← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · JoseyWales

Rice Tells AIPAC World Must Not Tolerate Iranian Nuclear Weapons Bid

Thread ID: 18385 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2005-05-25

Wayback Archive

JoseyWales [OP]

2005-05-25 03:24 | User Profile

[url]http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1092[/url]

xmetalhead

2005-05-25 13:19 | User Profile

Rice is such a repulsive figure.

Anyone notice how Rice's speech coincided with PBS's Frontline special on the "grave threat" of Iranian nukes?

The Machine is well oiled and well maintained.

War on the World coming soon to a city near you....and I don't mean the movie, either.

Angler

2005-05-25 13:23 | User Profile

As I've said before, I really, really hope the Iranians get nukes. I wouldn't feel at all threatened by them, and it would take the damned Israelis down a notch.

Stigmata

2005-05-25 13:32 | User Profile

QUOTE=xmetalheadRice is such a repulsive figure.[/QUOTE] But she makes great pancake syrup.

xmetalhead

2005-05-25 13:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Stigmata]But she makes great pancake syrup.[/QUOTE]

:lol:

[QUOTE=Angler]As I've said before, I really, really hope the Iranians get nukes. I wouldn't feel at all threatened by them, and it would take the damned Israelis down a notch.[/QUOTE]

I agree! Also, the Iranians, at this point, whatever they're doing as far as weapons development of any kind, is being done in self-defense now. It's the Americans and the Jews that have been openly belligerent towards them for many years. I mean, there's anti-American/Israeli propaganda in Iran all the time, but do they or did they make openly belligerent statements towards America? Why are we Israel's proxy?

Blond Knight

2005-05-26 16:55 | User Profile

Representative Nancy Pelosi said the same thing in her groveling..er. "speech" to AIPAC. Either they are reading the same AIPAC provided "speech", or they have both been hitting the bagels & lox a bit too much lately.

[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18408[/url]

xmetalhead

2005-05-26 17:04 | User Profile

From AxisofLogic.com

Critical Analysis [SIZE=4][B]AIPAC Wants You to Die in Iran[/B][/SIZE] By Kurt Nimmo May 26, 2005, 11:53

May 25, 2005

As a primary example how AIPAC runs the foreign policy of the United States, consider Dana Milbank’s AIPAC’s Big, Bigger, Biggest Moment published in the Washington Post. Milbank tells us: at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, held in Washington recently, the pro-Israel “political action committee” (or rather a political bribery and intimidation, to say nothing of espionage, committee or more accurately racket) is “here to stay” (according to Howard Kohr, executive director), that is to say no niggling little investigation by the FBI will put a kink in the pressure camarilla’s operations. Getting busted stealing U.S. secrets, according to Kohr, is no big deal, although it is a “test of [AIPAC’s] collective resolve” in its effort to dominate U.S. foreign policy in the name of Israel.

Condi Rice and “congressional leaders” were in attendance, according to Milbank. “AIPAC is a demanding crowd, and even Rice, introduced as a ‘very special friend,’ did not satisfy universally. The participants applauded heartily her reminder that Bush did not meet with Arafat, but when she said Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, ‘is committed to both freedom and security,’ and when she mentioned more U.S. funds for Palestinians, the room was quiet.” In other words, for the AIPAC faithful, helping out the Palestinians in any way is seriously frowned upon—no doubt a lot of them feel the same way Ariel Sharon and the Likudites do: the Palestinians (or “beasts walking on two legs,” as the warm and fuzzy former PM of Israel, Menachem Begin, once characterized them) should expect nothing, maybe a few more “operations” (collective punishment and mass murder), and they should most definitely think about emigrating, maybe to Antarctica. Obviously, there is nothing Mahmoud Abbas can do except convince his people to walk across the desert, maybe with a bit of prodding from the munificent IDF, and settle in western Iraq or maybe somewhere in Jordan (AIPACers and Zionists consider Jordan the “real” home of the Palestinians, although none of them have ever lived there, or very few of them did until Israel ran them out of the country at gunpoint in 1948).

Milbank tells us “the attendees overall showed an impressive ideological discipline—right down to AIPAC’s multimedia show, ‘Iran’s Path to the Bomb,’ in the convention center’s basement” in Washington, a lot of things happen in basements; ask Oliver North. AIPAC and well-placed Zionists in the Pentagon and White House have a fixation about Iran and its supposed desire to get its hands on a couple nuclear bombs, ostensibly to “push the Jews into the sea” by way of radiation.

