Jews, Judeo-Communism, and Judeo-U.S. Imperialism:
Trotsky's ghost wandering the White House. Influence on Bush aides: Bolshevik's writings supported the idea of pre-emptive war,
by Jeet Heer, National Post (posted here at majority.com) June 07, 2003
"Joseph Stalin, the Soviet dictator, was paranoid. Perhaps his deepest fears centred around his great rival for the leadership of the Bolshevik movement, Leon Trotsky. Stalin went to extraordinary lengths to obliterate not only Trotsky but also the ragtag international fellowship known as the Left Opposition, which supported Trotsky's political program. In the late 1920s, Stalin expelled Trotsky from the Communist Party and deported him from the Soviet Union. Almost instantly, other Communist parties moved to excommunicate Trotsky's followers, notably the Americans James P. Cannon and Max Shachtman. In 1933, while in exile in Turkey, Trotsky regrouped his supporters as the Fourth International. Never amounting to more than a few thousand individuals scattered across the globe, the Fourth International was constantly harassed by Stalin's secret police, as well as by capitalist governments ... Trotsky's movement, although never numerous, attracted many sharp minds. At one time or another, the Fourth International included among its followers the painter Frida Kahlo (who had an affair with Trotsky), the novelist Saul Bellow, the poet André Breton and the Trinidadian polymath C.L.R. James. As evidence of the continuing intellectual influence of Trotsky, consider the curious fact that some of the books about the Middle East crisis that are causing the greatest stir were written by thinkers deeply shaped by the tradition of the Fourth International. In seeking advice about Iraqi society, members of the Bush administration (notably Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President) frequently consulted Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi-American intellectual whose book The Republic of Fear is considered to be the definitive analysis of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule. As the journalist Christopher Hitchens notes, Makiya is 'known to veterans of the Trotskyist movement as a one-time leading Arab member of the Fourth International.' When speaking about Trotskyism, Hitchens has a voice of authority. Like Makiya, Hitchens is a former Trotskyist who is influential in Washington circles as an advocate for a militantly interventionist policy in the Middle East. Despite his leftism, Hitchens has been invited into the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Other supporters of the Iraq war also have a Trotsky-tinged past. On the left, the historian Paul Berman, author of a new book called Terror and Liberalism, has been a resonant voice among those who want a more muscular struggle against Islamic fundamentalism. Berman counts the Trotskyist C.L.R. James as a major influence. Among neo-conservatives, Berman's counterpart is Stephen Schwartz, a historian whose new book, The Two Faces of Islam, is a key text among those who want the United States to sever its ties with Saudi Arabia. Schwartz spent his formative years in a Spanish Trotskyist group. To this day, Schwartz speaks of Trotsky affectionately as "the old man" and "L.D." (initials from Trotsky's birth name, Lev Davidovich Bronstein). "To a great extent, I still consider myself to be [one of the] disciples of L.D," he admits, and he observes that in certain Washington circles, the ghost of Trotsky still hovers around. At a party in February celebrating a new book about Iraq, Schwartz exchanged banter with Wolfowitz about Trotsky, the Moscow Trials and Max Shachtman. 'I've talked to Wolfowitz about all of this,' Schwartz notes. 'We had this discussion about Shachtman. He knows all that stuff, but was never part of it. He's definitely aware.' The yoking together of Paul Wolfowitz and Leon Trotsky sounds odd, but a long and tortuous history explains the link between the Bolshevik left and the Republican right. To understand how some Trotskyists ended up as advocates of U.S. expansionism, it is important to know something about Max Shachtman, Trotsky's controversial American disciple. Shachtman's career provides the definitive template of the trajectory that carries people from the Left Opposition to support for the Pentagon ... By the early 1970s, Shachtman was a supporter of the Vietnam War and the strongly anti-Communist Democrats such as Senator Henry Jackson. Shachtman had a legion of young followers (known as Shachtmanites) active in labour unions and had an umbrella group known as the Social Democrats. When the Shachtmanites started working for Senator Jackson, they forged close ties with hard-nosed Cold War liberals who also advised Jackson, including Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz; these two had another tie to the Trotskyism; their mentor was Albert Wohlstetter, a defence intellectual who had been a Schachtmanite in the late 1940s. Shachtman died in 1972, but his followers rose in the ranks of the labour movement and government bureaucracy. Because of their long battles against Stalinism, Shachtmanites were perfect recruits for the renewed struggle against Soviet communism that started up again after the Vietnam War. Throughout the 1970s, intellectuals forged by the Shachtman tradition filled the pages of neo-conservative publications. Then in the 1980s, many Social Democrats found themselves working in the Reagan administration, notably Jeanne Kirkpatrick (who was ambassador to the United Nations) and Elliott Abrams (whose tenure as assistant secretary of state was marred by his involvement with the Iran-Contra scandal)."

Coleman works to rally Jewish support for Bush,
by FREDERIC J. FROMMER, Ledger-Enquirer, June 8, 2003
"Sen. Norm Coleman, one of only three Jewish Republicans in Congress, makes an unorthodox sales pitch to recruit Jews to vote for President Bush. 'Compassionate conservatism is a Jewish ethic,' the Minnesota senator tells Jewish audiences in an effort to reverse nearly a century-long trend of Jewish support for Democrats. In the 2000 presidential election, Bush won only 19 percent of the Jewish vote, according to exit polls. But recent surveys show that Republicans could pick up gains among Jewish voters. 'What I hope to get is more support for George W. Bush,' Coleman said in an interview. 'He's uniquely situated to significantly expand the percentage of votes he gets from the Jewish community.' That vote could be important in next year's presidential election, even though Jews make up only about 2 percent of the population. That's because they are concentrated in several competitive states, such as Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania. 'If you get another 10 to 15 percent of the Jewish vote, that could be enough in a close election to tip a lot of those big states,' said Steve Schier, a political science professor at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. Coleman hopes to improve Bush's standing in the Jewish community by playing up the president's efforts to fight terrorism and his support for Israel. 'Israel has never had a stronger ally than George W. Bush,' Coleman told a gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Washington last month. That perception could change, however, as Bush pressures Israel to make concessions as part of his 'road map' for peace with the Palestinians. Coleman, a staunch supporter of Israel, defends the president's handling of the peace process. ... Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, which has booked Coleman at several events, said that Coleman's story resonates with many Jews. "His personal, intellectual, philosophical journey is one that so many in the Jewish community are undertaking right now," Brooks said. Among them is Geoffrey Greene, a 55-year-old physician from Columbia, Md., who came out to hear Coleman speak last month. "The main thing for me was the security issue," said Greene, who quit the Democratic Party last year. "Security and the survival of Jews and Israel became the key issues for me." Hillary Brendzel, a Republican who works at a health care management firm, said she came to see Coleman because he was a new Jewish face in Congress ... Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council and coeditor of the 2001 book, "Jews in American Politics," disagreed with Coleman's analysis. "Sen. Coleman's philosophy might makes sense if there was truly a compassionate conservative agenda in the Republican Party," he said, arguing that Jews agree with Democrats on most domestic issues. "Israel in times of trouble becomes more of an issue for Jews, but Democrats are just as pro-Israel as Republicans are," Forman said."

Defending the Jewish Lobby:
Joining LaRouche In the Fever Swamps. The New York Times and The New Yorker go off the deep end,
BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY, Wall Street Journal, June 9, 2003
"'Just weeks after the LaRouche in 2004 campaign began nationwide circulation of 400,000 copies of the Children of Satan dossier, exposing the role of University of Chicago fascist 'philosopher' Leo Strauss as the godfather of the neo-conservative war party in and around the Bush Administration, two major establishment publications have joined the exposé.' So brags an article under the byline Jeffrey Steinberg on Executive Intelligence Review, a Web site devoted to the perennial presidential campaign of Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. This time around, Mr. LaRouche is running on a platform equating the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon with the 1933 Reichstag fire, set by Nazis so they could blame the Communists and take over the German government. In his part of "Children of Satan," Mr. Steinberg charges that a "cabal of Strauss disciples, along with an equally small circle of allied neo-conservative and Likudnik fellow-travelers" has been hovering around the government for 30 years, "awaiting the moment of opportunity to launch their not-so-silent coup." It does seem to be true that the LaRouche screed was first in line in thrusting Leo Strauss, author of such volumes as "Natural Right and History," into the middle of the debate over the Iraq war. The theme was later sounded by James Atlas in the New York Times and Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. Mr. Atlas's article on "Leo-Cons" included a photo essay with shots of Mr. Strauss and presumed disciples including Edward Shils, Allan Bloom, Saul Bellow, Albert Wohlstetter, on to Clarence Thomas and Leon Kass. It ended with big photos of Richard Perle (along with the howler, later corrected by the Times, that he was married to Wohlstetter's daughter Joan) and Paul Wolfowitz. Mr. Hersh's "Selective Intelligence" basically aired one side of an intelligence debate, defending dovish (or if you prefer, intellectually conservative) CIA analysts. It described the other side as "the Straussian movement," citing Mr. Wolfowitz and Abram Shulsky, head of a special Pentagon shop set up to review intelligence on Iraq. And it included a quote from an academic about "Strauss's idea--actually Plato's--that philosophers need to tell noble lies not only to the people at large but also to powerful politicians." Looking at the striking similarities in these accounts the conspiracy-minded might conclude that the New York Times and New Yorker have been reduced to recycling the insights of Lyndon LaRouche. But it's entirely possible that Mr. Atlas and Mr. Hersh have stumbled into the fever swamps all on their own. To those of us who have lived this history over the decades, the notion of a Strauss conspiracy is totally unhinged. Leo Strauss, I learned as graduate student in the 1960s, was a champion of ancient philosophers, a critic of attempts at empirical political science if not of modernity itself. While this is centuries and leagues removed from Saddam Hussein, it's true that Mr. Strauss did influence Irving Kristol and his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb, and through them other neo-conservatives ... As one of the few people who ran with both neo-conservatives and the Wohlstetter circle, let me testify that they did not appear at each other's conferences or dinner tables. But prominent members of each are Jewish. This is what the recent conspiracy charges are ultimately about. Sometimes it is overt anti-Semitism; with "Children of Satan," Mr. LaRouche has chosen an Aryan-nation phrase for Jews (descendants of Cain, who was the result of Satan seducing Eve, in this perfervid theology). At other times, often in the hands of accusers who are Jewish themselves, it is a charge of secret loyalties. The Jews, or Israel, or the Likud have conspired to take over American foreign policy."

