CHENEY’S PLAN FOR IRAN ATTACK STARTS WITH ISRAELI MISSILE STRIKE
White House Leak: Cheney's Plan for Iran Attack Starts With Israeli Missile Strike By Gregor Peter Schmitz and Cordula Meyer (original article from Der Spiegel)
US Vice President Dick Cheney -- the power behind the throne, the eminence grise, the man with the (very) occasional grandfatherly smile -- is notorious for his propensity for secretiveness and behind-the-scenes manipulation. He's capable of anything, say friends as well as enemies. Given this reputation, it's no big surprise that Cheney has already asked for a backroom analysis of how a war with Iran might begin. In the scenario concocted by Cheney's strategists, Washington's first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.
This information was leaked by an official close to the vice president. Cheney himself hasn't denied engaging in such war games. For years, in fact, he's been open about his opinion that an attack on Iran, a member of US President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil," is inevitable.
Given these not-too-secret designs, Democrats and Republicans alike have wondered what to make of the still mysterious Israeli bombing run in Syria on Sept. 6. Was it part of an existing war plan? A test run, perhaps? For days after the attack, one question dominated conversation at Washington receptions: How great is the risk of war, really?
Grandiose Plans, East and West
In the September strike, Israeli bombers were likely targeting a nuclear reactor under construction, parts of which are alleged to have come from North Korea. It is possible that key secretaries in the Bush cabinet even tried to stop Israel. To this day, the administration has neither confirmed nor commented on the attack.
Nevertheless, in Washington, Israel's strike against Syria has revived the specter of war with Iran. For the neoconservatives it could represent a glimmer of hope that the grandiose dream of a democratic Middle East has not yet been buried in the ashes of Iraq. But for realists in the corridors of the State Department and the Pentagon, military action against Iran is a nightmare they have sought to avert by asking a simple question: "What then?"
The Israeli strike, or something like it, could easily mark the beginning of the "World War III," which President Bush warned against last week. With his usual apocalyptic rhetoric, he said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could lead the region to a new world war if his nation builds a nuclear bomb.
Conditions do look ripe for disaster. Iran continues to acquire and develop the fundamental prerequisites for a nuclear weapon. The mullah regime receives support -- at least moral support, if not technology -- from a newly strengthened Russia, which these days reaches for every chance to provoke the United States. President Vladimir Putin's own (self-described) "grandiose plan" to restore Russia's armed forces includes a nuclear buildup. The war in Iraq continues to drag on without an end in sight or even an opportunity for US troops to withdraw in a way that doesn't smack of retreat. In Afghanistan, NATO troops are struggling to prevent a return of the Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists. The Palestinian conflict could still reignite on any front.
In Washington, Bush has 15 months left in office. He may have few successes to show for himself, but he's already thinking of his legacy. Bush says he wants diplomacy to settle the nuclear dispute with Tehran, and hopes international pressure will finally convince Ahmadinejad to come to his senses. Nevertheless, the way pressure has been building in Washington, preparations for war could be underway.
In late September, the US Senate voted to declare the 125,000-man Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. High-ranking US generals have accused Iran of waging a "proxy war" against the United States through its support of Shiite militias in Iraq. And strategists at the Pentagon, apparently at Cheney's request, have developed detailed plans for an attack against Tehran.
Instead of the previous scenario of a large-scale bombardment of the country's many nuclear facilities, the current emphasis is, once again, on so-called surgical strikes, primarily against the quarters of the Revolutionary Guards. This sort of attack would be less massive than a major strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Conservative think tanks and pundits who sense this could be their last chance to implement their agenda in the Middle East have supported and disseminated such plans in the press. Despite America's many failures in Iraq, these hawks have urged the weakened president to act now, accusing him of having lost sight of his principal agenda and no longer daring to apply his own doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.
Sheer Lunacy?
The notion of war with Iran has spilled over into other circles, too. Last Monday Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the US House of Representatives, made it clear that the president would first need Congressional approval to launch an attack. Meanwhile, Republican candidates for the White House have debated whether they would even allow such details to get in their way. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said he would consult his attorneys to determine whether the US Constitution does, in fact, require a president to ask for Congressional approval before going to war. Vietnam veteran John McCain said war with Iran was "maybe closer to reality than we are discussing tonight."
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has also adopted a hawkish stance, voting in favor of the Senate measure to classify the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Her rivals criticized Clinton for giving the administration a blank check to go to war.
The US military is building a base in Iraq less than 10 kilometers (about six miles) from Iran's border. The facility, known as Combat Outpost Shocker, is meant for American soldiers preventing Iranian weapons from being smuggled into Iraq. But it's also rumored that Bush authorized US intelligence agencies in April to run sabotage missions against the mullah regime on Iranian soil.
