← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 6531 | Posts: 25 | Started: 2003-05-07
2003-05-07 07:55 | User Profile
MAD DOGS OF WAR Neocon pit-bulls snarl at Syria: 'You're next!'
The mad dogs of war, unleashed by George W. Bush, are baying and barking up a storm. The War Party isn't resting on its laurels. The conquest of Iraq had hardly been celebrated by our President, as he landed on an aircraft carrier in a fighter jet and bounded out to meet his cheering Praetorians, when the cry for an encore was heard:
"President Bush is committed, pretty far down the road. The logic of events says you can't go halfway. You can't liberate Iraq, then quit."
That's the little Lenin of the neocons, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. In spite of the story being bruited about that Condolezza Rice reined in the gung-ho guys in the Pentagon at the last moment and barely avoided a U.S. invasion of Syria ââ¬â the White House is denying it ââ¬â Kristol is right. George the Great can hardly contain his own Greatness within the arbitrary boundaries drawn by the British Foreign Office on the map of the Middle East. The incision has been made, and the Bushies have no choice but to keep operating, whether they like it or not. Bush implied as much in his speech to the troops, as he strutted about in his flight suit, his helmet tucked neatly under his arm:
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 ââ¬â and still goes on. ââ¬Â¦ Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world ââ¬â and will be confronted."
Translation: Syria ââ¬â you're next!
A "terrorist" is not just a member of Al Qaeda, in the Bushian lexicon: now Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Shi'ite groups in Iraq that sympathize with the Iranian regime ââ¬â all are in the sights of this administration, which has initiated a new kind of urban renewal project in the region. After the bulldozers do their work, a new Middle East is supposed to rise out of the rubble ââ¬â one that is "democratic," secular, and could easily be mistaken for the Middle Western areas of the good old United States ââ¬â like those American compounds in Saudi Arabia. But does anyone really believe for a minute that Iraq can be turned into, say, Arizona? This "democratization" campaign is a crock. Something else is going on here....
An "outlaw regime" is, potentially, any and all Middle Eastern governments with the glaring exception of Israel, the one nation in the region that we know has nuclear weapons and much else. We know because we paid for them. While we question captured Iraqi scientists searching frantically for evidence of Iraq's legendary "weapons of mass destruction," Mordecai Vanunu sits in an Israel maximum-security prison in solitary confinement, having spent 12 of his 18 year sentence in solitary confinement. He was imprisoned after being kidnapped by the Mossad off a London street for revealing the truth about Israel's nuclear weapons.
But this is not hypocrisy: Israel, you see, is a "democracy." Never mind that its Palestinian helots are dispossessed of their land and disenfranchised as well. The hallmark and guiding principle of U.S. policy in the region is simple: one standard for the Arabs, and another one for the Israelis.
Bashar al Assad found this out when tried to explain to Colin Powell why Israel, too, must get rid of its WMD. Powell's response to the Syrian suggestion that the U.S. back their proposed UN resolution to rid the entire Middle East of nukes and other WMD, submitted to the Security Council on Friday, was to reject out of hand the principle of evenhandedness:
"Clearing such weapons from the region is a long-standing U.S. goal, but now is not the time to address that matter," is how Ha'aretz characterized his attitude.
Translation:
"Shut the f*** up, get your hands out where I can see them, and get down on the ground!"
The Syrians know what's up: Assad rushed to assure Powell that anti-Israel groups headquartered in Damascus would be expelled. But the Israelis and their "free Lebanon" contingent have been raising doubts about how much control the Syrian President has over his own country, and now that meme has made it into this New York Times op ed piece written by a CIA analyst:
"Mr. Assad was only 34 when he became president upon the death of his father, Hafez, in June 2000. Until then, most of his political career had been spent as head of the government-run Syrian Computer Society. Still encumbered by several of his father's key advisers, he does not yet have the standing to make fundamental changes in policy on his own. One has only to observe the Syrian president in meetings where he is accompanied by his foreign minister (in office since 1984) or his vice president (a key regime figure since the 1970's) to appreciate the constraints he faces."
Meanwhile, Hezbollah and other anti-Israeli guerrilla groups are asking: "What 'crackdown'?"