"The New Mafia",
By Mark Glenn, The March for Justice
"It didn't change the fact that America was discovered by an Italian and later named after one. It was and still is a racism with which Americans are comfortable. They aren't offended by the huge amount of business created and maintained by an entertainment industry that depicts Italians as a violent, greedy, treacherous and lascivious people. Names like Vinny, Rocco, Guido, and Tony are passed around in jokes without a second thought as to what the whole business of gangsterism implies when it is applied to a group of people. Shows like the Sopranos win rave reviews from American audiences, and movies like the Godfather have acquired their own cult following. And to a certain extent, it is understandable as to how it got this way. After all, the whole business involving the Italians and the Mafia is an established fact of history, and only a fool would try to say it didn't happen. But imagine if someone today did try to refute it. Suppose someone tried to sell the story that the Mafia never existed, that the whole concept had been orchestrated back during the turn of the last century as a result of Anti-Italianism, an attempt by jealous others to drag the good name of the Italians through the mud and to justify displacing them of any acquired power or influence in American society. Interestingly enough, 60 yrs or so ago, when people spoke (in hushed tones) of a quiet yet powerful criminal conspiracy organized along a single nationality of people, there were those who denounced them for it, using some of the same arguments listed above. And who denounced them? Members of this criminal conspiracy and the political lackeys who were on their payroll. They used all the familiar terms; Racist, anti-Italian, anti-Catholic, bigot. Yet today, the existence of this criminal conspiracy is an established fact, and only someone who is either making a joke or else deliberately wishes to be ridiculed tries to deny it. Now consider the upset that occurs today when someone suggests that there is a criminal conspiracy, much like the Italian Mafia that is operating again, only on a bigger scale, and instead of being run by the Italians, it is run by Israelis. The reactions by these gangsters and their controlled mouthpieces, the media, (and in particular, right-wing talk show hosts) are almost identical to the reactions by Italian gangsters and their defenders in the last century. People are branded as racists, bigots, jealous, envious, and now, thanks to 50 years of daily propaganda, Nazis. It is very effective. Criticize Israel for anything, and you will be called any of the above and ruined for life. Consider what happened to Pat Buchanan throughout his career as a commentator and presidential candidate. Now, as a result of the browbeating he has received for exposing these people for what they are, he barely ekes out snippets of the truth for fear of the backlash. Not limiting the scope of their warfare to only assassinating their opponent's character, they may kill him physically as well. Consider the case of Randy Weaver's wife and son. Mr. Weaver made the mistake of openly calling this criminal conspiracy for what it is, the Kosher Mafia, and they tried to murder him and his family for it. At the very least, you can expect a letter from some government agency telling you that they need to "talk to you" about some matter, usually involving an audit or an inspection, and the harassment will continue for years. Tactics like these and many others not listed are not new, although those individuals using them, members of the New Mafia, would prefer that the rest of America pretend that they don't exist. What else do you call a well-run organization with long reaching tentacles that wields silent, yet powerful influence in government, finance, and media? An organization that extorts over 6 billion dollars a year from the American taxpayers? An organization that can hush-up war crimes 50 years old of such enormity that they scream out to heaven for justice? An organization that can pick up the phone, call the President of the United States and order him to bomb another nation back into the stone age on completely false pretenses? An organization that deals in illegal arms sales, the sex-slave business, drugs, counterfeit money, money laundering, prostitution and the protection racket on a world wide scale? Talk about it being run by the Italians, and everyone calls it the Mafia. Talk about it being run by the Arabs, and everyone calls it terrorism. Talk about it being run by the Israelis, and everyone calls it a wacky conspiracy theory created by anti-Semites ... We, the Americans, have been given a 'contract' by the New Mafia to carry out a series of "hits" in the Middle East in bringing the other families to heel. The New Mafia has done a good job of laying the propaganda groundwork years ahead of time by bringing to prominence ardent supporters of this crime family such as Limbaugh, Liddy, Savage, Hannity and the others. They have done their jobs well, deflecting attention away from the real causes of anti-Americanism in the Middle East, and instead blame it on kindergarten-level explanations such as 'hatred for freedom' and other such nonsense. They have polished up the image of the New Mafia, like Capone used to do with his soup kitchens, by calling Israel 'the only democracy' in the Middle East, despite the fact that the tactics they employ against even their own citizens fly in the face of everything we hold dear as Americans. And, last but not least, they, the New Mafia, have for 50 years, inculcated into the minds of Christian Americans the idea that they are dysfunctional, prudish, backwards, racist, and therefore that they are directly to blame for the tribulations that caused many of them to suffer and die. The unspoken understanding operates like this: 'You owe us. We have suffered terribly because of you, and now you are going to allow us to move about as we please without restraint, and without the hassle of scrutiny or public criticism' ... The Italians have La Cosa Nostra, the Irish have the PIRA, the Germans have the Nazi's, the Colombians have the drug cartels, the list goes on and on. However, we should not make the mistake of letting this consideration of national origin nor the sensitivity of race-related issues get in the way of us acknowledging that a criminal conspiracy exists in our midst. To do so puts us as a society, indeed as a world, in great danger, and to ignore the existence of such a criminal conspiracy allows it to continue in its destructive path, like a cancer, eating up all the life in the body. If we, as Americans, can be brave enough and honest enough to call the Old Mafia what it was, namely a criminal conspiracy run by Italians, than there is no reason why we shouldn't call the New Mafia, a criminal conspiracy run by Israelis, what it is."

This article dares not note that the names highlighted below are Jewish.
Bush Under Fire in Congress for Criticizing Israel,
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN and JAMES DAO, New York Times, June 11, 2003
"Supporters of Israel in and out of Congress assailed President Bush today for criticizing Israeli attacks on Palestinian militant groups as the administration worked to protect its Middle East peace initiative from a new cycle of violence. On a day of new attacks and counterattacks by Israeli and Palestinian militant forces, diplomats said there was concern in the administration that without dramatic improvement of some kind, the peace initiative known as the road map could founder. A day after he criticized Israel for its attempt to kill a militant Palestinian leader, Mr. Bush today denounced a suicide bomb attack on a bus in Jerusalem that killed 16 people and wounded more than 100. 'I strongly condemn the killings,' he said, 'and I urge and call upon all of the free world, nations which love peace, to not only condemn the killings, but to use every ounce of their power to prevent them from happening in the future.' At a hearing of the House International Relations Committee, Representative Gary L. Ackerman, said that Mr. Bush's rebuke might lead his critics 'to think of the word hypocrisy.' 'How can we take certain actions in response to terrorism, and then tell others that when they do the same exact thing that it is not helpful?' Mr. Ackerman, a New York Democrat, said during questioning of William J. Burns, the State Department's senior diplomat for Middle Eastern affairs. The influential pro-Israel lobbying group, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as Aipac, issued a rare criticism of Mr. Bush, if only obliquely. Israel, it said, 'will and must take the responsibility to fight terrorist organizations' and 'it should be the policy of the U.S. to support' such actions. The bombing today was an apparent retaliation for Israel's attempt to kill Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a top leader of Hamas, on Tuesday. It happened at about the same time as an Israeli missile attack in Gaza. Despite the violence, senior administration officials said that the peace initiative was still alive .. If there was a new wrinkle to the day's developments, it was the criticism directed at Mr. Bush for his rebuke of the Israeli government on Tuesday. Reflecting dismay that a new round of violence might undermine the spirit achieved in Aqaba and Sharm el Sheik, Mr. Bush said the attack on the Hamas leader would not help Israel's security. His statement drew fire from those saying that Israel had carried out the attacks to defend itself, just as the United States has done. Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, said Israel's use of military force to protect itself against 'a ticking time bomb factory' was '100 percent justified.' Representative Tom Lantos of California, the ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee, defended Israel's right to protect itself, saying that the Palestinian Authority under Mr. Abbas was unable to do the job. If the Palestinians will not disarm terrorists, 'then Israel clearly will do so,' he said. 'We would do so,' he continued. 'Any self-respecting society will do so. People in government have to defend their citizens.'"

