Friday, May 4, 2007

'Iraq was Invaded to Secure Israel

Who control America generates the answer We control America! Iraq pullout would hurt IsraelIraq Was Invaded to Secure Israel. These are very crystal clear examples of the Zionised Terrorism and therefore stop bull shitting about the mythical and farcical Islamic Terrorism. Else, find your way to the nearest gas chamber.

Faruque Ahmed

'Iraq was Invaded to Secure Israel,' says Senator Hollings, and 'Everybody Knows It.'
By Mark WeberJuly 16, 2004

When a prominent American political figure speaks boldly about Jewish-Zionist power, that's news. So the recent remarks by South Carolina's senior Senator that Iraq was invaded "to secure Israel," and that "everybody" in Washington knows it, are indeed remarkable.

Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, a Democrat who has represented his state in the US Senate since 1966, is now serving his final term in Washington. That fact may also help explain why he's now willing to defy the pro-Israel lobby and speak candidly about its power.
It began with an essay about the Iraq war that appeared in the May 6 issue of the daily Post and Courier of Charleston.

"With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country?," he wrote. "The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by [Paul] Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there had been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area."

Several Zionist organizations, as well as some prominent Jewish political figures, quickly chastised Hollings, and his remarks were denounced as anti-Semitic.
But he didn't back down. Instead, he rose in the Senate on May 20 to defend and explain his essay.

"I don't apologize for this column," he said. "I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism." President Bush went to war in Iraq "to secure our friend, Israel" and "everybody knows it," Hollings declared.

Referring to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues openly to acknowledge this reality, he said that "nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on." With few exceptions, members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies due to "the pressures that we get politically," he said. The pro-Israel lobby knows "how to make you tuck tail and run." But "not the Senator from South Carolina," he added, referring to himself. To emphasize the seriousness of his remarks, Hollings said: "I have thought this out as thoroughly as I know how, and it worries me that here we are..."

Bush's motive in going to war for Israeli interests, Hollings charged, was to get Jewish support in election campaigns. "President Bush came to office imbued with one thought: reelection. I say that advisedly. I have been up here with eight Presidents. We have had support of all eight Presidents. Yes, I supported the President on this Iraq resolution, but I was misled. There weren't any weapons, or any terrorism, or al-Qaida. This is the reason we went to war. He had one thought in mind, and that was reelection...

"That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy. I didn't like to keep it a secret, maybe; but I can tell you now, I will challenge any one of the other 99 Senators to tell us why we are in Iraq, other than what this policy is here. It is an adopted policy, a domino theory of The [Zionist] Project For The New American Century. Everybody knows it [is] because we want to secure our friend, Israel...

"Let's realize we are in real trouble. Saudi Arabia is in trouble. Israel is in trouble. The United States is in trouble. I am going to state what I believe to be the fact. In fact, I believe it very strongly. They just are whistling by on account of the pressures that we get politically. Nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on."

Hollings cited the role of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most important pro-Israel lobby group in Washington, in determining US policy in the Middle East. "You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here. I have followed them mostly in the main, but I have also resisted signing certain letters from time to time, to give the poor President a chance.

"I can tell you no President takes office -- I don't care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat — that all of a sudden AIPAC will tell him exactly what the policy is, and Senators and members of Congress ought to sign letters. I read those carefully and I have joined in most of them. On some I have held back. I have my own idea and my own policy..."

The Iraq war has been "a bad mistake," said Hollings. "Getting rid of Saddam was not worth almost 800 dead GIs and over 3,500 maimed for life..." This war is "a mistake like Vietnam," he added. "We got misled with the [1964] Gulf of Tonkin [incident]. We got misled here, and we are in that quagmire...

"The entire thing is a mess. Don't give me 'support the troops, support the troops.' I have been with troops, about three years in combat, so don't tell me about troops. I have always supported the troops."

Source: Remarks by Ernest F. Hollings, May 20, 2004. Congressional Record - Senate, May 20, 2004, pages S5921-S5925.

See also: A Look at the 'Powerful Jewish Lobby'.

Home Support the IHR Contact Us Journal of Historical Review Books & Tapes Search
© 2005 Institute for Historical Review

Friday, April 27, 2007

The Green Zone Follies

Only One In Ten US Dead In Iraq Are Reported

The Green Zone Follies

Baghdad, 21 Apr 07: Six days ago, I was in an armed convoy driving through the McCain-safe streets of Baghdad when a non-existent rocket, made right here and not in Tehran, blasted into a truck carrying fifteen GIs.

We had to stop, could not turn around because there were vehicles behind us, frantically trying to flee in all directions, and so I saw what were the shredded remains of all fifteen soldiers littering the street and smoldering.

Not the sort of thing to look at, or smell, after breakfast or before lunch. There was not a word of this in our media at home and the official casualty lists, posted on the net didn¡¯t mention any of them.

There are fifteen that never got reported. Fellow in the next building from me does the casualty reports for transmitting back to the States and he says they publish the names of one in ten.
This has been a very bad month with over 300 known dead! That doesn't cover those with faces missing or legs up on a local roof, feeding the birds.

This place has become a living hell, what with occasional snipers shooting our men inside the really safe Green Zone, setting off bombs in the heavily guarded Iraqi government compound and blowing up the hand puppet legislators at lunch, mortar rounds from the defeated insurgents slamming down at all times of the day and night, and so on.

This crazy Bush surge is not working because we have had to withdraw all our troops from outlying provinces and they have been replaced with local religious crazies who shoot anything that moves.