"There are consequences lurking in the background," growled Powell on the Sunday morning talk show circuit. The President will "have all his options on the table" if Syria doesn't hop to it. Are we talkin' war? Powell's answer: "There are many ways to confront a nation." Yes, and our neocons know each and every one of them, including sanctions, a propaganda war, and a new selection in the Hitler of the Month Club.
What is lurking in the background is the neocon network that has burrowed its way up to the highest levels of this administration and is on a roll. These guys aren't going to miss their opportunity to raise the banner of Imperial America in the Middle East ââ¬â and, incidentally, smite Israel's enemies in one fell swoop ââ¬â before the American public catches on to their game. As CIA analyst Flynt Leverett relates:
"The military victory over Saddam Hussein's regime has empowered some officials in the Bush administration to push for similarly decisive action against other state sponsors of terrorism. For the hardliners, Syria has become the preferred next target in the war on terrorism. I know because I've been hearing the argument a lot in recent days. For the last eight years, I have been directly involved in United States policymaking toward Syria, as a CIA analyst, on the State Department's policy planning staff and at the White House. In all that time, I have never seen officials as willing to take on the Syrian regime as they are today."
No longer even bothering to hide their Likudnik loyalties, Bush's top advisors on the wrong side of the Powell-Rumsfeld divide are plumbing for war. Newt Gingrich's blast at Powell's "ludicrous" trip to Damascus was just the first salvo. The Secretary of State was quite right in his reply: the President was the real target of the Newtster's ire. Gingrich's diatribe was a shot across the bow at the first sign of hesitation by George the Conqueror in pressing on with what the more maniacal neocons gleefully refer to as "World War IV." Get on with it, George ââ¬â or else.
On the Iranian front, the threat to "isolate" Teheran is a hollow one: it is the United States that is being isolated, as an American viceroy appoints a largely secular civilian junta dominated by Iraqi exiles to build a nation where the imams rule. How is it "isolating" the Iranians to invite the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), armed and trained by Teheran, into the new Iraqi "interim" government?
Powell's bluster is a smokescreen for what amounts to a de facto US-Iranian alliance: after all, the Americans knocked off Iran's principal enemy, and immediately turned their sights on Syria. Rumors that the Iranians promised to allow the use of their airspace for the attack on Iraq may not have been entirely unfounded. In any case, a January trip by Assad to Teheran was cancelled at the last minute, and Syrian-Iranian relations, never all that cordial to begin with, have never been worse. If the Americans amputate the Syrian wing of the secularist Ba'ath party, Iran's ayatollahs won't shed a tear, nor will the Turks, who have outstanding issues with Damascus. When it comes Syria's turn to be "liberated" from its sovereignty, the Turkish parliament may prove far more cooperative with Washington. Syria is surrounded by enemies, and it is only a matter of time before they pounce ââ¬â with the U.S. leading the way.
Seen as a grand-scale replication of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the invasion and occupation of Iraq begins to make at least some kind of twisted sense. The goal of U.S. war plans in the region, like the strategic thrust of Israel's fight against the Palestinians, is to destroy the secular-modern Arab entities ââ¬â the Ba'athists of Iraq and Syria ââ¬â just as the Israelis trained their fire on the PLO, and encouraged the development of religious rivals to Arafat, even going so far as to fund the early growth of Hamas.
Ever since Bashar al Assad succeeded his father, the Israelis have feared a U.S. rapprochement with Syria: the former London-based opthamologist is Hafez al Assad's second son, and never intended to inherit his father's power. But the death of the family's first-born male heir, Basil, thrust him into the leadership. Bashar started out as a reformer, and hopes were high, but the reforms were stalled by the resistance of the Ba'athist old guard. Now the news that the Syrian President had offered to negotiate directly with the Israelis before the invasion of Iraq lends credence to his reputed willingness to compromise and break the logjam blocking Middle East peace. Naturally, Ariel Sharon rejected the offer. Why should the Israeli Prime Minister bother talking with Assad when he can send his American errand boy to do the job?
Not that there is anything for Syria to negotiate ââ¬â except the terms of its surrender.
As the pretexts for Gulf War II are torpedoed, one by one, the real reason for the invasion of Iraq becomes more obvious with each passing day. As "weapons of mass destruction" fail to turn up, and the fabled Al Qaeda-Iraq link is less convincing than ever, the swiftness of the American victory underscores the reality that Saddam never was a military threat to begin with, either to his neighbors or to us. What, then, was the point of this war?