The exhibit, worthy of a theme park, begins with a narrator condemning the International Atomic Energy Agency for being “unwilling to conclude that Iran is developing nuclear weapons” (it had similar reservations about Iraq) and the Security Council because it “has yet to take up the issue.” In a succession of rooms, visitors see flashing lights and hear rumbling sounds as Dr. Seuss-like contraptions make yellowcake uranium, reprocess plutonium, and pop out nuclear warheads like so many gallons of hummus for an AIPAC conference.

Of course, the IAEA was absolutely spot on about Iraq—it did not possess nuclear weapons or, for that matter, many other weapons, or at least not weapons of a threat to Israel (remember Condi’s “smoking gun) - and “mushroom cloud” in response to Hans Blix’s assertion that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, to which stand-up comedian Ari Fleischer replied: “The problem with guns that are hidden is you can’t see their smoke.”

It is a nostalgic addition for AIPAC to add a yellowcake uranium processor to their circus sideshow… it reminds us of the fiction Saddam was also in pursuit of the fabled yellow cake.

Of particular interest at the AIPAC confab was a “debate” between Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and the Prince of Darkness himself, Richard Perle, former runner-up for the Jonathan Pollard “Sell Out Your Country” Award (he was investigated by the Justice Department and found to have violated US policies relating to unlawful transmission of sensitive classified US information to Israel:

"Perle drew cheers for denouncing Palestinian anti-Semitism and the French. Harman mentioned that an aide once worked for AIPAC, called her audience “very sophisticated” and celebrated Yasser Arafat’s death as “a blessing.” Debating a hard-liner in front of a pro-administration crowd, Harman heaped praise on President Bush, calling the Iraqi elections “sensationally impressive” and moving to “applaud” or “commend” Perle and the administration a dozen times. “Richard is right, and so is President Bush,” she said at one point.

"But after half an hour of this, Harman could not keep up. Perle provoked cheers from the crowd when he favored a military raid on Iran, saying that “if Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, I think we will have no choice but to take decisive action.” When Harman said the “best short-term option” is the U.N. Security Council, the crowd reacted with boos.

In other words, when it comes to Israel and bombing Muslim and Arab nations (and forcing so-called “elections” on them), there is little difference between Democrats and Strausscons such as Richard Perle. It would seem the only difference between to two camps is in regard to Iran—Democrats such as Harman want a check for mass murder written by the United Nations while Perle believes no such check or permission is required and wants the United States to go it alone and bomb Iran in the name of AIPAC and Israel.

Iran will be attacked, maybe next month, possibly down the road a stretch (see Scott Ritter’s analysis). Naturally, this will be an unmitigated disaster since Iran will not stand still and do nothing during and after the bombs fall. “The entire Zionist territory, including its nuclear facilities and atomic arsenal, are currently within range of Iran’s advanced missiles,” a senior Iranian official said last August. An attack on Iran “could only be carried out by angry or stupid people. For that reason, officials of the Islamic Republic must always be prepared to counter possible military threats,” declared Yadollah Javani, head of the Revolutionary Guards political bureau.

“Iran would respond within 15 minutes to any attack by the United States or any other country,” an anonymous Iranian official linked to the ruling mullahs told Borzou Daragahi of the San Francisco Chronicle in February. “Iranian authorities,” Daragahi continues, “say they have been getting ready for a possible attack. Newspapers have announced efforts to increase the number of the country’s 7 million-strong ‘Basiji’ volunteer militia, which was deployed in human-wave attacks during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Iranian military authorities have paraded long-range North Korean-designed Shahab missiles before television cameras.” But the Iranians, paying heed to the lessons on guerilla warfare against the United States in Iraq, are not limiting their potential response to conventional military readiness. “Over the last year, they’ve developed their tactics of ‘asymmetrical’ war, which would aim not at resisting a penetration of foreign forces, but to then use them on the ground to all kinds of harmful effect,” a military expert based in Tehran added. It is also a sure bet the Iranians would stir up trouble in neighboring Iraq if the United States or Israel invaded.

So here’s what Richard Perle and AIPAC are not telling you: if Iran is invaded (or simply bombed) it will respond in kind and this will necessitate a more robust military response by the United States, i.e., more bullet-stoppers will need to be thrown into the mix. Since the Pentagon is having big problems recruiting soldiers (even the cell phone generation, more or less lost in oblivious consumerism, realizes joining the military may translate into serious bodily harm or even death), if all hell breaks loose in Iran and Iraq, as the Iranians warn, the only option will be to kick start conscription, otherwise known as involuntary servitude, or less politely slavery.