Michael Chertoff: Ashcroft's Top Gremlin Spreading Mischief from DoJ to the Federal Bench,
By ELAINE CASSEL, CounterPunch, June 11, 2003
"It never ends-the [John] Ashcroft watch. It only gets worse, and more frightening. But now I have a new gremlin to watch, someone who is as intent on undermining the law and Constitution as Ashcroft. I am referring to the man behind the criminal prosecution of terrorists, Michael Chertoff. Chertoff, former chief of the Justice Department's criminal division, and a scary looking guy if ever there was one, has been elevated to the level of Court of Appeals judge--the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. What's so scary about Michael? Well, besides having no judicial experience and being a right-ring radical who does not believe in the Constitution and wants to rewrite federal law and rules of procedure on an ad hoc, case by case basis, as it suits him, nothing I guess. A good place to look for Chertoff's legal philosophy is in the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui , now taking place in the Eastern District of Virginia. Chertoff is not the prosecutor of course, Paul McNulty of the Eastern District is. But Chertoff is McNulty's boss and he is calling the shots. So Chertoff argued the government's case in the super secret hearing before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals last week. The government is trying to block trial judge Leonie Brinkema's ruling that Moussaoui and his lawyers have access to the government's star witnesses against him. The government has refused and appealed. Judge Brinkema, who still believes in the Constitution, rightly ruled that to deny Moussaoui that access is a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. Brinkema indicates that she will not be a party to making exceptions to the Constitution on a case-by-case basis. She, in effect, suggests that maybe Justice better take Moussaoui to Guantanamo and try him there in secret, in the military tribunals they set up. Easy there to not only try him, but convict him, and execute him . So why is the government insisting on keeping him in federal court? I have the answer, and it lies in Chertoff. Chertoff's goal, I believe, and the goal of Ashcroft and Bush in supporting this prosecution in federal court, is to subject federal trials, as they see fit, to ad hoc exemptions of whatever laws (be they constitutional, criminal code, or rules of procedure) that will suit their purposes. Their grand scheme is to ultimately cripple and dismantle the federal courts as we know them, one brick at a time. Support for this theory of mine includes their prosecution of attorney Lynne Stewart, for, in effect, zealously representing her client; rules created by Ashcroft that subject attorneys and their clients to surveillance, be they under secret wiretaps issues by the secret FISA court or monitoring of all contacts in prison settings. These procedures came about by fiat from Ashcroft. They make any attorney who represents someone charged with an act of "terrorism" (and a terrorist crime is one defined by Bush and Ashcroft-that is an ad hoc determination, as well). The Moussaoui case has many examples of legal changes. Moussaoui and even his attorneys (!) cannot receive all documents related to the case, because of 'national security' interests. Witnesses may appear in court behind screens (!) so that they cannot be seen. And, the Fourth Circuit hearing last week was closed-closed-for the first time in history. Under Ashcroft we have had secret warrants (or no warrants), secret hearings denying bail, secret trials, and now secret appellate court arguments. Next, we can expect the Supreme Court to be closed, can't we? ... The absurd arguments contrary to the letter and spirit of all that not only the Constitution, but current federal law provides, is appalling and shameful. Chertoff will be making those arguments for the government when they appear before his court (and if you think that appellate judges don't make arguments, you did not hear Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist make Bush's arguments for his attorney, not Solicitor General Ted Olson. And you have not read the rulings of the Fourth Circuit when it denied an American citizen, Yasir Hamdi, the right to see a lawyer. He is locked up in some military brig. He has not been charged with a crime and has been in custody for close to a year. The opinion was a political treatise, not a legal argument. And the treatise-opinion supported the government's argument that courts step back and not conduct meaningful judicial review or, heaven forbid, overrule the government in a time of 'war.' And that treatise said that the 'war' on terror will only be over when the President says it is over, and that the "front" of the war may change from time to time ... As bad for the law and Constitution as many of Bush's judicial appointees are, Chertoff has been the architect of prosecutions in the 'war on terror.' And he may have big changes in mind for you, me, the courts, and the Constitution."

Jewish Law Comes to D.C.,
by James D. Besser, Jewish Week, June 12, 2003
"What does the Talmud have to say about legal and moral controversies in modern America? Plenty, according to the creators of the new Washington-based National Institute for Judaic Law, which opened with a lavish Supreme Court dinner last month. Some Orthodox activists say they can’t figure out exactly the point of the whole thing. But Noson Gurary, a Lubavitch rabbi who came up with the idea and won backing from some top Jewish legal experts, harbors no doubts. 'It will be an eye opener for judges, scholars and law students,' he told The Jewish Week. 'Before you know where you’re going, you have to know where you came from. And Jewish law is the basis of our legal system in America.' Gurary said that the idea for the institute came in an exchange of letters in which Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative Justices, expressed his 'fascination with Jewish law.' 'And as a teacher of Judaic studies, I began to see the excitement of students who were being exposed to Jewish law for the first time, who now had a better understanding of where Western law come from,' Gurary said ... The Buffalo rabbi is a relative unknown in the Jewish world. Not so some of the participants in the new project, including Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman and top constitutional lawyer Nathan Lewin and his law-partner/daughter, Alyza. Alyza Lewin noted that 'the idea is to make Jewish law accessible to the public — to jurists, legal scholars, the press, anybody.'”

Springer a step closer to run for Senate,
Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), June 12 2003
"Jerry Springer, the television talk-show host, has moved a step closer towards standing for the United States Senate, with the announcement that he is setting up an exploratory campaign committee in Ohio. Springer, 59, a registered Democrat and former Cincinnati mayor whose syndicated talk show is produced in Chicago, has been considering a run against the Republican senator, George Voinovich, in 2004. While an exploratory committee falls short of an official declaration of candidacy, it almost always signals an unofficial start of a campaign. Springer, who must win Ohio's Democratic primary next year for the right to face Senator Voinovich, has said he will announce a decision in July. There is mounting evidence that Springer is headed towards a Senate candidacy. He has spent several months giving speeches across Ohio, and is setting up a website selling T-shirts, CDs and autographed pictures, and soliciting campaign contributions. The prospect of a Springer candidacy has divided Ohio Democrats, who have not won a statewide race since 1994. A statewide poll late in the northern winter showed overwhelming sentiment against Springer. But the multi-millionaire has deep pockets and is ready, by his own admission, to bankroll much of the campaign. A Springer spokesman discounted the Ohio poll and said new polling research and public response to campaign appearances had been 'extremely positive'. Springer has said that if he is judged by the content of his raucous television show, he will lose."

Richard N. Perle. From Disinfopedia, the encyclopedia of propaganda,
Disinfopedia
"Long-time Washington cold warrior Richard N. Perle is a man of many hats: Pentagon policy adviser, former Likud policy adviser, media manager, international investor, op-ed writer, talk show guest, think tank expert and, most of all, a man who ardently wants Saddam Hussein toppled. Known in Washington circles as "The Prince of Darkness", Perle is associated with the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century, both of which have been prominent behind-the-scenes architects of the Bush administration's foreign policy, in particular its push for war with Iraq. He is closely allied with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, another Iraq hawk. Perle is also a vocal supporter of Israel and a critic of Saudi Arabia. Perle is on the Advisory Board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and is chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a Defense Department advisory group composed primarily of former government officials, retired military officers, and academics. Born in New York City, Perle graduated from the University of Southern California in 1964 and worked in a variety of Senate staff jobs, including the office of late Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson from 1969 to 1980, when he went to work for a private military-consulting firm. The following year he was appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense in the presidential administration of Ronald Reagan. During the presidential campaign of George W. Bush, Perle served as a foreign policy advisor. A veteran Washington insider, Perle has on occasion been accused of being an Israeli agent of influence. It has been reported that, while he was working for Jackson, an "FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone in the Israeli embassy." In 1983, after stepping into a Pentagon job in the Reagan administration, Perle came under fire for accepting a $50,000 payment from an Israeli arms manufacturer. He explained that the payment was for work done as a Washington lobbyist before entering government. According to a Dec. 24, 1985, Associated Press report, Perle, still a Reagan Defense Department official, was challenged by Jeremiah Denton, then a Republican senator from Alabama, on Perle's choice of Stephen D. Bryen as a Pentagon aide. In the email copy of Lee Byrd's report provided by John Sugg (JohnSugg@aol.com), Denton charged that Bryen, moving from a job with the powerful American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, had been forced to resign his Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff job after being investigated for trying to gain information for the Israeli government. Federal prosecutors dropped the case, with Perle defending Bryen's integrity, the AP report says. In February 2002, the dispute spilled over into theWashington Post's editorial pages, with one writer blasting the 'toxic' charge that Israel is unduly influencing President Bush's Iraq policy. A Post editorial responded by pointing out that Perle, who is chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, and two other Bush policy men, Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, and David Wurmser, a State Department special assistant, had in 1996 participated in Likud policy deliberations. Under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, a Likud-leaning Israeli think tank, the three helped come up with a paper, 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,' which declared that 'removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq' was an 'important Israeli strategic objective in its own right as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions." The paper also recommended that Israel drop the Labor Party's 'comprehensive peace' slogan and aim for 'balance of power,' launch 'hot pursuit' strikes into Palestinian territory - now a staple of the Sharon government - and work to loosen Yasir Arafat's grip on the Palestinian Authority, a policy reflected in the recent pressure to compel Arafat to accept a prime minister."