Gary Sick is an expert on Iran who served as a military adviser under three presidents. He believes that such preparations mark a significant shift in the government's strategy. "Since August," says Sick, "the emphasis is no longer on the Iranian nuclear threat," but on Iran's support for terrorism in Iraq. "This is a complete change and is potentially dangerous."
It would be relatively easy for Bush to prove that Tehran, by supporting insurgents in Iraq, is responsible for the deaths of American soldiers. It might be harder to prove that Iran's nuclear plans pose an immediate threat to the world. Besides, the nuclear argument is reminiscent of an embarrassing precedent, when the Bush administration used the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- which he didn't -- as a reason to invade Iraq. Even if the evidence against Tehran proves to be more damning, the American public will find it difficult to swallow this argument again.
The forces urging a diplomatic resolution also look stronger than they were before Iraq. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants the next step to be a third round of even tighter sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. Rice has powerful allies at the Pentagon: Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral William Fallon, head of US Central Command, which is responsible for American forces throughout the region.
Rice and her cohorts all favor diplomacy, partly because they know the military is under strain. After four years in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US lacks manpower for another major war, especially one against a relatively well-prepared adversary. "For many senior people at the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department, a war would be sheer lunacy," says security expert Sick.
Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and now a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, agrees. A war against Tehran would be "a disaster for the entire world," says Riedel, who worries about a "battlefield extending from the Mediterranean to the Indian subcontinent." Nevertheless, he believes there is a "realistic risk of a military conflict," because both sides look willing to carry things to the brink.
On the one hand, says Riedel, Iran is playing with fire, challenging the West by sending weapons to Shiite insurgents in Iraq. On the other hand, hotheads in Washington are by no means powerless. Although many neoconservative hawks have left the Bush administration, Cheney remains their reliable partner. "The vice president is the closest adviser to the president, and a dominant figure," says Riedel. "One shouldn't underestimate how much power he still wields."
'Is it 1938 Again?'
Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Tehran last week also played into the hands of hardliners in Washington, who read it as proof that Putin isn't serious about joining the West's effort to convince Tehran to abandon its drive for a nuclear weapon. Moreover, the countries bordering the Caspian Sea, including Central Asian nations Washington has courted energetically in recent years, have said they would not allow a war against Tehran to be launched from their territory.
Cheney derives much of his support from hawks outside the administration who fear their days are as numbered as the President's. "The neocons see Iran as their last chance to prove something," says analyst Riedel. This aim is reflected in their tone. Conservative columnist Norman Podhoretz, for example -- a father figure to all neocons -- wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he "hopes and prays" that Bush will finally bomb Iran. Podhoretz sees the United States engaged in a global war against "Islamofascism," a conflict he defines as World War IV, and he likens Iran to Nazi Germany. "Is it 1938 again?" he asks in a speech he repeats regularly at conferences.
Podhoretz is by no means an eccentric outsider. He now serves as a senior foreign-policy adviser to Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani. President Bush has also met with Podhoretz at the White House to hear his opinions.
Nevertheless, most experts in Washington warn against attacking Tehran. They assume the Iranians would retaliate. "It would be foolish to believe surgical strikes will be enough," says Riedel, who believes that precision attacks would quickly escalate to war.
Former presidential adviser Sick thinks Iran would strike back with terrorist attacks. "The generals of the Revolutionary Guard have had several years to think about asymmetrical warfare," says Sick. "They probably have a few rather interesting ideas."
According to Sick, detonating well-placed bombs at oil terminals in the Persian Gulf would be enough to wreak havoc. "Insurance costs would skyrocket, causing oil prices to triple and triggering a global recession," Sick warns. "The economic consequences would be enormous, far greater than anything we have experienced with Iraq so far."
Because the catastrophic consequences of an attack on Iran are obvious, many in Washington have a fairly benign take on the current round of saber rattling. They believe the sheer dread of war is being used to bolster diplomatic efforts to solve the crisis and encourage hesitant members of the United Nations Security Council to take more decisive action. The Security Council, this argument goes, will be more likely to approve tighter sanctions if it believes that war is the only alternative.
SPIEGEL ONLINE INTERVIEW WITH MILITARY HISTORIAN GABRIEL KOLKO
'Many in the US Military Think Bush and Cheney Are Out of Control'
In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, the Amsterdam-based military historian Gabriel Kolko talks about the prospect of war with Iran and argues that many in the US military now view the White House as being 'out of control.'
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Kolko, editorials in US papers like the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard and the National Review are pushing for military action against Iran. How does the leadership in the US military view such a conflict?
Gabriel Kolko: The American military is stretched to the limit. They are losing both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everything is being sacrificed for these wars: money, equipment in Asia, American military power globally, etc. Where and how can they fight yet another? The Pentagon is short of money for procurement, and that is what so many people in the military bureaucracy live for. The situation will be far worse in the event of a war with Iran.