In essence, Richard Perle and AIPAC want you to donate your kids (or yourself) to the plan for Greater Israel and the long-envisioned Pax Israelica empire. Perle and the Strausscons realize they cannot attack Iran without a large influx of troops (a fact mentioned) by the Strausscon William Kristol, who more or less, between the lines, asked for military conscription since brow-beating military recruiters bearing fistfuls of sign-up cash at the local mall or high school are not working out).

Maybe by this time next year, while AIPAC is chewing through “26,000 kosher meals, 32,640 hors d’oeuvres, 2,500 pounds of salmon, 1,200 pounds of turkey, 900 pounds of chicken, 700 pounds of beef and 125 gallons of hummus,” as Milbank notates, your 20-something son and daughter will be slumped over MREs (Meals Ready to Eat) in a foxhole somewhere in the Persian desert with deadly depleted uranium blowing around. Since there are 66,622,704 (as of 2002) Iranians, and many of them are young males, and 24,001,816 Iraqis (minus a hundred or more thousand, killed over the last couple years by “our troops” under the vicious guidance of the likes of Donald Rumsfeld), we can expect the (unphotographed) flag-draped caskets to arrive at Dover AFB in record numbers.

[url]www.uruknet.info?p=12057[/url]

kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=676

Sertorius

2005-05-26 17:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE]"But after half an hour of this, Harman could not keep up. Perle provoked cheers from the crowd when he favored a military raid on Iran, saying that “if Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, I think we will have no choice but to take decisive action.” When Harman said the “best short-term option” is the U.N. Security Council, the crowd reacted with boos.[/QUOTE] What's this "we" crap? Kind of like Perle's non-distinguished service in Viet Nam?

xmetalhead

2005-05-26 18:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE]What's this "we" crap? Kind of like Perle's non-distinguished service in Viet Nam?[/QUOTE]

Sert, it's the height of chutzpuh when a repulsive creature like Perle can lump all Americans into "we".

[QUOTE]Perle drew cheers for denouncing Palestinian anti-Semitism and the French..........When Harman said the “best short-term option” is the U.N. Security Council, the crowd reacted with boos. [/QUOTE]

The Pavlovian reflexes are well oiled and predictable.

Ponce

2005-05-26 23:26 | User Profile

According to the new rules of engagement comming out the US will nuke any nation that launches nuclear missiles against the US or "its allies", by allies they mean the Zionist state of Israel.

Like, if I am about to die I sure as hell would like to know why.....actually they tried it twice already but that's besides the point.

Angeleyes

2005-05-27 00:06 | User Profile

Forgetting for a moment how Iran handled things in 1979, our beef with Iran could have been improved by now if both parties came to the table sincerely. Their leadership has a vested interest in keeping the Great Satan as an enemy on the PR side. That makes any progress slow. How is it that Iranians/Persians are any less full of crap in re Eastern Mediterranean agendas than Americans?

Their aim of joining the Nuclear Club is understandable, given its cache and status. That does not make it a pleasing prospect for the future.

I agree! Also, the Iranians, at this point, whatever they're doing as far as weapons development of any kind, is being done in self-defense now. It's the Americans and the Jews that have been openly belligerent towards them for many years. I mean, there's anti-American/Israeli propaganda in Iran all the time, but do they or did they make openly belligerent statements towards America? Why are we Israel's proxy?[/QUOTE]

Ponce

2005-05-27 05:24 | User Profile

You guys are forgetting something, India and Pakistan were going at it all the time and were actually fighting at the borders but now that they both have nuclear weapons there is peace.

With the Zionist state of Israel being the only one in the region having nuclears I don't blame Iran for wanting a stick as big as the one being held by the Jews.

The state of Israel with their plans to conquer the whole region don't want anyone else to have nuclears because that will hold them back and if anything I am more scare of the Jews using their nuclears than I am of Iran, India or Pakistan and to push it really hard....North Korea

Back in the 60's Castro was building a nuclear power plant in order to produce energy and because the US was scare of what else he could produce they gave and are still giving (I think) 5 millions dollars a year to Castro in order for him not to build it, I wonder how many Americans know or knew of this.

Walter Yannis

2005-05-27 06:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Forgetting for a moment how Iran handled things in 1979, our beef with Iran could have been improved by now if both parties came to the table sincerely. [/QUOTE]

Iran had a very legitimate beef against the Empire, which at the behest of big oil companies toppled their government in the early 1950s and installed the tyrannical Shah.

The Empire meddled in Persian affairs, not the other way around.

Death to the Empire.