[Partial List of Jews in the Bush Administration]
Jewish Virtual Libary
Ari Fleischer White House Press Secretary; Josh Bolten Deputy Chief of Staff; Ken Melman White House Political Director; David Frum Speechwriter; Brad Blakeman White House Director of Scheduling; Dov Zakheim Undersecretary of Defense (Controller); Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense; I. Lewis Libby Chief of Staff to the Vice President; Adam Goldman White House Liaison to the Jewish Community; Chris Gersten Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS; Elliott Abrams Director of the National Security Council's Office for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations; Mark D. Weinberg Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs; Douglas Feith Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Michael Chertoff Head of the Justice Department's criminal division; Daniel Kurtzer Ambassador to Israel; Cliff Sobel Ambassador to the Netherlands; Stuart Bernstein Ambassador to Denmark;Nancy Brinker Ambassador to Hungary; Frank Lavin Ambassador to Singapore; Ron Weiser Ambassador to Slovakia; Mel Sembler Ambassador to Italy Martin Silverstein Ambassador to Uruguay; Jay Lefkowitz Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council

Admiral Rickover and the Cult of Personality,
by Dr. Paul R. Schratz , Airpower, July-August 1983
"When Admiral Hyman G. Rickover cleared his desk and took final departure from the U.S. Navy and the Naval Reactors Branch on the last day of January 1982, it marked the end of an era. None of us can quite share the feeling, for no one else ever completed 63 years of continuous active service before heading for pasture at age 82. The Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen biography of that career, written without Rickover’s support and published despite the threat of a lawsuit, offers a fascinating view of the spawning, growth, and maturation of the Rickover empire. During the last hundred years, only a few names come to mind of those who have made a major impact on their navies or nation: Mahan, Fisher, Gorshkov. Rickover can join them. He changed the U.S. Navy’s ship propulsion, quality control, personnel selection, and training and education, and has had far-reaching effects on the defense establishment and the civilian nuclear energy field. The book is tremendously important for the military professional in uniform or for the Washington bureaucrat. Whatever his branch of service, Rickover raises trenchant issues ... From his entry into the U.S. Naval Academy in June 1918, Rickover was in conflict with the aristocratic WASP aura of Annapolis ... Rickover stood far from the top of his class, but he was resented as a loner, a cutthroat with an abrasive personality, and he happened to be Jewish ... . In his naval service to midcareer, Rickover showed little promise of future greatness. He volunteered for submarine duty but was not a particularly good submariner. He rose to executive officer of the USS S-48 but was not selected for command. His pattern of sea and shore assignments up to the rank of captain was unimpressive. But in the fall of 1946 he saw nuclear power "as an opportunity for the Navy—and for himself." Chosen almost by chance for a four-month assignment to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Rickover soon parlayed the opportunity into a fortuitous dual responsibility to the Atomic Energy Commission, later the Department of Energy, and the Navy. Playing one against the other, he used the exploding technology of nuclear power to project his own career. Proving himself a master at bureaucratic infighting, he built his empire, sensing shrewdly what few others ever realized, that congressmen prefer giving money to people rather than institutions. Going before committees as an individual and not as a Navy official, he gave a strong and convincing impression that he spoke as a man of truth and right, not to support the U.S. Navy but for his nuclear navy. No witness attacked another flag officer or another Navy program; Rickover could and did. He told congressmen what they wanted to hear, things they said to each other but rarely heard from a government witness ... Thanks to outstanding preparation and delivery by a truly expert witness, his flawless performances generated their own fame in the press as a folksy, down-home philosopher. Beneath the surface, however, was always the cold, unrelenting, ruthless workaholic, undermining the bureaucracy while creating his own. His was a management textbook for the inside operator, organized to the smallest detail, intolerant of error, devoting everything including his personal life to a cause, an obsession. Rickover established a constituency in Congress by superior salesmanship of his own product and skillful sowing of dissension and division in competing programs. Carefully slanting facts and covering up what he did not want disclosed, he skillfully manipulated his two bosses to become what the authors call "The Unaccountable Man." He destroyed any competing nuclear program within his own organization and any person likely to emerge as a competitor or successor. In time, he became increasingly conservative if not reactionary, putting space between himself and any responsibility for failure or accident. When the USS Thresher was lost in April 1963, he immediately phoned the Bureau of Ships to dissociate himself from any likelihood of failure of the nuclear plant in the incident. The bureau chief thought this action "thoroughly dishonest."

The Hard Edge of American Values. Robert D. Kaplan on how the United States projects power around the world—and why it must,"
Atlantic Monthly, June 18, 2003
"In "Supremacy by Stealth," his cover story for the July/August Atlantic, Robert D. Kaplan states simply that we have gotten ourselves into the business of empire. (He leaves it to others to debate the necessity or morality of such a move.) Concentrating on empire's practical side, he asks, How do we manage this world? In order to answer that question, Kaplan has spent much of his time over the past several years traveling with the U.S. military, observing the implementation of American power on a day to day basis by Special Forces troops who work on the ground in countries around the globe. Based partly on these extensive travels, Kaplan has come up with a list of "Rules for Managing the World": 1. Produce More Joppolos 2. Stay on the Move 3. Emulate Second-Century Rome 4. Use the Military to Promote Democracy 5. Be Light and Lethal 6. Bring Back the Old Rules 7. Remember the Philippines 8. The Mission is Everything 9. Fight on Every Front 10. Speak Victorian, Think Pagan In essence, these rules are an articulation of power on a global scale. Have the best men possible on the ground; be everywhere; use American citizens—foreign and native born; use the military to further democracy; do a lot with a little; covert means and dabbling in moral ambiguity are sometimes necessary; a country united under one name may need more than one policy; the mission cannot be forgotten or compromised; sell the product; be idealistic, but know that realism wins the day. For now, Kaplan argues that maintaining American pre-eminence is paramount—both for the sake of other countries and for our own."

Military action against Iran an option: US official The United States reserves the right to take military action against Iran over its nuclear program, a senior member of the US administration said, but added that any such move was "far from our minds" at present, ABC, June 20, 2003
"John Bolton, Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, told BBC radio that military action was a last resort but insisted that Iran could not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Interviewed on the BBC's Today program, Mr Bolton said that US President George W Bush 'has repeatedly said that all options are on the table. But that (military action) is not only not our preference, it is far far from our minds.' Pressed on whether military action remained a possibility, Mr Bolton said: 'It has to be an option.' 'Nuclear weapons are incredibly dangerous and when you couple the Iranian nuclear program with their aggressive efforts to expand the range of their ballistic missiles, they are bringing more and more of our friends and allies within range,' he said."

Three US States Invest Millions in Israel,
Israel National News, June 20, 2003
"Israel Bonds has sold more than $900 million worth of Independence and Development Issue bonds so far this year, out of a 1.25 billion goal for 2003. Bonds President Joshua Matza disclosed that three American states have also purchased tens of millions of dollars worth of Israel Bonds: New Jersey ($20 million), South Carolina ($10 million), and Pennsylvania $4.5 million. 'These purchases speak of trust in Israel's future and its economy and are an expression of friendship for Israel,' said Matza."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is Jewish
Seven searching questions for Jack Straw to answer,
Independent (UK), June 22, 2003
"Jack Straw will appear before the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday, to answer questions about the decision to go to war with Iraq. This may be the only occasion the Foreign Secretary has to justify, in public and in detail, the extensive allegations he made about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Here Dr Glen Rangwala, a Cambridge expert on the WMD issue who has given written evidence to the Committee, reviews what we have learnt so far, and poses seven questions the committee should put to Mr Straw to understand how the case for war was constructed. When Mr Straw became Foreign Secretary in 2001, was it the assessment of the British Government that Iraq had no active nuclear programme, long-range missiles or anthrax weapons? ... Was new information available that rendered previous assessments invalid? Or did Mr Straw believe that the Iraqi regime had stepped up its activities? What was the nature of the suggestions offered by ministers and special advisers to the Joint Intelligence Committee during the production of the Prime Minister's dossier of September 2002, "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"? ... What reason could there be for political input into the drafting process? Who took the decision to produce the dossier, "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation", and when? This, the plagiarised dossier released in January, was put together in a slapdash way, with even the typographical errors in the original academic articles retained. The Government has never explained why it produced a dossier that contained no information about Iraq's weapons, but was largely about the history of Iraq's intelligence services. Was it to shore up the claim Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, was about to make to the UN Security Council: that weapons inspectors were unable to find prohibited weapons because of Iraqi deception? To what extent has the Government been reliant upon "human intelligence" - sources inside Iraq - in making its claims about Iraq's weapons? Mr Cook said that during his time as Foreign Secretary, he found that neither the US nor Britain "really had much human intelligence inside Iraq". If this is indeed the case, what was the major source used by the British Government: individuals who claimed to be defectors, technological sources such as telephone taps or UN weapons inspectors? Does the Foreign Secretary still believe that Iraq was attempting to import "significant quantities of uranium from Africa", as the Prime Minister claimed in his September 2002 dossier? The documents presented to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), purporting to show that Niger had agreed to supply Iraq with uranium, are widely acknowledged to be fabricated. Tony Blair has insisted that the claim made in his September 2002 dossier was based on other sources. What are these sources and why were they not presented to the IAEA? Mr Straw's memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee says that "at no stage prior to the publication of the dossier did the UK possess or have sight of these [fabricated] documents". A few days ago, I met a former US ambassador who had investigated these documents on behalf of the CIA. He told me the documents were passed to Washington by British intelligence agencies, who had obtained them in Italy in early 2002. Is Mr Straw able to confirm that documents on alleged uranium sales were passed to Washington? Did the British Government keep significant amounts of intelligence information on Iraq's weapons from the UN weapons inspectors?"