Many in the American military have learned the fundamental dilemma of modern warfare: More money and better weapons don't mean that you win. IEDs, which cost so little to make, are defeating a military which spends billions of dollars per month. IEDS are so adaptable that each new strategy developed by the United States to counter them is answered by the Iraqi insurgents. The Israelis were also never quite able to counter IEDs. One report quotes an Israeli military engineer who said the Israeli answer to IEDs was frequently the use of armored bulldozers to effectively rip away the top 18 inches of pavement and earth where explosive devices might be hidden. This is fantastic, as the cost of winning means destroying roads, which form the basis of a modern economy.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are people in the Pentagon getting nervous about how influential voices in the White House continue to push for conflict with Iran?
Kolko: Many in the US military think Bush and Cheney are out of control. They are rebelling against Bush and Cheney. Washington Post reporter Dana Priest recently said in an interview that she believed the US military would revolt and refuse to fly missions against Iran if the White House issued such orders.
CENTCOM [US Central Command, the military grouping whose responsibilities include the Middle East] commander Admiral William Fallon reportedly thwarted Cheney's wish to sent a third additional aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. One paper wrote that he "vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM."
Lt. Gen. Bruce Wright, in charge of US forces in Japan, told the Associated Press last week that the Iraq war had weakened American forces in the face of any potential conflict with China. He was quoted as saying, "Are we in trouble? It depends on the scenario. But you have to be concerned about the small number of our forces and the age of our forces."
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you think that conflict with Iran is likely?
Kolko: All the significant economic journals (Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.) recognize that the American and European economies are now in a crisis, and it may be protracted. The dollar is falling; Gulf States and others may abandon it (as an investment currency). A war with Iran would produce economic chaos because oil would be scarce. There are states which the United States wishes to isolate, like Russia and Venezuela, who can develop great influence through their ability to sell oil in such a crisis. The balance of world economic power is involved, and that is a great issue.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: But aren't the Gulf States interested in seeing Iran weakened through a conflict with the United States?
Kolko: The Gulf States do not like Shia Iran, but they export oil, which makes them rich. They are dependent on peace, not war.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How would Iran react to a provocation by the United States, say, on the border? Could the Iranian military in any way be a match for the United States?
Kolko: Iran fought Iraq for about a decade and lost hundreds of thousands of men. Perhaps they will roll over, but it is not likely. There are a number of tiny islands in the gulf they have had years to fortify. Can 90 percent of their weapons be knocked out? Even if this United States could achieve this, the remainder would be sufficient to sink many boats and tankers. The amount of oil exported through the gulf would thereby be reduced, perhaps cease altogether. This would only strengthen American rivals like Russia and Venezuela.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: But what about the bunker-buster bombs? Wouldn't that be a technology which Iran could not match?
Kolko: Bunker busters are only able to knock out so many bunkers, but alas, not all. If bunker-buster bombs are nuclear they are very useful, but they are also radioactive. In addition to killing Iranians, they may also kill friends and nearby US soldiers.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about the so-called 'Cheney plan' to let Israel attack Iran? What role would Israel play in a conflict with Iran? Isn't Israel also interested in seeing that the United States weakens its greatest threat in the region?
Kolko: Israel may be a factor. They must cross Syrian and Jordanian airspace, and the Iranians will be prepared if they are not shot down over Syria. Their countermeasures may be effective, but perhaps not ... War with Iran will lead to a rain of rockets and Israel would be left with an inability to deal with local priorities. Iran is likely to get nuclear bombs sooner or later. So will other nations. Israel has hundreds already. Israeli strategists believe deterrence will then exist. Why risk war?
Israel dislikes Iran and the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons, but they believe they can handle it with a deterrent relationship. Israel needs its army, which is not large enough for potential nearby problems -- for Palestinians and its Arab neighbors, who it rightfully fears and hates. That means Israel can be belligerent, but it is not capable of playing the US role, except of course with nuclear weapons.
So I regard the Israelis as opponents of a war with Iran which would involve them. They certainly noticed how during the war with Lebanon the Palestinians in Gaza used the opportunity to increase pressure on Israel from the south. Israelis opposed the Iraq war because it would lead to Iranian domination of the region, which it has.
Hence, the report that Cheney is trying to use Israel, if it is true, shows that he's confused and quite mad -- but also unusually isolated.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: But what about the Democratic Party? Isn't it in the interest of the Democratic Party to do everything they can to end the war?
