WOW !!!!!! BLOOMBERG >>> Says 'LOBBY' is 'BLACKMAIL'-ing US Gov;t to support Iran Strike, but NYTimes is clueless

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2012 1:27 AM GMT
    A Bloomberg editorial lays it on the line: Israel is threatening to attack Iran because it has the upper hand on the US government during the election season, because of Jewish "donors," among other factors, and can therefore compel American complicity in such a disastrous move.

    Israeli officials are warning they might have to launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, perhaps even before the U.S. presidential election in November. ...

    What is the sudden urgency?... If Israel is about to attack Iran (and this time the threats are backed up by distribution of gas masks and other civil defense preparations), then using the campaign season to pull in the U.S. makes tactical sense. Neither President Barack Obama nor Republican candidate Mitt Romney would want to alienate Jewish or evangelical Christian voters and donors by failing to support Israel. But it would also damage Israel’s most important strategic partnership. Nobody likes getting blackmailed.

    The threats could, of course, be another bluff, designed to pressure the U.S. and Europe into quickly putting in place tougher sanctions. If so, that seems unwise, too. After so many unfulfilled warnings of an imminent attack on Iran, Israel’s credibility is eroding, not to mention the destabilizing effect on oil and other global markets.

    Isabel Kershner at the New York Times certainly knows about blackmail. She writes that Israel wants to strike before November, "while Israel’s limited military capabilities might still have an impact."

    The president [Shimon Peres's anti-war] comments came amid a wave of speculation in Israel and abroad that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, might be weighing the option of a unilateral strike even before the American presidential elections in November, while Israel’s limited military capabilities might still have an impact.

    But what does this mean? Why would Israeli threat of a strike have "impact" before the election season? Well, because the Israel lobby has a lot of sway over Obama now, and a lot less come November. But the Times can't go where Bloomberg goes.

    Note that even John Hannah, a neoconservative at Foreign Policy, can talk about the power of the Israel lobby to pave the way in the election season for a strike:

    Could [a strike] come before November's elections in the U.S.? The Israelis I asked were strident in emphasizing that a move of such national importance would be based entirely on Israeli security interests and the state of Iran's nuclear program, not America's electoral calendar. But when pushed, a few reluctantly acknowledged that securing maximum U.S. support for Israeli military action would be an important variable. And there's no doubt that many further believe that, all else being equal, securing the full-throated backing of the Obama administration is far more likely before an overwhelmingly pro-Israel American electorate goes to the polls than afterwards.

    As if the American electorate is dying for another war! But the Times can't address the real forces at work here. It has an editorial called, In Thrall to Sheldon Adelson, that essentially deceives a reader about Adelson's real interest. It says that Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are going to be beholden to Adelson's gambling interests in Macao.

    Does anyone really believe this is Adelson's game? Adelson is pro-choice. Do you think that matters to Paul Ryan?

    The Times is less honest about the Israel lobby than Newt Gingrich, Adelson's last pony.

    "He knows I'm very pro-Israel, and that's the central value of his life," Gingrich told NBC News back in January. "He's very worried that Israel is going to not survive."
    Reminder: we're talking about war. We're talking about something that could devastate hundreds of thousands of people. And our political system can't be honest about what's going on? Writes a friend: If there's an attack between now and the elections it will be incontrovertible proof of a dysfunctional political system here and in Israel. The question then will be whether Americans will do anything about it. I'd like to think so but rather doubt it with most of our news media mindlessly and "patriotically" stoking the hysteria. I do think a greater percentage of Americans will see the problem than ever.

    About Philip Weiss
    Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of
    View all posts by Philip Weiss →
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2012 6:39 AM GMT


    May 18, 2012 at 11:38 (Corrupt Politics, Deception, Guest Post, Iran, Irony, Israel)

    No, this time around it’s best to simply look at how statements made during Tuesday’s floor debate compare to statements made a decade ago (and longer). After so much deceit, destruction and death, how can anyone take this stuff seriously?


    That Was Now, This is Then:
    Another Pro-War Resolution Hits the House Floor

    By Nima Shirazi


    United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs ranking member Howard Berman and chairperson Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

    On Tuesday afternoon, the U.S. House of Representatives debated H.Res. 568, an AIPAC-sponsored bill designed to outlaw diplomacy with Iran and take the United States Congress one step closer to authorizing an illegal, unprovoked and premeditated military attack on Iran.