As Bush seeks Jewish voters, traditional groups feel ignored,
By Matthew E. Berger, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 23, 2003
"When President Bush sat down to dinner with about 120 Jews at the White House recently, many familiar faces in the organized American Jewish community ate at home. Instead of Jewish organizational leaders, the guest list for the dinner, which honored the opening of an Anne Frank exhibit at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, included Jewish friends of the president, political supporters, rabbis and Jewish White House staffers. Just two leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations were chosen to represent the entire organized Jewish world. The White House´s handpicked representation of the Jewish community was the latest in a number of events since Bush came to office two and a half years ago that have ruffled the feathers of American Jewish leaders. Bush is seeking American Jewish support this summer for two very different agenda items — to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to win re-election for another four years in office. But in seeking that support, some Jewish leaders say, this White House has sidestepped the traditionally liberal Jewish organizations because of frequent scuffles over domestic policy issues. Instead, the administration has focused its efforts on ingratiating itself with more conservative Jewish leaders inside and outside the major policy groups, and on direct appeals to Jewish voters. Public gestures, such as the June 11 White House dinner and Bush´s recent visit to the Auschwitz concentration camp, are seen as examples of such appeals ... The White House liaison to the Jewish community, Adam Goldman, and others at the White House did not respond to requests for on-the-record interviews ... Some analysts have, for years, predicted a rightward shift in the Jewish vote, but the White House believes that the Jewish vote is now truly in play, and that they can win over a substantial percentage of the American Jewish community in the 2004 election. Bush received about 19 percent of the Jewish vote in the 2000 presidential election. Administration officials and their supporters argue that American Jews across the political spectrum, even those who oppose some of Bush´s domestic policy positions, are likely to support the president — both politically and financially — because of his strong actions against terrorism and on behalf of Israel. ... David Frum, a former Bush administration staffer, said the new dynamic between the White House and the Jewish leadership is part of a movement away from the Democrats who lead most Jewish groups and toward the general Jewish population, which he believes is more supportive of Bush´s policies."

THE NEW THOUGHT POLICE. The campaign to criminalize criticism of Israel,
by Justin Raimondo, antiwar.com, June 23, 2003
"Last week, after Israel targeted Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi – and, instead, got a woman passer-by and a three year-old child, while 27 others were injured. – George W. Bush came out with some very mild criticism of Israel: 'I am troubled by the recent Israeli helicopter gunship attacks. I regret the loss of innocent life. I also don't believe that the attacks help Israeli security.' From the hysterical reaction, one might have thought that he had uttered a blood libel, or suddenly taken to wearing a kaffiyeh. Such a commotion! House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), reportedly strode into the Oval Office and threatened to push a resolution through Congress offering unconditional support to Sharon and implicitly rebuking the President. God forbid the President of the United States should mourn the death of a three-year-old child whom the Israelis say was inadvertently kill ... We hear constantly about the supposed rise of anti-Semitic sentiments in Europe: this is not neo-Nazi activity, or the "old" anti-Semitism of the Protocols, but the "new anti-Semitism," which boils down to criticism of Israel and its supporters. As officials of the Anti-Defamation League recently put it in the Denver Post: 'Today's strain of anti-Semitism usually targets Israel in some form. The most socially acceptable way to vent anti-Semitism today is to criticize Israel, the only state controlled by Jews, by holding Israel to standards not applied to any other country. Of course, it is not anti-Semitic to express sympathy with the Palestinian people or to disagree with Israeli government policies. But a hateful bias is revealed when critics subject Israel, and Israel alone, to invective and demonization, while human-rights abuses of other countries are overlooked or excused.' If you criticize "the only state controlled by Jews" you aren't necessarily anti-Semitic – but you probably are. And just what are these standards that Israel alone is held to? Any other country that separated out the majority of the population on the basis of ethnicity, and subjected them to draconian controls, controlling their movements, and keeping them penned up in special ghettos, would long ago have been declared an international pariah. How has Israel managed to get away with it – and, not only that, but how have they managed to go on the offensive, and target their critics as "bigots"? Make no mistake about it: they are indeed on the attack, and not only in the occupied territories. At a recent international conference on anti-Semitism called by the O.S.C.E. , addressed by former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, a number of Orwellian proposals were floated "Another idea advanced by some delegates that would certainly provoke disagreement if it ever became actual policy by O.S.C.E. governments was that ways need to be found to control publications and Web sites that promote anti-Semitism. One delegate, for example, Jean Kahn, president of the Union of French Jewish Communities, argued that the Arab television network Al Jazeera fomented anti-Semitism and that it should be suppressed." The American representatives, far from dissenting, sat complicit with this totalitarian proposal, and hailed others just as bad if not worse. Giuliani, whose Mussolini-like reign in New York City made the trains run on time, endorsed the totalitarian spirit of the proposals: "Words aren't going to suffice to turn the tide of anti-Semitism, which is once again growing in Europe and other parts of the world." Israel's international amen corner is hoping that criticism of the Jewish state is now going to be made a "hate crime," at least in Europe. So that if harsh words for Ariel Sharon aren't accompanied by equally harsh words for, say, Yasser Arafat, the author may find him- or herself fined, jailed, and silenced. The ever-expanding definition of "anti-Semitism" is certain to put a chill on Israel's critics, as the socialist EU imposes limitations on speech throughout the continent: even, now, in England. The campaign to stamp out all but the mildest criticism of Israel is also likely to impinge on the Internet, as the New York Times reports: 'That idea [the banning of Al Jazeera] was not challenged, given the nature of the conference proceedings, but it also did not become a main theme of the conference, though worries about the power of the Internet to spread anti-Semitism did. 'Hypertexts and cybertexts are mostly imitations through which the social deviancy present in society speaks,' Jacques Picard, a professor at the University of Basel in Switzerland told the conferees. His point was that the ideas being expressed on the Internet hate sites are imitations of old anti-Semitic notions but that they have gained new force both by the power of the Internet and by the anonymity of many of those who use it. 'What's new here is that the Internet disseminates these ideas with the protection of anonymity,' Mr. Picard said. 'Anonymity should be lifted.'" This pompous frog flapping his lips about "hypertexts and cybertexts" is the voice of the new Euro-commies, at once absurd and deadly dangerous. "Hate speech" as defined by some committee of commissars is a crime throughout Europe, including the once-free British isles, as well as Canada. And our own would-be commissars on this side of the Atlantic are all too eager to start implementing the same totalitarian methods here. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, to its ever-lasting shame, has been especially active on this front, leading the charge to enforce and extend "hate speech" laws that could never be enacted in the United States without first overturning the First Amendment. That hasn't happened, as yet. They can get away with banning newspapers and prohibiting speech in Iraq on the grounds of an "incitement" to violence, but treating U.S. citizens like the inhabitants of a conquered province is still out of bounds. For how much longer is an open question…. What really disgusts me is the silence of the so-called "libertarians," who are so quick to pounce on instances of censorship, both real and imagined, especially when it comes to the Internet. Yet a campaign that seeks to ban plain speech about Israel and its supporters is ignored."

[The Jewish Thought Police Panel takes form:]
Defense deputy gets authority for military tribunals,
by Barbara Starr, CNN, June 24, 2003
"U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has delegated his role as 'appointing authority' for military commissions to his deputy, according to Pentagon officials. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed a delegation last weekend putting Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in authority over the tribunals that will try al Qaeda and Taliban suspects, the officials said. Under an order that President Bush issued in November 2001, military tribunals can be used to try non-citizens accused of terrorist acts. Individuals brought before the tribunals would have no right to a jury trial, no right to confront their accusers and no right to judicial review of trial procedures or sentences, which could include death. Wolfowitz will exercise key powers in the commission process. After the chief military prosecutor drafts charges against a detainee, Wolfowitz will have the authority to approve those charges and send the detainee to trial. As appointing authority, he also will select military officers to sit on commissions. If commission members cannot resolve matters related to procedures, motions or facts, Wolfowitz will make the final decision. The Pentagon's Office of General Counsel and chief prosecutor are reviewing information known as 'reasons to believe' a detainee might be subject to a commission, Pentagon officials said."

Flirting with Fascism. Neocon theorist Michael Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than from the American Right,
By John Laughland, American Conservative, June 30,. 2003
"[T]here is at least one neoconservative commentator whose personal political odyssey began with a fascination not with Trotskyism, but instead with another famous political movement that grew up in the early decades of the 20th century: fascism. I refer to Michael Ledeen, leading neocon theoretician, expert on Machiavelli, holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, regular columnist for National Review—and the principal cheerleader today for an extension of the war on terror to include regime change in Iran. Ledeen has gained notoriety in recent months for the following paragraph in his latest book, The War Against the Terror Masters. In what reads like a prophetic approval of the policy of chaos now being visited on Iraq, Ledeen wrote, Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission. This is not the first time Ledeen has written eloquently on his love for “the democratic revolution” and “creative destruction.” ... Ledeen’s conviction that the Right is as revolutionary as the Left derives from his youthful interest in Italian fascism. In 1975, Ledeen published an interview, in book form, with the Italian historian Renzo de Felice, a man he greatly admires. It caused a great controversy in Italy. Ledeen later made clear that he relished the ire of the left-wing establishment precisely because “De Felice was challenging the conventional wisdom of Italian Marxist historiography, which had always insisted that fascism was a reactionary movement.” What de Felice showed, by contrast, was that Italian fascism was both right-wing and revolutionary. Ledeen had himself argued this very point in his book, Universal Fascism, published in 1972. That work starts with the assertion that it is a mistake to explain the support of fascism by millions of Europeans “solely because they had been hypnotized by the rhetoric of gifted orators and manipulated by skilful propagandists.” “It seems more plausible,” Ledeen argued, “to attempt to explain their enthusiasm by treating them as believers in the rightness of the fascist cause, which had a coherent ideological appeal to a great many people.” For Ledeen, as for the lifelong fascist theoretician and practitioner, Giuseppe Bottai, that appeal lay in the fact that fascism was “the Revolution of the 20th century.” Ledeen supports de Felice’s distinction between “fascism-movement” and “fascism-regime.” Mussolini’s regime, he says, was “authoritarian and reactionary”; by contrast, within “fascism-movement,” there were many who were animated by “a desire to renew.” These people wanted 'something more revolutionary: the old ruling class had to be swept away so that newer, more dynamic elements—capable of effecting fundamental changes—could come to power.'"