Kolko: All three leading Democratic Party presidential hopefuls -- Clinton, Obama and Edwards -- refused at a debate recently in New Hampshire to promise to pull the US military out of Iraq by the beginning of 2013. The American public is a small factor, as elections have repeatedly shown, but may play some role also. As the last election proved, anyone who thinks Democrats will stop wars is fooling him- or herself. But war with Iran would require new authorizations. Then the Congress would, potentially, be very important.
From the Los Angeles Times Straitjacket Bush The president's warmongering remarks on the Iranian threat suggest he is psychotic. Really.
Rosa Brooks
October 25, 2007
Forget impeachment. Liberals, put it behind you. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment. Because they've clearly gone mad.
Exhibit A: We're in the middle of a disastrous war in Iraq, the military and political situation in Afghanistan is steadily worsening, and the administration's interrogation and detention tactics have inflamed anti-Americanism and fueled extremist movements around the globe. Sane people, confronting such a situation, do their best to tamp down tensions, rebuild shattered alliances, find common ground with hostile parties and give our military a little breathing space. But crazy people? They look around and decide it's a great time to start another war.
That would be with Iran, and you'd have to be deaf not to hear the war drums. Last week, Bush remarked that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III . . . you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." On Sunday, Cheney warned of "the Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power . . . [we] cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions." On Tuesday, Bush insisted on the need "to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat."
Huh? Iran is now a major threat to Europe? The Iranians are going to launch a nuclear missile (that they don't yet possess) against Europe (for reasons unknown because, as far as we know, they're not mad at anyone in Europe)? This is lunacy in action.
Writing in Newsweek on Oct. 20, Fareed Zakaria, a solid centrist and former editor of Foreign Affairs, put it best. Citing Bush's invocation of "the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon," Zakaria concluded that "the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. . . . Iran has an economy the size of Finland's. . . . It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are . . . allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"
Planet Cheney.
Zakaria may be misinterpreting the president's remark about World War III though. He saw it as a dangerously loopy Bush prediction about the future behavior of a nuclear Iran -- the idea being, presumably, that possessing "the knowledge" to make a nuclear weapon would so empower Iran's repressive leaders that they'll giddily rush out and start World War III.
But you could read Bush's remark as a madman's threat rather than a madman's prediction -- as a warning to recalcitrant states, from Germany to Russia, that don't seem to share his crazed obsession with Iran. The message: Fall into line with administration policy toward Iran or you can count on the U.S.A. to try to start World War III on its own. And when it comes to sparking global conflagration, a U.S. attack on Iran might be just the thing. Yee haw!
You'd better believe these guys would do it too. Why not? They have nothing to lose -- they're out of office in 15 months anyway. Après Bush-Cheney, le déluge! (Have fun, Hillary.)
But all this creates a conundrum. What's a constitutional democracy to do when the president and vice president lose their marbles?
The U.S. is full of ordinary people with serious forms of mental illness -- delusional people with violent fantasies who think they're the president, or who think they get instructions from the CIA through their dental fillings.
The problem with Bush is that he is the president -- and he gives instructions to the CIA and military, without having to go through his dental fillings.
Impeachment's not the solution to psychosis, no matter how flagrant. But despite their impressive foresight in other areas, the framers unaccountably neglected to include an involuntary civil commitment procedure in the Constitution.
Still, don't lose hope. By enlisting the aid of mental health professionals and the court system, Congress can act to remedy that constitutional oversight. The goal: Get Bush and Cheney committed to an appropriate inpatient facility, where they can get the treatment they so desperately need. In Washington, the appropriate statutory law is already in place: If a "court or jury finds that [a] person is mentally ill and . . . is likely to injure himself or others persons if allowed to remain at liberty, the court may order his hospitalization."
I'll even serve on the jury. When it comes to averting World War III, it's really the least I can do.
FEMA'S FAKE 'NEWS CONFERENCE' Posted: Friday, October 26, 2007 2:12 PM by Domenico Montanaro From NBC's Kelly O'Donnell On Tuesday, FEMA held what was called a "news briefing" on the California fires, but the questions asked did not come from reporters. They were asked instead by FEMA staffers.
"It is not a practice that we would employ here at the White House or that we -- we certainly don't condone it," Press Secretary Dana Perino said. "We didn't know about it beforehand. FEMA has issued an apology, saying that they had an error judgment when they were attempting to get out a lot of information to reporters, who were asking for answers to a variety of questions in regard to the wildfires in California. It's not something I would have condoned. And they, I'm sure, will not do it again."
One reporter asked Perino who is responsible?
"Well, FEMA is responsible," she said. "And they have accepted that responsibility, and they issued an apology today. They have admitted that they had an error in judgment. I would agree with that. They've issued an apology. And, you know, you'll have to ask them about why they decided to do that."
Why fake it? Apparently, the FEMA briefing was called with little lead-time and reporters didn't get there fast enough. Instead of acknowledging that reporters were not there they apparently pretended and even used the typical practice of calling a "last question."