The insurgents have virtually destroyed the power grids so Baghdad gets electric power a few hours a day (at the very best);
the water supply has been interfered with so the locals get shit-infested water from the river but we, who are Bringing Bush Democracy to the benighted heathens have our own generators and our own water, carefully filtered of shit and body parts, so we can cheerfully, and proudly, show the world how better the locals are off with our brand of vicious tyranny as opposed to Saddam's.

They ought to bring Bush and Cheney over here, strip them buck naked and use them as decoys and then we'd see a rapid withdrawal for certaion! And hear loud cheers as the GIs would be struggling with the locals to pick up presidential and vice presidential body parts as souvenirs.

Source: Free America Now

Birth of the Christian Soldier: How Evangelicals Infiltrated the American Military

Birth of the Christian Soldier: How Evangelicals Infiltrated the American Military

April 21, 2007
by Michael L. Weinstein and David Seay, Thomas Dunne Books.

It took decades for evangelicals to infiltrate the military, but eventually fundamentalist theology adapted as its entry points the culture of authority, duty, and sacrifice in the armed forces

The following is an excerpt from With God On Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military by Michael L. Weinstein and Davin Seay (Thomas Dunne, 2007).

Despite the church-state scandals that have plagued the US military in recent years, religious practice in the armed forces is hardly a new phenomenon. In the 1846 Mexican War, Roman Catholics were incorporated into the hitherto all-Protestant chaplaincy for the first time, as much to blunt implications of a sectarian war with Catholic Mexico as for any effort to address the actual religious demographics of the fighting force.

In 1862, President Lincoln, at the request of the Board of Delegates of American Israelites, struck the word Christian from all regulations relating to the chaplaincy appointments, and during World War II, Greek Orthodox chaplains were allowed to minister to their flock in uniform for the first time. The Buddhist Churches of America were registered as an official endorsing agency for the first time in 1987, and six years later the Army saw its first Muslim chaplain.

These earnest attempts at pluralism were often contrasted with unsanctioned attempts to bring sanctity to the armed forces, from the revivalist fervor that swept both Union and Confederate camps during the Civil War, to various hectoring attempts to stiffen the moral fiber of troops during and immediately after World War II. GIs were returning from combat, according to a 1946 report from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, "physical, mental, moral and social wrecks, having been infected with venereal disease" and "coddled by a complacent service attitude which encourages promiscuity."

The situation was subsequently exacerbated at the dawn of the Cold War when, in 1945, President Truman proposed a one-year program of universal military training for all males over eighteen, a move vigorously resisted by evangelical churches. "We began to wonder what might happen to our youth removed from home and church influences," fretted the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), "and subjected to the temptations for which military training camps are notorious."

The proliferating paranoia of the Red Scare, however, radically altered such attitudes by the early fifties, when the world, according to literature distributed by the Nazarene Service Men's Commission, was neatly divided between "the Communist dictatorships and the Christian democracies." The Nazarenes concluded, "The stricken nations are looking to the free world ... we are our 'brother's keeper.'"

Aside from being a bulwark against godless communism, the military was perceived as a target-rich environment for missionary outreach. In 1959, the NAE asserted, "Fifty percent of all who pass through the military service have no religious


America's Enemies!

America's Enemies!

There are four entities who represent the most dangerous enemies to American liberties since George III.

They are:
1. The Neocons or Likudists who owe their personal allegiance to another country and now completely control our foreign policy. They lied and deceived us int the Iraq war and are demanding that more and more American soldiers die to preserve their own country and ideals.
2. The Christian Evangelical right who is trying to force the United States into becoming a theocracy under their rule. They know in their hearts that they alone can restructure a secular humanist America into their idea of Heaven on Earth.
3. An element of American society that call themselves Patriots and are obsessively militaristic and gret admirers of the corporate or fascistic state. Many of these have been very minor members of the American military and as a counterbalance to their reserve or rear area tours of duty, are rabidly in favor of draconian military action, the bloodier the better. Usually these drumbeaters are too old, or too fat, to fight and have no sons of draft age.
4. George W. Bush, who is the worst president in the history of the United States and directly responsible for the huge death tolls in Iraq, is determined to rule the United States until God puts a stop to him and is even more determined to force the American people into becoming obedient, Christian and self-sacrificing lemmings who worship at his shrine and march in step.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Source: Free America Now

Iraq pullout would hurt Israel

Who control America generates the answer We control America! Iraq pullout would hurt IsraelIraq Was Invaded to Secure Israel. These are very crystal clear examples of the Zionised Terrorism and therefore stop bull shitting about the mythical and farcical Islamic Terrorism. Else, find your way to the nearest gas chamber.

Faruque Ahmed

Cheney: Iraq pullout would hurt Israel! (A good idea, for once)

Global Jewish News

A U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq would be damaging to Israel, Dick Cheney said.

"We must consider, as well, just what a precipitous withdrawal would mean to our other efforts in the war on terror, to our interests in the broader Middle East, and to Israel," the U.S. vice president said over the weekend to a Republican Jewish Coalition leadership gathering in Latana, Fla.

"Commentators enjoy pointing out mistakes through 20/20 hindsight. But the biggest mistake of all can be seen in advance: A sudden withdrawal of our coalition would dissipate much of the effort that has gone into fighting the global war on terror, and result in chaos and mounting danger. And for the sake of our own security, we will not stand by and let it happen," Cheney said. He has a similar message earlier this month to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy forum.