jewish or the Christian side. Frankly,your assertion that Christian extremists act this way is just bizarre. Most Christian extremists live in red state America and are very far from any of this. The only example that even remotely comes to mind to support this assertion is the IRA, and I think it is very obvious that they are motivated by nationalism cloaked in religion. They are Catholics, and they are certainly not under orders from the Pope to blow up pubs. Quite the contrary.] The Continuity IRA blew up people indiscriminately in Portadown in Northern Ireland 1998. I suppose they were not Catholics. When you say that there are no equivalents on the Jewish and Christian side, I have difficulty in believing you can rationalise to the extent you do and not realize the fundamental flaw in such reasoning. How can you distinguish the deaths of some over others in terms of EFFECT this has upon them and their kin. What sort of crazy, lopsided thinking is this? Tell me where Jesus advocated an experiment that cost tens of thousands of lives. Is his not the example that the god-fearing Christian Americans are supposed to follow? Did not an Israeli Court find Sharon complicit in the murder of a few thousand Palestinians including men, women and children in Lebanon in the 1980’s. There have been numerous other atrocities committed by Israelis before and since 1948. You seek to excuse these by saying they were at the time of war. Well, the killing of villagers is not recognized as legitimate warfare by the Geneva Convention. And, of course, the carnage in pursuit of another ideological goal, stopping the spread of Communism, saw the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent, non-combatants in Vietnam, with the carpet bombing and use of Napalm on villages and Hanoi. Was this not commissioned and carried out by Christians? The daily scenes of terrible suffering became too great even for some who originally advocated the war, such as Robert Kennedy, apart from the American people, who were sickened by what was being done in their name. Rick, what planet are you living on? [But I digress. The real problem here is your anti-Semitic slur. (a) We are only 50 years away from the Holaucast. One half of the Jewish people were extermined in living memory. Thus, if you have any sense of decency, you would be very careful not to spread attacks on the Jewish people. The distance between the thoughts you expressed and Kristalnacht is not very far.] Oh, yes it is! Where have I maintained that Jews should be persecuted. This is hardly likely as I am one of them. Criticism of injustice and bias, is a legitimate reason, when one cites the evidence for it, whether you agree with it or not. [(b)” There are absolutely no facts to support your statement. Lets parse it out: (1) With trivial exceptions -- basically isolated lunatics -- there are no non-governmental Jewish groups engaged in acts of violence. There is no Jewish Hamas or Jewish Hezbollah”.] I like your trivialization of the actions of Jewish extremist settlers, who were not even born in Israel and who seem to believe they have some biblical based right to the land that others have dwelt in for centuries and then go and kill them. I said it is thanks to the fact that they are few in number that there isn’t much more religious murder and mayhem on their part. As for Hamas and Hezbollah, you seem to have forgotten or perhaps have never heard of the Stern Gang in the 1940’s, who carried out assassinations for political ends. The Irgun Zvei Leumi blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem with ninety-one killed including 15 Jews. I will give another example of their terrorism: “On the night of April 9, 1948, the Irgun Zvei Leumi surrounded the village of Deir Yasin, located on the outskirts of Jerusalem. After giving the sleeping residents a 15 minute warning to evacuated, Menachem Begin's terrorists attacked the village of 700 people, killing 254 mostly old men, women and children and wounding 300 others. Begin's terrorists tossed many of the bodies in the village well, and paraded 150 captured women and children through the Jewish sectors of Jerusalem”. [(2)” The violence by the Jews against the Palestinians is carried out by the Isreali State, during a time of war. All of these actions are in self-defense, and none of them resemble Islamic terror. Isrealis NEVER target children. On the contrary, the favored Israeli tactic is to selectively kill the leaders of Islamic terror groups, men with blood on their hands. And the Israelis are always very careful to minimize the risk that innocent civilians will be killed”.] Well, you could have fooled millions of British people, who read in their newspapers, reports of Palestinian youths being gunned down by well protected Israeli snipers for throwing stones. [You then go on: "I believe that the Jewish neocons, supported by the Christian Right for their own purposes, really wish to eradicate the Muslim religion or at least to radically weaken it. Not just the more extreme version of it but most of it." Brolly, are you out of your mind? This is pure, raving insanity. You have absolutely no facts to support this lunatic idea.] No, I’m not out of my mind. I have given reasons why this is could be so. You might not agree with them but you have no proof, other than your indignation, that I am wrong. Why not mention my reasons, and then deal with them one by one, rather than fly off the handle? [Brolly, look at the US administration of Iraq. What evidence do you see of a desire to eradicate Islam? On the contrary, we have carefully held elections in which Islamic parties were permitted to run, and won the elections. What kind of an eradication policy is that?] I did pose the alternative of weakening it. Free market capitalism, as was planned by the US administration and begun under the notorious economic and legal Orders of Paul Bremer, would have this sort of effect. If you implant the sort of economic institutions that give rise to the society that one has in the West and particularly in the US, then there would inevitably be social and religious consequences. The influence of religion is usually stronger in poor societies although not always. I would also mention that the US had no mandate from the Iraqi people, whatsoever, to throw open their industry and economy to overseas investors. (See Order No 39 of Bremer’s Provisional Authority]) [Brolly, you are stepping out of bounds here. OK, you disagree with the Iraq War. That position can certainly be rationally defended. OK, you do not much like the US. Well, the US is a big and powerful country, and it can certainly take some criticism. But by accusing the Jews of wanting to eradicate Islam, you are inciting hatred against a small and vulnerable people. You should be ashamed of yourself.] I suggested this is one of the consequences of the aims of the neocons and repeat that there are many in Israel that have such a wish. I have been there and discussed the situation with Israelis. I am not saying this view is being broadcast from the treetops, it isn’t but it is held among some. I repeat that I said that there was an aim of weakening Islam in the Middle East and have already said how. As for the US allowing elections with Islamic Parties, there was no real alternative. This was realized once the strength of the Sunni revolt was appreciated and the last thing the US could afford was for Sistani to call for a Shia uprising, in addition, if the religious parties were not allowed to participate. [I am American. This is the issue upon which I find European views most difficult to understand. Why is there so much savage hatred of the Jews among educated Europeans?] You are speaking nonsense. It is just that Europeans do not imbibe so much of the pro-Israeli propaganda and bias that the well-sponsored Israel lobby puts out in the US. We are able to see that there is injustice being perpetrated on the Palestinians. We are just as aware, if not more so, of the historical reasons for the impasse and conflict but will not find one side almost completely right and the other wrong. It is more complex than that.

Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes",

erinleonard2 — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 21:21:30 +0100

The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Mr. President: We the undersigned write because of our concern regarding recent disclosures of a Downing Street Memo in the London Times, comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. These minutes indicate that the United States and Great Britain agreed, by the summer of 2002, to attack Iraq, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action, and that U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war. Read the rest of this post...