The briefer, FEMA's Deputy Administrator Harvey Johnson, did not indicate that the questions were coming from staff who were in essence playing reporters. Six questions were asked and the phrasing and subject matter were not typical for a news briefing give and take.
Senior administration officials are looking into the matter and suggest the "intentions were good," but acknowledge that was not an appropriate "tactic."
The suggestion is that so many media questions had been coming in to FEMA and the briefing was a way to get information out. But instead of transparency, a senior FEMA official appears to have faked it.
Below are the actual questions and excerpted responses from Johnson: QUESTION 1: What type of commodities are you pledging to California? "So I think we're well ahead of the requirement and we'll be able to make sure that all the shelters that are stood up are, in fact, all sustained and have sufficient materials and quantities of commodities to make sure they meet the demand of the people who might seek shelter."
QUESTION 2: Sir, there are a number of reports that people weren't heeding evacuation orders and that was hindering emergency responders. Can you speak a little to that, please? "So I think you're seeing more compliance and more conformance with expected norms of travel."
QUESTION 3: Can you address a little bit what it means to have the president issue an emergency declaration, as opposed to a major disaster declaration? What does that mean for FEMA? "As an emergency declaration, it allows us to provide -- to open up the Stafford Act and to provide the full range of protective measures and all the things that they need now in order to address the fire, If the governor had asked for a major declaration, that would have talked about individual assistance and public assistance at greater levels. And at this point, the governor has not asked for that."
QUESTION 4: Sir, we understand the secretary and the administrator of FEMA are on their way out there. What is their objective? And is there anyone else traveling with them? "..all the key leaders who are directing this effort and demonstrating a partnership through their effort will be out there at San Diego this afternoon. So I think it's a good demonstration of support, recognizing that our role is not to usurp the state but to support the state. And they'll demonstrate that by their presence."
[Off-camera voice asks for another question)
QUESTION 5: Are you happy with FEMA's response, so far? "I'm very happy with FEMA's response so far. This is a FEMA and a federal government that's leaning forward, not waiting to react. And you have to be pretty pleased to see that."
[Staff voice off camera: Last question.]
QUESTION: What lessons learned from Katrina have been applied? "I think what you're really seeing here is the benefit of experience, the benefit of good leadership and the benefit of good partnership; none of which were present in Katrina.
"So, I think, as a nation, people should sit up and take notice that you have the worst wildfire season in history in California and look at how well the state and local governments are performing, look at how well we're working together between state and federal partners."
Here's FEMA's statement from Vice Admiral Harvey Johnson: STATEMENT October 26, 2007
STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO FEMA'S TUESDAY PRESS BRIEFING FEMA's goal is to get information out as soon as possible, and in trying to do so we made an error in judgment. Our intent was to provide useful information and be responsive to the many questions we have received. We are reviewing our press procedures and will make the changes necessary to ensure that all of our communications are straight forward and transparent.
At FEMA, our focus is disaster operations and, in this case, it means working closely with the State of California to support their response to the devastating fires. We're committed to being there for the State and being good partners. In working to do so we did not put enough focus on how we communicate to the public.
The real story -- how well the response and recovery elements are working in this disaster -- should not be lost because of how we tried to meet the needs of the media in distributing facts.
We can and must do better, and apologize for this error in judgment.
END OF STATEMENT
FEMA had given reporters about 15 minutes notice ahead of the conference.
75-year-old woman smashes up local Comcast office with hammer
Posted by Russell Shaw October 18, 2007
Meet Mona Shaw, 75, of Bristow, Virginia. And if you are wondering, no relation. A retired Air Force nurse and secretary of a square-dancing club, Shaw went Com-smash-tic in her local Comcast office one day last month.
As Neely Tucker of the Washington Post tells it, Shaw arranged with Comcast to have them install their "Triple Play" service- phone, cable and Internet.
Seems as though the Comcast installer failed to show up on the appointed day of Monday, August 13. Two days later, he shows up but only does part of the job. Yet rather than finish the work, Comcast cut off all service to the Shaw's home.
So now we are at Friday, August 17. Shaw and her husband Don drop in at the local Comcast office in Manassas to complain.
They ask for a manager. They are told one will be right out. They wait two hours.
And after two hours, a customer service rep tells the waiting Shaws the manager has gone for the day.
Mona and Don stewed about it all weekend. Then Monday morning, she visits the Comcast office again. Only this time she brings Don's clawhammer.
At this point, Mona proceeds to pick up the hammer and bash a customer service rep's keyboard, bashes the monitor, wrecks the telephone. People scatter and scream, cops come, and Mona Shaw is breakin' the law, breakin' the law.
$345 fine, three-month suspended sentence, and a year-long restraining order keeping her away from the Comcast office.