Israel to fight for U.S. visa exemption,
By Aluf Benn and Irit Rosenblum, Haaretz (Israel), July 8, 2003
"Israel has launched a diplomatic offensive to persuade the United States to exempt Israelis from requiring a visa to enter the country. Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom raised the issue with Secretary of State Colin Powell two weeks ago and has ordered the ministry's North America desk to prepare a plan of action. Powell advised Shalom to exploit Israel's good relations with Congress in the case ... Contrary to popular myth, the U.S. is not strict about issuing visas to Israelis because it fears their staying on in the country illegally. According to the most recent report of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, of about one million people picked up for visa violations in the year after 9/11, only 350 were Israelis, although 316,000 Israelis entered the country legally that year, including tourists, businessmen, students, legal workers and government officials. About 4,000 Israelis get green cards for permanent residence every year, half of them after marrying Americans ... According to U.S. Ambassador Dan Kurtzer, about 94 percent of Israeli visa applications are accepted."

Jewish lobby loses faith in Labor,
By Dennis Shanahan, The Australian, July 8, 2003
"LABOR'S traditionally strong relationship with the Jewish community has fractured over Israel, and Simon Crean has become a target for Jewish anger. Leading Jewish voices are suggesting Jews will shift their support from Labor to the Liberals at the next election, and donations to Labor are at risk. Senior ALP sources are aware of the deep Jewish discontent with Labor and concede fundraising from the Jewish community may not be as "dependable" as it once was. Jewish antipathy towards Labor stems from the ALP's policy on Iraq and trenchant criticism of Israel from Labor back benchers who described Israel as a "rogue state" and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a "war criminal". The Jewish frustration with Labor re-emerged after Kim Beazley - who is seen as a friend of Israel - failed to win a leadership challenge. The Australian Jewish News has editorialised on relations with the ALP, saying it was "quite conceivable that some Australian Jews will shift their support from Labor to Liberal at the next federal election based on one factor - Israel". The newspaper said Israel had endured an "unrelenting public-relations battering" played out in parliament with "an implicit green light under Simon Crean's stewardship".

Congressional Aide Reality Show May Air By Year End,
Drudge Report, July 9 2003
"Hoping to overcome Capitol Hill's perception of reality television, a Hollywood producer developing a show about Capitol Hill Aides said he would allow lawmakers to provide input on what appears on the air, ROLL CALL reported on Wednesday. This should help alleviate the fears that many people on Capitol Hill have about his goal of producing a reality television show that chronicles the lives of young Hill aides. Producer Peter Schankowitz of Vin di Bona Productions, explains, "It is really a balance issue where I am going to have to make editorial choices along with the broadcaster and along with the office to say what goes into the show ... I am not going to offer them veto power over content, but I am going to offer them meaningful consultation." There is concern among people on Capitol Hill that a reality television show will inaccurately portray the young aides by trying to capture salacious moments in their day-to-day lives. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who met with Schankowitz, said, "I would want to have pretty strong assurances from them that they would stay on point with what they are describing." Tthe show would center on a group house occupied by Congressional aides and other young people living in the D.C. area. The idea is to capture these people at work, providing viewers with a window into the inner-workings of Capitol Hill."

One step away from the "J" word. The "neo-conservatives" are overwhelmingly Jewish. Their foreign policy revolves around defense of Israel.
Congressman Ron Paul addresses the U.S. House of Representatives, "Neo-conned,"
The Liberty Committee, July 10, 2003
"Unfortunately, after 9-ll, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians. Now there’s mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed ... In spite of the floundering economy, the Congress and the administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked. How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care? Will the euphoria of grand military victories—against non-enemies—ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon! We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters. There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the Republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us. Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives. The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process—where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy—is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington. There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naïve for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.) None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government ... Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsy; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree. The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare. More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe: 1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual. 2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so. 3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends. 4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity. 5. They express no opposition to the welfare state. 6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it. 7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive. 8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit. 9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it. 10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised. 11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem. 12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate. 13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country. 14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many. 15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.) 16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary. 17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party."

The truth about the Jewish Lobby.
Harry Truman's Forgotten Diary. 1947 Writings Offer Fresh Insight on the President,
By Rebecca Dana and Peter Carlson, Washington Post, July 11, 2003; Page A01
"The Jews, I find are very, very selfish," President Harry S. Truman wrote in a 1947 diary that was recently discovered on the shelves of the Truman Library in Independence, Mo., and released by the National Archives yesterday. Written sporadically during a turbulent year of Truman's presidency, the diary contains about 5,500 words on topics ranging from the death of his mother to comic banter with a British aristocrat. But the most surprising comments were Truman's remarks on Jews, written on July 21, 1947, after the president had a conversation with Henry Morgenthau, the Jewish former treasury secretary. Morgenthau called to talk about a Jewish ship in Palestine -- possibly the Exodus, the legendary ship carrying 4,500 Jewish refugees who were refused entry into Palestine by the British, then rulers of that land. "He'd no business, whatever to call me," Truman wrote. "The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgement [sic] on world affairs. Henry brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis and they stayed." Truman then went into a rant about Jews: "The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes." Yesterday, those comments startled scholars because Truman is known as a president who acted to help Jews in postwar Europe and who supported recognition of Israel in 1948, when his State Department opposed it. "My reaction is: Wow! It did surprise me because of what I know about Truman's record," says Sara J. Bloomfield, director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. "Truman's sympathy for the plight of Jews was very apparent." But Truman's comments were, Bloomfield says, "typical of a sort of cultural anti-Semitism that was common at that time in all parts of American society. This was an acceptable way to talk." "Truman was often critical, sometimes hypercritical, of Jews in his diary entries and in his correspondences, but this doesn't make him an anti-Semite," says John Lewis Gaddis, a professor of history at Yale University and a prominent Cold War scholar. "Anyone who played the role he did in creating the state of Israel can hardly be regarded in that way."

The Jewish takeover of American foreign policy
What Israel does to Palestine, we are doing to Iraq.Want to criticise the Israelis for shooting stone-throwers in Gaza? The US does the same in Falujah, by Robert Fisk, The Independent (UK), July12,2003
"A few days ago, the American forces in Baghdad drove 17 truckloads of rubble and dirt up to the secret military area of Baghdad airport to air-freight to the United States. No journalists reported on this macabre operation, even if they knew about it. For the muck came from the site of an atrocity committed by the US Air Force at the end of its bombardment of Iraq. The Americans believed Saddam Hussein was hiding in a suburb called Mansour and so, despite knowing that the area was packed with civilians - the operation would not be "risk-free", as one of the US spokesmen later claimed, the nearest he acknowledged that it was a gross breach of the Geneva conventions - they dropped "bunker-buster" bombs on the densely packed houses of Mansour. They killed 16 civilians, including children. But where was Saddam? It was a sign of their desperation that almost two months after they occupied Baghdad, the Americans suddenly began scrabbling through the Mansour debris. Back in the United States, scientists would be tasked to hunt for evidence of Saddam's DNA in the dirt. I'm not sure whether precedents allow others to commit war crimes in the future - or whether a repeat performance allows others to justify past precedents. But does Mansour not remind you of Ariel Sharon's little operation in Gaza a few months ago, when he ordered an Israeli pilot to drop a massive bomb on a crowded Gaza slum, demolishing a building, killing a Hamas official and - by the strange and beautiful symmetry of such atrocities - massacring 16 Palestinian civilians, including many children? We condemned Sharon's slaughter of the innocent, which he called "a great success". But how can we do so now, when we are silent about our own murders in Mansour? Want to criticise the Israeli army for brutally shooting down stone-throwers in the West Bank and Gaza? Well, we'd better be careful now that the US army does the same in Falujah. Care to demand an end to the torture of Palestinian prisoners at the notorious Russian Compound interrogation centre in Jerusalem? Not much point any more. With three prisoners beaten or tortured to death by American interrogators at the Bagram prison in Afghanistan - the US admitted to two of the three "deaths under interrogation" back on 6 March - and the scandal of Guatanamo with its trussed-up, drugged and hooded prisons, its drumhead courts and its probable death chambers (for Brits, too, it seems), we can forget Israel's beatings. Loud were we in our outrage when Israel's indisciplined soldiery looted and vandalised the Palestinian homes of Ramallah last year - but we can complain no more. For now we know that America's indisiplined soldiery (from the 3rd Infantry Division, to be exact) looted their way through Baghdad airport in the days after its capture on 3 April. All praise to Time magazine - of all publications - for breaking this story. But please, no more criticism of Israel's venal soldiers. Europeans chorused their indignation at Israel's murder of "wanted" Palestinians - or "targeted killing", as Israel and the BBC like to call this revolting practice. Yet now that America openly boasts just the same vile tactics - attacking cars in Yemen, convoys in Iraq, villages in Afghanistan (and just who did they kill in that latest convoy attack near the Syrian border?) - we must be silent. Last year, the Israelis produced a "dossier" culled from captured Palestinian documents, "proving" that Arafat was directing "terrorism" against Israel. The papers, mistranslated and doctored, proved nothing of the kind. But after Tony Blair's mendacious "dodgy dossier" before the Iraq war, who are we to criticise Israel for its lies? And how can we ever protest Israel's flagrant violation of UN Resolution 242 and its occupation of Palestinian territory when the United States is occupying the entire ancient land of Iraq after illegally invading the country, killing thousands of its civilians, taking over its oil fields and then failing even to capture the murderous dictator who brutalised his own people (let alone the weapons of mass destruction which don't exist?) Yes, precedents are dangerous things. Take the signal prescient event that occurred in the life of many Independent readers. A massive construction, symbol of a nation's power, was destroyed by "terrorists". The nation's president immediately signed into law a decree for the "protection of the people and the state", including mass arrests and the right to impose "restrictions on personal liberty ... violations of the privacy of postal ... and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches ..." The government then said it had "proof" that "terrorists" were going to attack the homeland, to destroy "government buildings, museums ... and essential plants". This legislation then allowed the elected leader of that nation to embark on a series of cruel occupations, after the second of which he announced that "not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators". The public building destroyed by "terrorists" was the Reichstag, the "enabling legislation" to destroy human rights legislation was signed by Hindenburg, the "proof" of the terrorist plots was provided by the Prussian government. The elected leader who claimed to be "liberating" Austria was Adolf Hitler."