    Debunking statements about Iran made by House Representatives and Senators on the floor of Congress is tedious and boring. Most of the statements are inarticulate readings of AIPAC-drafted talking points and boilerplate hasbara. M.J. Rosenberg has already excellently addressed the point of this legislation and there is no need to repeat, ad nauseum, why most of what’s in the bill is wrong, how 13,000 AIPAC operatives were dispatched through the halls of Congress to garner sponsorship and support for the bill, how shameful it is for elected officials to spout pure propaganda about silly cartoon drawings and absurd assassination plots, and how – despite the many repetitions of the same infamous and long-debunked claim (which has literally appeared in over 50 Congressional resolutions since 2005) – even Israeli Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Dan Meridor admitted on Al Jazeera that Iran has never threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.”

    No, this time around it’s best to simply look at how statements made during Tuesday’s floor debate compare to statements made a decade ago (and longer). After so much deceit, destruction and death, how can anyone take this stuff seriously?

    Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), October 9, 2002:

    Saddam Hussein is not far from developing and acquiring the means to strike the United States, our friends and our allies with weapons of mass destruction. Thus, if we do not act now, when?

    Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), May 15, 2012:

    The Iranian regime continues to pose an immediate and growing threat to the United States, to our allies, and to the Iranian people. We are running out of time to stop the nightmare of a nuclear weapons-capable Iran from becoming a reality…We must meet our responsibility to the American people and protect the security of our Nation, our allies, and the world from this threat of a nuclear capable Iran.

    Madeleine Albright, February 18, 1998:

    [T]hat the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

    Rush Holt (D-NJ), May 15, 2012:

    The threat of nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to world peace. A nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and threaten the United States and our allies.

    Howard Berman (D-CA), October 10, 2002:

    But under today’s circumstances, the best way to give peace a chance and to save the most lives, American and Iraqi, is for America to stand united and for Congress to authorize the President to use force if Saddam does not give up his weapons of mass destruction. Confront Saddam now, or pay a much heavier price later.

    Howard Berman (D-CA), May 15, 2012:

    What better time for this body to send an unambiguous message that Iran must never be allowed to achieve a nuclear weapons capability and that its nuclear weapons program must end once and for all?

    George W. Bush, January 29, 2002:

    By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger…[T]ime is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.

    Gene Green (D-TX), May 15, 2012:

    Iran is developing the capability to quickly produce a nuclear weapon at a time of its choosing. Iran’s acquisition of such a capability would create a significant new regional danger and be an immediate threat to America’s interest and allies in the Middle East.

    John McCain (R-AZ), Jesse Helms (R-NC), Henry Hyde (R-IL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Harold Ford (D-TN), Jr., Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Trent Lott (R-MS), Ben Gilman (R-NY) and Sam Brownback (R-KS), December 5, 2001:

    The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained…We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

    Howard Berman (D-CA), May 15, 2012:

    And so, as the window is closing, we send a clear message that the House is aligned with the administration in thoroughly rejecting containment…In fact, we have no choice but to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program before it ever reaches that point.

    Steny Hoyer, (D-MD), October 9, 2002:

    [Saddam Hussein] continues his efforts to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction, and he sponsors international terrorism. Saddam Hussein continues to be an unacceptable threat whose duplicity requires action, action now.

    Steny Hoyer (D-MD), May 15, 2012:

    The most significant threat to peace, regional security, and American interests in the Middle East is Iran’s nuclear program…Iran continues to be a sponsor of groups committed to the destruction of our ally Israel and of groups that threaten Americans throughout the world.

    John Edwards (D-NC), October 7, 2002:

    Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel… Every day he gets closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability. We must not allow him to get nuclear weapons.

    Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa), May 15, 2012:

    [I]t is imperative that the United States and the international community understand that a nuclear-capable Iran is a global threat and a danger to the United States and, just as important, to the State of Israel…This is a direct threat to our closest ally in the Middle East.

    George W. Bush, March 19, 2003:

    The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.

    Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, May 15, 2012:

    For the Iranian regime, the possession of the capability to produce a nuclear weapon would be almost as useful as actually having one…Tehran would be in the driver’s seat, and the security of the United States, Israel, and our many other allies would be in their hands.

    George W. Bush, March 13, 2002:

    First of all, we’ve got all options on the table, because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us, or our allies or friends…[Saddam Hussein] is a problem, and we’re going to deal with him. But the first stage is to consult with our allies and friends, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

    Rob Andrews (D-NJ), May 15, 2012:

    [W]e are negotiating with a country that has conceived its nuclear weapons program in secret, that has brandished its nuclear weapons program with the rhetoric of hostility, and for whom the attainment of a nuclear weapon would be fraught with peril for free people everywhere…[O]ur position must be that we will not support or stand for an Iran with nuclear weapons.

    George W. Bush, August 13, 2005:

    As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the las