Yea, as if.
Her phone service is now with Verizon.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant" —Mitchell Kapor
Just days after former Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts on global warming, the United States Supreme Court handed Mr. Gore a stunning reversal, stripping him of his Nobel and awarding it to President George W. Bush instead.
For Mr. Gore, who basked in the adulation of the Nobel committee and the world, the high court's decision to give his prize to President Bush was a cruel twist of fate, to say the least.
But in a 5-4 decision, the justices made it clear that they had taken the unprecedented step of stripping Mr. Gore of his Nobel because President Bush deserved it more.
"It is true that Al Gore has done a lot of talking about global warming," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority. "But President Bush has actually helped create global warming....."
THIS STORY MAY BE BULLSHIT, and I'm hoping it is. With AIPAC and the dual-citizenship/dual loyalty bastards in Bush's cabinet, this would not be cool. If anyone reading this can confirm or refute this ... please let me know.
American supporters of Israel were delighted to learn that an Israeli company, Magal Security Systems-owned in part by the government of Israel-is in charge of security for the most sensitive nuclear power and weapons storage facilities in the United States.
The largest perimeter security company in the world, Magal started out as a division of Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI)-which was owned in part by the government of Israel. In recent years, however, Magal evolved into a publicly-traded company, although IAI (and thus the government of Israel) still holds a substantial share in the highly successful firm.
What all of this means is that the government of Israel will actually have control over the security of America's nuclear weapons.
Supporters of Israel say that this is a splendid idea, since Israel is said to be perhaps America's closest ally on the face of the planet. However, there are some critics who question the propriety of America's super-sensitive nuclear security being in the hands of any foreign nation, particularly Israel which, even today, officially denies that it is engaged in the production of nuclear arms.
Be that as it may, however, Magal's global interests are quite broad-ranging. Having secured 90 percent of Israel's borders through a wide-ranging array of super-modern "space age" technology, Magal has now branched out internationally.
Not only does Magal provide security for American nuclear facilities, but it also does likewise for most major nuclear facilities in Western Europe and Asia. In addition, the Israeli firm also provides security for Chicago's O'Hare Airport and, for the last fifteen years, has kept watch on the Queen of England's famed Buckingham Palace in London. What's more, Magal provides security for 90% of the American prisons that utilize electronic systems. Magal brags that its other clients around the globe include: borders, airports, industrial sites, communication centers, military installations, correctional facilities, government agencies, VIP estates and residences, commercial buildings and storage yards.
There is hardly a major country or major enterprise that does not have Magal's security specialists keeping a close watch on their activities.
Clearly, Magal is no small enterprise. While 27% of its total sales are in the Israeli market, its largest market is in North America, which currently accounts for 35% of its sales.
However, Magal's American outreach is expected to increase substantially, especially now that firm has set up a Washington, D.C. office which will promote its products to federal agencies and to the members of Congress who provide funding for federally-supervised security projects across the country at all levels: local, state and national.
And with current U.S. Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, not only a strong supporter of Israel but also the son of a woman who has strong Israeli ties-even including service with El Al, the national airline of Israel-Magal, owned in party by Israeli Aircraft Industries-will be a clear-cut favorite in the eyes of the power brokers in official Washington who have the power to grant lucrative security contracts.
At the moment, Magal has four U.S.-based subsidiaries: two in California, Stellar Security Products, Inc. and Perimeter Products Inc., as well as the New York-based Smart Interactive Systems, Inc., and the Virginia-based Dominion Wireless, Inc.
All told, the Israeli company holds a 40% share in the worldwide market in perimeter intrusion detection systems and is working to expand its business in the protection of oil pipelines.
Magal is also said to be quite interested in guarding water lines around the globe, particularly in the United States. In fact, Magal may have an inside shot at getting a monopoly in guarding America's water supplies.
On July 19, the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency announced a "partnership" with the Israeli Ministry of National Infrastructures to improve what they called "water supply system security in the United States and Israel." Since Magal is so highly respected in Israel, it's an even bet that Magal will soon be guarding the U.S. water supply.
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
Michael Collins Piper is a correspondent for American Free Press and author of "The New Jerusalem:Zionist Power in America", "The High Priests of War," and "Final Judgment," which details the Mossad role in the JFK assassination conspiracy.
--> -->Yesterday began with the gratifying news that Al Gore, derided by George H.W. Bush as the "Ozone Man," had won the Nobel Peace Prize.
The first thing media types wanted to know was whether this would prompt Mr. Gore to elbow his way into the presidential campaign. That's like asking someone who's recovered from a heart attack if he plans to resume smoking.
Mr. Gore, who won an Academy Award for his documentary on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," and an Emmy for his cable TV network, Current, knows better than anyone else how toxic and downright idiotic presidential politics has become.