HILLARY A SHABBOS PREACHER, HILLARY CLINTON Downright kosher,
New York Post, July 13, 2003
"Mazel tov to Hillary Clinton. New York's junior senator delighted and captivated congregants during Saturday services at The Hampton Synagogue in Westhampton. Clinton, whose step-grandfather was Jewish, addressed a number of topics, including terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "The Senate has come through with a significant commitment of funds for the Israeli Defense Fund," she said to applause. "We will, I'm sure, be approving that in the coming weeks." On Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen: "He must demonstrate in deed what he has pledged to accomplish in word." On the war against terrorism, she said: "Eventually we will be victorious because of what we stand for and who we are."

With presidential race so crowded, Jewish donors pulled different ways,
By Matthew E. Berger , Jewish Telegraphic Agency, July 17, 2003
"Faced with a plethora of candidates and a complex set of political issues, many Jewish Democratic political contributors have chosen to support more than one candidate in the 2004 presidential primaries. While it’s impossible to know exactly how much of each candidate’s war chest comes from Jews, Jewish donors traditionally have been active political givers to Democratic candidates. Fund-raisers in the Jewish community for several Democratic candidates report that some donors are offering small donations but are reluctant to give the maximum $2,000 individual donation to a single candidate, while others are giving the maximum to two or more candidates. Among the famous names giving large amounts to multiple candidates are entertainment magnate Haim Saban and Daniel Abraham, founder of the Slim Fast Foods Company and an activist for Middle East peace. Donors say that they support the policy positions of more than one Democrat hopeful, and have formed relationships with people on different campaigns over the years, creating a sense of obligation to several candidates. “A litmus test for me is a candidate has to be good on Israel,” said Buttenwieser, who is Jewish. “But all of these candidates are good on Israel” ... “To me, political fund raising is all about relationships,” said Lonnie Kaplan, a former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who is on Lieberman’s finance committee. “When I ask my friends for help, I am guessing that other people have asked them for help as well" ... Other campaigns say Lieberman fund-raisers have been “playing the Jewish card,” appealing to the shared heritage of the donors and asking donors to preserve the viability of a Jewish candidate. “A lot of them felt an obligation to give some amount to Lieberman,” one political fund-raiser said. The Lieberman campaign denies that it is using the candidate’s religion as a fund-raising tool. “The pitch has never been one of entitlement,” a source close to the Lieberman campaign said. “If anyone expected the American Jewish community to flop behind the Jewish guy, it’s ridiculous.” Spokesman Jano Cabrera said the Lieberman campaign is asking for the support of the Jewish community and other communities as well. “It’s always easy for anonymous sources to make wild accusations,” he said. “We are pleased with our Jewish support, but we recognize we can do better.” Sources close to the campaign acknowledge that they face trepidation on the part of some older Jews — mostly born before World War II — who are concerned that having a Jewish president might spark anti-Semitism. But that sentiment is counterbalanced by a sense of pride and energy among younger Jews, the campaign says. Complicating the fund-raising efforts of several candidates is the strong support in the Jewish community for President Bush’s actions against terrorism and on behalf of Israel."

Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing Judeo-Con intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force,
by Julian Borger, Guardian (UK), July 17, 2003
"As the CIA director, George Tenet, arrived at the Senate yesterday to give secret testimony on the Niger uranium affair, it was becoming increasingly clear in Washington that the scandal was only a small, well-documented symptom of a complete breakdown in US intelligence that helped steer America into war. It represents the Bush administration's second catastrophic intelligence failure. But the CIA and FBI's inability to prevent the September 11 attacks was largely due to internal institutional weaknesses. This time the implications are far more damaging for the White House, which stands accused of politicising and contaminating its own source of intelligence. According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency. The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney. The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war ... Democratic congressman David Obey, who is investigating the OSP, said: "That office was charged with collecting, vetting and disseminating intelligence completely outside of the normal intelligence apparatus. In fact, it appears that information collected by this office was in some instances not even shared with established intelligence agencies and in numerous instances was passed on to the national security council and the president without having been vetted with anyone other than political appointees." The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise. "None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr [Douglas] Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms. The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party. In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe. The Israeli influence was revealed most clearly by a story floated by unnamed senior US officials in the American press, suggesting the reason that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq was that they had been smuggled into Syria. Intelligence sources say that the story came from the office of the Israeli prime minister. The OSP absorbed this heady brew of raw intelligence, rumour and plain disinformation and made it a "product", a prodigious stream of reports with a guaranteed readership in the White House."

The Entertainer: Amid the Ruins of Babylon, Paul Wolfowitz Finds "Final Vindication,"
by Michael A. Hoffman II, Hoffman Wire, July 22, 2003
"With village idiot Bush appointing clinically insane spokesmen like [Paul] Wolfowitz and Lubavitcher cultist Ari Fleischer, the US is as patently thuggish and ugly as the hideous Ariel Sharon and his government. McNamara didn't dare admit that US government assassinations were the deliberate result of high level White House decisions, but last autumn Ari Fleischer frankly told the nation that war with Iraq could be avoided at the cost of "one bullet." Here was open US government incitement to the assassination of head of state Saddam Hussein by the President's own press secretary. With crazies like Fleischer at the Washington wheel, the US government is losing goodwill and influence around the world, while opening a lid on a retributive Pandora's box brimming with vendetta, state terror and popular rage. Pandora's door swings both ways, of course. One can't help noting in the wake of Fleischer's obscene remark, that the war with Iraq might also have been prevented with a single bullet aimed at another head of state besides Saddam. I confess to being an unabashed Wolfowitz fan. Who better to bring this filthy, rotten System crashing down upon the lodge brothers than the Wolf of the White House himself, the exalted policy wonk who, in actuality, is little more than a tribalist of the most primitive and chauvinistic dye? No American government can long maintain its prestige and effectiveness when led by a fanatic (the p.c. term is "activist"), from the fever swamps of Israeli apartheid. The ruins of Babylon are found not only in Iraq, but on the banks of the Potomac."

States Put Up Fight, Dollars To Defeat Divestment Push, By E.J. KESSLER,
[Jewish] Forward, January 31, 2003
"New York is the latest state to adopt measures to counter the movement to force governments and universities to withdraw their investments in Israel. The state's second highest-ranking official, Comptroller Alan Hevesi, told the Forward that he intends to increase the investments of the state's $105 billion pension in Israel, and has spoken to entrepreneurs and fund managers about plans to lead an economic development mission there. "We want more jobs, business and economic growth, which are excellent strategies for advancing the peace process," Hevesi said. Hevesi joins politicians from Pennsylvania and California, among others, in speaking out against divestment and in increasing investments in the Jewish state even as pro-Palestinian activists increase their calls for divestment at colleges and universities. "The divestment movement is not gaining ground. If anything, we are finding that people are rallying around investing in Israel," said a spokesman for State of Israel Bonds, Raphael Rothstein. Rothstein said 2002 was a banner year for his organization, which sold $1.3 billion in bonds. "We sold South Carolina, where there are very few Jews, $5 million. Illinois bought $10 million....We have close to two dozen states buying bonds. We've had very good support from states, labor unions and pension funds." While such investments help shore up Israel's shaky economy, the rhetorical support of Israel by American officials also has been strong and welcome, Jewish officials say. Last month, calling the divestment campaign "immoral," Philadelphia Mayor John Street recommended to the city's pension board that it buy $10 million more in Israel Bonds, a six-fold increase its investment in the Jewish state. "I am particularly outraged by the immoral campaign calling for disinvestment in Israel," Street said in a speech to the Philadelphia chapter of the Anti-Defamation League. "This initiative to injure Israel's economy and reputation is reprehensible.... It is particularly offensive to me given the effort to analogize this divestment movement to the campaign used against South Africa," continued Street, who is black. "I was the author of Philadelphia legislation recommending divestiture as a means to fight apartheid and > the racist South African state. I find it disgraceful that some could use that model to attack the one Jewish state and only Middle East democracy and a country that, every day, is a front line in the war on terrorism." Two weeks ago, New York City Comptroller William Thompson announced the purchase of $5 million of Israel Bonds for the city teachers' pension fund, its first such direct purchase. >In August, California's State Assembly passed a bill urging the University of California, a flash point of the divestment movement, to reject calls to divest its pension funds from companies with ties to Israel. A petition calling for divestment at the university has garnered more than 6,000 signatures, including those of 211 faculty members. While the University of California is a separate entity that does not necessarily take direction from the state, the legislature "thought it was important to take a clear stance against this kind of movement," said the bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Keith Richman."