Quantrill

2005-05-27 15:26 | User Profile

If you want evidence of who truly holds the reins of power, look no further than this -- the Secretary of State and the Senate Minority Leader giving groveling, sycophantic speeches to an organization that is currently being investigated for espionage! This is like a bad joke.

xmetalhead

2005-05-27 15:54 | User Profile

[B][SIZE=4]Pelosi Gives A Pep Talk To AIPAC[/B][/SIZE] The Democratic Leader In Her Own Words By Mark Gaffney 5-27-5 [url]http://www.rense.com/general65/pelo.htm[/url]

Rep. Nancy Pelosi's recent speech to the Israeli-American lobby (AIPAC) ought to be a clarion call for peace activists. Her address did not contain any big surprises. But it is, nonetheless, remarkable for its transparency. The speech affords a up-close look at what Pelosi thinks about Israel, the Palestinians, the Mideast, and nukes.

It's worth a look too because Pelosi's beliefs on these matters are not a departure. Most of the Democratic Party leadership espouse similar ideas. The bipartisan voting record of Congress in recent years on Mideast issues proves this to be the case. Remember, this is the party that's supposed to represent the grassroots, i.e., we the people. So what is the Democratic leader of the House doing, anyway, giving a pep talk to the second largest lobby in Washington? Indeed, to the lobby of a foreign power? It's a question more Americans ought to be asking.

Most of the speech is the same old stuff. I draw your attention only to several points:

Pelosi denies that the key issue is Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza --- at a stroke repudiating numerous UN Security Council Resolutions that the US voted for and supposedly still supports. But clearly, that's no longer the case, and hasn't been for many years.

The real issue, she states, is the survival of Israel. This is the familiar mantra by which anything and everything becomes possible. Only, there's a minor catch: The statement isn't true and hasn't been since probably 1949.

If nothing else, Pelosi is well-versed. She recites another familiar line, the one about how there was no partner for peace until Arafat expired, when light suddenly came flooding in. Pelosi makes it clear that in her view the Palestinian leader Abbas' real job is to serve as policeman for Israel. Evidently, his legitimacy largely depends on this. Looking after the best interests of his own people comes in a distant second.

But her most revealing statements concern nuclear proliferation, and they show why the Democrats (who don't get it) are no improvement over the Republicans (who always get it wrong). In fact, the Democrats may be even more dangerous, precisely because there is still the perception in the land, however mistaken, that the Democrats are the party of enlightened ideas. I would be willing to bet that most registered democrats are not aware of how extreme their elected Democratic representatives are on these key issues. Nor can most thus have a true sense of how dire the situation is.

According to Pelosi, the biggest danger to Israel today comes from Iran, whose nuclear ambitions, though still unproved, also threaten the US. Her perspective contains the seed of ominous things to come, because, after all, something will have to be done about Iran, right? Yes, and soon.

Meanwhile, Pelosi manages to overlook Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians, which undoubtedly is the greatest danger to Israel, by far, and comes from within. Nor does she mention Israel's massive nuclear, chemical and biological weapons arsenal. But her statements additionally contain the tacit and troublesome assumption that the only people in the region who matter are Israelis and Americans. Everyone else, virtually the entire population of numerous countries, though no less imperiled by nuclear weapons (arguably even more so), simply don't count in this calculus. In fact, Pelosi's remarks are implicitly racist for this reason.

The shocker, though, also near the end, is where Pelosi takes the US and Israeli nuclear monopoly in the region for granted, as if this were a good and necessary thing. The purpose of the NPT in her view is to shut down the rogue proliferators, who by definition are always those other guys, never us. It's the stuff of which nuclear nightmares are made. I would also bet that the vast majority of people who live in the Mideast take sharp issue with Pelosi's thinking, and probably have a bone to pick with her about where the actual threat lies.

George Washington, our founding father, who warned against entangling alliances, must be turning over, about now. But don't take my word for it. Read Pelosi's speech (which follows) and draw your own conclusions.

Mark Gaffney is the author of Dimona: the Third Temple?, a pioneering 1989 book about Mordechai Vanunu and the Israeli nuke program. Mark's latest book is Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes. Mark can be reached for comment at [email]mhgaffney@sbcglobal.net[/email]

[B]Nancy Pelosi Speech to American Israel Public Affairs Committee; Text of Remarks[/B]

5/24/2005 12:11:00 PM

Contact: Brendan Daly or Jennifer Crider, both of Office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, 202-226-7616 [url]http://democraticleader.house.gov[/url]

WASHINGTON, May 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee at their 2005 Policy Conference last night. Pelosi discussed the relationship between the United States and Israel and the continued effort for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Below are her remarks:

"Thank you, Amy Friedkin, my dear friend for so many years. Californians, North and South, are proud of your great leadership at AIPAC. And to Bernice Manocherian, President of AIPAC, thank you. All who care about peace in the Middle East are grateful for your strength and wisdom in guiding AIPAC. As a native of Baltimore, I take special pride of your incoming President, Howard Friedman, who will continue in the tradition of outstanding leadership at AIPAC.