He may be one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, talented men in America and remarkably well-equipped to lead the nation, but it's Mr. Bush's less-than-curious, less-than-distinguished son, George W., who is president.
There are all kinds of ironies wrapped up in the title of Mr. Gore's latest book, "The Assault on Reason."
When I heard that Mr. Gore had won the Nobel, my thoughts wandered to the younger Mr. Bush and to Rudolph Giuliani, who is leading the current field of Republican presidential candidates.
Mr. Bush came to mind because, for all of the obvious vulnerabilities he exhibited in 2000, it was not him but Mr. Gore who was mocked unmercifully by the national media. And the mockery had nothing to do with the former vice president's positions on important policy issues. He was mocked because of his personality.
In the race for the highest office in the land, we showed the collective maturity of 3-year-olds.
Mr. Gore was taken to task for his taste in clothing and for such grievous offenses as sighing or, allegedly, rolling his eyes. It was a given that at a barbecue everyone would rush to be with his opponent.
We've paid a heavy price. The president who got such high marks as a barbecue companion doesn't seem to know up from down. He's hurled the nation into a ruinous war that has cost countless lives and spawned a whole new generation of terrorists. He continues to sit idly by as a historic American city, ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />New Orleans, remains wounded and on its knees. He's blithely steered the nation into a bottomless pit of debt.
I could go on.
Mr. Gore actually polled the most votes in 2000, but he was criticized for not having whipped Mr. Bush decisively enough to have avoided the madness in Florida.
Mr. Gore knows the system is in trouble, and not just because of the way he lost in 2000. The last time I spoke to him, a few months ago, he said: "Having served in the White House with the Gingrich Congress, and having watched the best of intentions so often turned into small changes ballyhooed as revolutionary, sometimes having no lasting mark, I really do believe that fixing the dynamic of democracy is an urgent task."
That's just the kind of thoughtful comment that can't get a real hearing in our sound-bite politics. The result is that reality, untidy and complex, is almost always trumped by well-crafted phoniness.
Which brings us to Mr. Giuliani.
The entire basis for this former mayor's candidacy is his contention that he is some kind of expert, a veritable guru, on matters related to terrorism.
"I understand terrorism," he says, "in a way that is equal to or exceeds anyone else."
And yet in the two most important decisions he has made with regard to terror, he has miserably failed.
Mr. Giuliani foolishly insisted, against expert advice, on placing New York City's state-of-the-art emergency command center on the 27th floor of a 47-story building that was known to be a terror target and that was destroyed in the WorldTradeCenter attack.
And he pushed hard for the corrupt and grotesquely underqualified Bernard Kerik to be appointed to the top antiterror post in the Bush administration, secretary of homeland security.
In an episode that humiliated the president, the nomination had to be scrapped after boatloads of damaging information began to emerge about Mr. Kerik. (He has since pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors and remains under federal investigation.)
But Mr. Giuliani, who shares with Mr. Bush a Manichaean view of the world and an aggressive, authoritarian temperament, remains not just a viable candidate, but the G.O.P. front-runner.
Al Gore is a serious man confronted by a political system that is not open to a serious exploration of important, complex issues. He knows it.
"What politics has become," he said, with a laugh and a tinge of regret, "requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I have found in short supply."
Study: Young Jews less linked to Israel ... DUH, no shit!
"For example, fewer than half (48 percent) of respondents younger than 35 agreed that 'Israel's destruction would be a personal tragedy,' "
That means that more than half thought Israel's destruction would NOT be a personal tragedy.
I'm willing to bet that taking young American Jews on free trips into Gaza or the West Bank would seriously influence the results of this study. Talk about "identity building".
Young American Jews are increasingly alienated from Israel, according to a new report.
Published: 09/06/2007
SAN FRANCISCO (JTA) -- Young American Jews are increasingly alienated from Israel, according to a new report.
The report released Thursday -- titled "Beyond Distancing: Young Adult American Jews and their Alienation from Israel" and commissioned by The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies -- generally substantiates current suspicions rather than revealing new surprises.
The major findings are that successively younger American Jews feel increasingly distant from Israel, and that the trend has been increasing steadily for decades.
For example, fewer than half (48 percent) of respondents younger than 35 agreed that "Israel's destruction would be a personal tragedy," compared to 78 percent of those 65 and older. And just 54 percent of the younger group is "comfortable with the idea of a Jewish State," compared to 81 percent of those 65 or older, 74 percent of those in the 50-64 age group and 64 percent in the 35-49 group.
The report is based on data from the 2007 National Survey of American Jews, a mail- and Web-administered survey conducted in December 2006 and January 2007 by Synovate, Inc. It only considers the attitudes of non-Orthodox Jews.