[Judeocentric "neo-con" fascism:]
NEOCOSERVATISM, WHERE TROTSKY MEETS STALIN AND HITLER,
by Srdja Trifkovic, Chronicles Magazine, July 23, 2003
"The neoconservatives are often depicted as former Trotskyites who have morphed into a new, closely related life form. It is pointed out that many early neocons—including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol and coeditor Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, and Albert Wohlstetter—belonged to the anti-Stalinist far left in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and that their successors, including Joshua Muravchik, and Carl Gershman, came to neoconservatism through the Socialist Party at a time when it was Trotskyite in outlook and politics. As early as 1963 Richard Hofstadter commented on the progression of many ex-Communists from the paranoid left to the paranoid right, clinging all the while to the fundamentally Manichean psychology that underlies both. Four decades later the dominant strain of neoconservatism is declared to be a mixture of geopolitical militarism and “inverted socialist internationalism.” Blanket depictions of neoconservatives as redesigned Trotskyites need to be corrected in favor of a more nuanced analysis. In several important respects the neoconservative world outlook has diverged from the Trotskyite one and acquired some striking similarities with Stalinism and German National Socialism. Today’s neoconservatives share with Stalin and Hitler an ideology of nationalist socialism and internationalist imperialism. The similarities deserve closer scrutiny and may contribute to a better understanding of the most influential group in the U.S. foreign policy-making community. Certain important differences remain, notably the neoconservatives’ hostility not only to Nazi race-theory but even to the most benign understanding of national or ethnic coherence. On the surface, there are also glaring differences in economics. However, the neoconservative glorification of the free market is more rhetoric, designed to placate the businessmen who fund them, than reality. In fact, the neoconservatives favor not free enterprise but a kind of state capitalism—within the context of the global apparatus of the World Bank and the IMF—that Hitler would have appreciated. Some form of gradual but irreversible and desirable withering away of the state is a key tenet of the Trotskyite theoretical outlook. The neoconservatives, by contrast, are statists par excellence. Their core belief—that society can be managed by the state in both its political and economic life—is equally at odds with the traditional conservative outlook and with the non-Stalinist Left. In this important respect the neoconservatives are much closer to Stalinism and National Socialism. They do not want to abolish the state; they want to control it—especially if the state they control is capable of controlling all others. They are not “patriotic” in any conventional sense of the term and do not identify themselves with the real and historic America but see the United States merely as the host organism for the exercise of their Will to Power. Whereas the American political tradition has been fixated on the dangers of centralized state power, on the desirability of limited government and non-intervention in foreign affairs, the neoconservatives exalt and worship state power, and want America to become a hyper-state in order to be an effective global hegemon."

Campaign Confidential,
[Jewish] Forward, July 25, 2003
"Their Guy: Jewish Republicans are pointing to the pro-Israel credentials of President Bush's new deputy press secretary, Dan Senor, as evidence that Jewish concerns are being noted regarding that position now that Ari Fleischer has left his post as press secretary. Senor got his start in politics in 1993 as an intern at the lobbying powerhouse the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "Whether I was learning the ins and outs of Washington with my fellow interns or attending briefings on Capitol Hill, my internship at Aipac prepared me for my work in politics," Aipac's Web site quotes Senor as saying. More recently, Senor served as deputy press secretary for the top American administrator in Iraq, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer."

Commitment to Israel 'unshakable': Bush,
CBC News, July 29, 2003
"U.S. President George Bush told Israel Tuesday to carefully consider the consequences of its actions in the Middle East peace process, while Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon defended Israel's building of a security fence. "Much hard work remains to be done by Israelis and Palestinians and by their neighbours," Bush said. "I also urged the prime minister to carefully consider all the consequences of Israel's actions as we move forward on the road to peace," he added. Bush urged both Israel and the Palestinians to do more to move the peace process forward. "America is firmly committed to the security of Israel as a Jewish state and we are firmly committed to the safety of the Israeli people," said Bush. "My commitment to the security of Israel is unshakable," he added."

[Our Congressmen are now "Israelis at heart." The subsuming of America to Judeocentric Israelism is nearly total.]
Palestinians Must Bear Burden of Peace, DeLay Tells Israelis,
By JAMES BENNET, New York Times, July 31, 2003
"Calling himself "an Israeli at heart," Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, told Israeli legislators today that the burden for achieving peace here rested with the Palestinians, who he said must eradicate terrorism. Speaking a day after President Bush met at the White House with the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, Mr. DeLay said Mr. Bush had "made clear that the prospects of peace are the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority," which must "fight terror and dismantle terrorist capabilities." Mr. Bush also urged Mr. Sharon to ease restrictions on Palestinians and to restrain Israel's own actions. Yet Mr. DeLay, while declaring that Palestinians "have been oppressed and abused," said the culprit -- and "their enemy" -- was Yasir Arafat, not Israel. "Israel is not the problem," he said. "Israel is the solution." An evangelical Christian, Mr. DeLay is a leader in Washington of the Christian Zionist movement, a bloc of conservative Republicans whose strong support for the Jewish state is based on their interpretation of the Bible. Before leaving Washington, Mr. DeLay was sharply critical of the international peace plan known as the road map, which envisions a Palestinian state in three years. Mr. Bush says he is committed to the plan, but Mr. DeLay said last week in an interview with The New York Times, "I can't imagine this president supporting a state of terrorists." He added, "You'd have to change almost an entire generation's culture."

Flawed decision-making Cliques, groupthink dominate work of Defense Department,
by KAREN KWIATKOWSKI, Charlotte Observer (NC), Auguest 1, 2003
"After eight years of Bill Clinton, many military officers breathed a sigh of relief when George W. Bush was named president. I was in that plurality. At one time, I would have believed the administration's accusations of anti-Americanism against anyone who questioned the integrity and good faith of President Bush, Vice President Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. However, while working from May 2002 through February in the Pentagon, I observed the environment in which decisions about postwar Iraq were made. Those observations changed everything. If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of "intelligence" found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam occupation has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the office of the secretary of defense. I can identify three prevailing themes. • Functional isolation of the professional corps. Civil service and active-duty military professionals were noticeably uninvolved in key areas of interest to Under Secretary for Policy Douglas Feith, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. In terms of Israel and Iraq, all primary staff work was conducted by political appointees ... Cross-agency cliques: Much has been written about the role of the founding members of the Project for a New American Century, the Center for Security Policy and the American Enterprise Institute and their new positions in the Bush administration. Certainly, appointees sharing particular viewpoints are expected to congregate, and that an overwhelming number of these appointees have such organizational ties is neither conspiratorial nor unusual. What is unusual is the way this network operates solely with its membership across the various agencies -- in particular the State Department, the National Security Council and the Office of the Vice President. I personally witnessed several cases of staff officers being told not to contact their counterparts at State or the National Security Council because that particular decision would be processed through a different channel. • Groupthink. Defined as "reasoning or decision-making by a group, often characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view," groupthink was, and probably remains, the predominant characteristic of Pentagon Middle East policy development. The result of groupthink is the elevation of opinion into a kind of accepted "fact," and uncritical acceptance of extremely narrow and isolated points of view. The result of groupthink has been extensively studied in the history of American foreign policy, and it will have a prominent role when the history of the Bush administration is written. Groupthink, in this most recent case leading to invasion and occupation of Iraq, will be found, I believe, to have caused a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-opting through deceit of a large segment of the Congress."

Former employee of Denise Rich claims she told him to illegally donate to Hillary Clinton, Newsday, August 2, 2003
"A lawsuit filed against Democratic fund-raiser Denise Rich [wife of criminal Marc Rich who as pardoned by President Clinton] charges that she asked an employee to make an illegal donation to Sen. Hillary Clinton and then fired him after he told her he had HIV. Jimmy Hester, who worked for Rich's record company until February 2002, reportedly filed the $30 million lawsuit Friday in federal court in Manhattan. The suit, reported in the Daily News and the New York Post on Saturday, claims Rich told Hester to donate $2,000 to Clinton's Senate campaign in October 1999 and said she would reimburse him for the money. The lawsuit said it was "clear" to Hester that "this demand was made so that Rich could disguise the source of the contribution." Federal law bans campaign contributions disguised in the name of another person. Filings for Clinton's campaign show that Hester made two $1,000 donations, the News said. Hester also claims that Rich fired him after he told her he had HIV and hid the reason by accusing him of sexually harassing another employee, according to the lawsuit. Rich's spokesman, Howard Rubenstein, told the News and the Post that Rich was traveling Friday and could not comment."

Ginsburg: Int'l Law Shaped Court Rulings,
by GINA HOLLAND, Kansas City Star, August 2, 2003
"The Supreme Court is looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like the death penalty and gay rights, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Saturday. The justices referred to the findings of foreign courts this summer in their own ruling that states may not punish gay couples for having sex. And in 2002, the court said that executing mentally retarded people is unconstitutionally cruel. That ruling noted that the practice was opposed internationally. "Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change," Ginsburg said during a speech to the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers group holding its first convention. Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives," said Ginsburg, who has supported a more global view of judicial decision making. Ginsburg cited an international treaty in her vote in June to uphold the use of race in college admissions. The shift has angered some conservatives. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the gay sex case, wrote with two colleagues that the court should not "impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans." David Rivkin Jr., a conservative Washington attorney, said foreign trends can be helpful to legislators in setting policy, but not to judges in interpreting the U.S. Constitution."
]
N.Korea Says Will Hold Talks, but Not