"I also want to acknowledge all of the students who are here. It is great to see so many young people taking such an interest in public affairs, especially on one of the critical issues of our time: peace in the Middle East. This spring, I was in Israel as part of a congressional trip that also took us to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. One of the most powerful experiences was taking a helicopter toward Gaza, over the path of the security fence. We set down in a field that belonged to a local kibbutz. It was a cool but sunny day, and the field was starting to bloom with mustard. Mustard is a crop that grows in California, and it felt at that moment as if I were home.

"And then we were told that the reason we had to land in that field, as opposed to our actual destination, was because there had been an infiltration that morning, and they weren't sure how secure the area was. And that point alone brought us back to the daily reality of Israel: even moments of peace and beauty are haunted by the specter of violence.

"While in Israel, we met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Vice Premier Shimon Perez. From them and from other leaders, we heard something I had not heard in a long time: cautious optimism. This was an attitude quite different from the one that confronted us when I spoke to AIPAC two years ago.

"One thing, however is unchanged: America's commitment to the safety and security of the State of Israel is unwavering. America and Israel share an unbreakable bond: in peace and war; and in prosperity and in hardship.

"Prime Minister Sharon's leadership of Israel at this crucial time has been remarkable. He has brought Israel through an extremely challenging period, and now he has made the difficult decision that it is in Israel's national security interest to disengage from Gaza.

"In the next few months, Israeli settlers will be evacuated entirely from Gaza and from four settlements in the northern West Bank. This courageous decision is gut-wrenching for Israel.

"Israel's decision can be a decisive milestone on the road to peace. If the Palestinians agree to coordinate with Israel on the evacuation, establish the rule of law, and demonstrate a capacity to govern, the world may be convinced that finally there is a real partner for peace.

"Any progress on the Roadmap for Peace must be based on real change on the ground, as evidenced by the establishment of an accountable, and reconstituted Palestinian security force that prevents terrorism, not promotes it.

"Fortunately, Palestinian Authority President Abbas is no Yasir Arafat. He has condemned terrorism in Arabic, stating that it prolongs the day that the Palestinian goal of statehood can be achieved, and, at least as significant, stating that terrorism is immoral. He has begun to restructure the security services. All that is commendable.

"But he has not removed Arafat's corrupt cronies from positions of power, nor has he moved to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. That is, I am sorry to say, cause for concern. President Abbas has said his goal is to establish the rule of law, but he has done nowhere near enough to realize that vision, and now he is confronted with a huge challenge: by the end of summer, Israel will be out of Gaza.

"Can Gaza become a pilot case for self-government for a Palestinian state? Or will it become a terrorist haven, a launching pad for rockets into Israel? President Abbas must act, for his own good, against those he must know are his enemies and are the enemies of the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

"The United States, just as Israel, wants to see him succeed. That is why I was so pleased when President Bush dispatched Jim Wolfensohn to help with the Gaza withdrawal. It is why I supported additional aid to the Palestinians in the Emergency Supplemental bill that recently passed Congress.

"There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist.

"The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology.

"Proliferation represents a clear threat to Israel and to America. It must be confronted by an international coalition against proliferation, with a commitment and a coalition every bit as strong as our commitment to the war against terror.

"The people of Israel long for peace and are willing to make the sacrifices to achieve it. We hope that peace and security come soon - and that this moment of opportunity is not lost. As Israel continues to take risks for peace, she will have no friend more steadfast that the United States.

"In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel 'as hiding places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of water in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.'

"The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and forever."

[url]http://www.usnewswire.com/[/url] /© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ Printer Friendly Format © 2005 U.S. Newswire

Angeleyes

2005-05-28 01:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Iran had a very legitimate beef against the Empire, which at the behest of big oil companies toppled their government in the early 1950s and installed the tyrannical Shah.

The Empire meddled in Persian affairs, not the other way around.

Death to the Empire.[/QUOTE] For my money, that is a one sided view of The Great Game that was the Cold War, but to each his own.

Death to the Empire? Why cut your own throat? That "Empire's" wealth is what underwrote "winning" the Cold War. You don't win a face off with weakness.

What we are dealing with now is the wreckage left in the wake.