Of 1,828 respondents, 124 Orthodox were removed from the sample on the assumption that their relationship to Israel is markedly closer than that of their non-Orthodox peers.
According to one of the report's co-authors, Steven Cohen, a sociologist and research professor at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York, the generational differences are more a function of the decade people were born than where they are on the life-cycle continuum.
That means the American Jewish detachment from Israel will increase as younger Jews age and replace their parents and grandparents' generations.
"There is growing discomfort with the drawing of hard group boundaries of all sorts," Cohen said of the so-called "millennials," those born after 1980. "The idea of a Jewish state reflects hard group boundaries, that there is a distinction between Jews and everybody else. That does not sit well with young Jews."
Overall, the picture of detachment from Israel is not as dismal as those figures might suggest, Cohen argued. More than 60 percent of Jews younger than 35 in the study show "some level" of attachment to or caring about Israel.
"The glass is still half full, it's just not as full as it used to be," said Cohen, who wrote the report with Ari Kelman, assistant professor of American studies at the University of California, Davis.
Political leanings didn't seem to affect the attitudes of younger Jews toward Israel. In fact, the data suggest that those who say they vote Republican or describe themselves as politically conservative are more alienated from Israel than self-professed liberals.
Cohen surmised that there are so few young, non-Orthodox, right-wing American Jews that they are distanced from their Jewish peers in general, including when it comes to Israel.
The overall slide in attachment to or interest in Israel does not mean that young American Jews are less "Jewish." On the contrary, numerous recent studies and anecdotal evidence demonstrate great cultural and religious vitality and creativity among young Jews. Israel is just not as much a part of the picture, which should concern the greater community, the report warns.
"It's worrying that young Jews may be creating a latter-day Jewish Bundism, which affirms Jewish belonging but is neutral to the Zionist enterprise," Cohen told JTA. "We're seeing this growing phenomenon of Jews who have no problem saying the Shema but won't sing 'Hatikvah'."
Rabbi Elie Kaunfer, executive director of Mechon Hadar, which provides networking and support to startup minyans nationwide, seconded the notion that young Jews have a more nuanced attitude toward Israel than their elders. In the independent minyan movement, he said, that means they have not yet figured out how to do Israel programming.
"I think that reflects a problem that our generation has not solved: how to engage with Israel without slogan-slinging" -- left-wing or right-wing – "but still remain emotionally engaged," he said.
Kaunfer described Israel Independence Day celebrations at these minyans as "muted, not because of a lack of connection to Israel, but because we are still searching for appropriate ways to celebrate and connect to" the Jewish state.
One factor that seems to increase the attachment of young Jews to Israel quite dramatically is, not surprisingly, spending time in Israel.
While the report shows that 19 percent of young Jews who have never been to Israel exhibit a "high" level of attachment to the country, the number jumps to 34 percent after a first trip and 52 percent after two or more trips.
Conversely, 42 percent of young Jews who have never been to Israel report a "low" level of attachment. That number drops to 17 percent after just one trip.
The policy implications?
"Trips matter," Cohen and Kelman write. "More trips are better than fewer, and trips of longer duration have more impact than those with shorter duration."
"In some ways, that's the most dramatic finding" of the report, said Barry Chazan, professor of Jewish education at Spertus College in Chicago and educational director of birthright israel, which has taken nearly 150,000 college-age and post-college Jews to Israel over the past seven years.
The finding confirms what Chazan and his colleagues have been telling people: Taking young American Jews to Israel on these free, carefully organized trips is a powerful tool in Jewish identity-building.
"The motivation is strong; they're not being dragged there," he said. "They get a hefty dose of Zionist history, Jewish history and contemporary Israel. It's very explicitly about that."
Chazan has just finished a book about birthright, scheduled for a publication this spring, with Leonard Saxe, director of the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University.
They dispute the Cohen-Kelman report's prediction of a continuing downslide in American Jewish attachment to Israel, and say birthright has a lot to do with their optimism.
"Tens of thousands of young adults are having these experiences in Israel," Saxe said. "It will create a generation of people who know Israel and are interested in Israel that is unprecedented."
After last summer's war with Lebanon, Saxe's center at Brandeis did a study comparing the reactions of birthright alumni to those of young American Jews who had not participated in a birthright program. They found "dramatic differences," Saxe said.
"Program alumni got their information in very different ways from those that had not been on the program," he said. "They looked to the Israeli media, or got news directly from the Israelis they'd met. You had past participants reaching out to the Israelis they knew, not just watching it on CNN."
Saxe pointed out that registration for this winter's birthright programs opened Wednesday and that by 10 a.m., 6,000 people had signed up.
"If there's that much interest in Israel and in traveling to Israel," he concluded, "it's hard to say we're facing a crisis."