In 1996, Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser collaborated on a policy paper for then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which declared "A Clean Break" with the "defensive" strategies of the past:
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq ââ¬â an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right ââ¬â as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."
The Israelis, and their American amen corner, have always understood that the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. As the authors of "A Clean Break" presciently put it:
"Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity."
That not a few of the authors of this policy paper are now high officials in charge of directing America's foreign policy means that this strategy can now by implemented ââ¬â by the U.S. government.
That's what the invasion of Iraq was all about. Syria was always the real target of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," and this post-war diplomatic dance with Damascus confirms it. As Pat Buchanan put it in The American Conservative:
"We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity."
Will this same gang of warmongers entrap us in a war with Syria, and drag us back into Lebanon, where we are sure to confront the ghosts of our past errors? The battle-cry has already been sounded: Stay tuned as we hear news of Syria's "weapons of mass destruction" and the inevitable question: "Is Saddam in Syria?"
As Yogi Berra once said: "This is like deja-vu all over again!"
ââ¬â Justin Raimondo
2003-05-07 07:59 | User Profile
The hallmark and guiding principle of U.S. policy in the region is simple: one standard for the Arabs, and another one for the Israelis.
When Linder says it, it's "extremism" that drives away the reinforcements. Just wondering - is it still "Nazi lunacy" if Raimondo rephrases it?
2003-05-07 08:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@May 7 2003, 07:59 ** > The hallmark and guiding principle of U.S. policy in the region is simple: one standard for the Arabs, and another one for the Israelis.
When Linder says it, it's "extremism" that drives away the reinforcements. Just wondering - is it still "Nazi lunacy" if Raimondo rephrases it? **
Quit your whining for Linder. :crybaby: To answer your question - No. :y
2003-05-07 08:49 | User Profile
Quit your whining for Linder. To answer your question - No
English translation: "Yes. But when I ineffectively bitch about Israel, it's principled. Now who's up for the umpteenth Liberty Forum thread?"
You didn't seriously think I was gonna ask a question I don't already know the answer to, did you?
2003-05-07 09:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@May 7 2003, 08:49 You didn't seriously think I was gonna ask a question I don't already know the answer to, did you?
Of course not. You Linderites have the answer for everything. "Name the Jew -100% of the time".
While you yourself post your empteenth OD thread on the subject (what's so different about OD and LF in that regard anyway, other than LF has more posters?)
2003-05-07 17:36 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@May 7 2003, 02:59 > The hallmark and guiding principle of U.S. policy in the region is simple: one standard for the Arabs, and another one for the Israelis.**
When Linder says it, it's "extremism" that drives away the reinforcements. Just wondering - is it still "Nazi lunacy" if Raimondo rephrases it?**
That statement doesn't drive anyone away. The double standard is obvious to any sane, thinking individual.
Actually, I would say it's the stuff about advocating genocide that creates the separation. For some reason, most folks seem to have misgivings about mass murder.
2003-05-07 18:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 7 2003, 13:36 > Originally posted by il ragno@May 7 2003, 02:59 > The hallmark and guiding principle of U.S. policy in the region is simple: one standard for the Arabs, and another one for the Israelis.
When Linder says it, it's "extremism" that drives away the reinforcements. Just wondering - is it still "Nazi lunacy" if Raimondo rephrases it?**
That statement doesn't drive anyone away. The double standard is obvious to any sane, thinking individual.
Actually, I would say it's the stuff about advocating genocide that creates the separation. For some reason, most folks seem to have misgivings about mass murder.**
I don't mean to interfere with the larger debate on this topic, but I would like to make an observation about the term "genocide." I'm not sure if "genocide" is even a valid term, since it's of relatively recent origin and has been deliberately charged with a great deal of emotion.
"Genocide," as a concept, seems designed to describe and proscribe what is essentially a common and enduring facet of human behavior throughout history. Various peoples have always engaged in group-level conflict, with the basic aim of "stamping out" the other side. There's nothing shocking or surprising about that fact. One reason why the term "genocide" was invented is that in modern times, technology increases the efficiency of the process. Another reason is that certain groups that were the supposed targets of genocide in the past wield enough influence in society to cast genocide as one of the chief sins of this era.
I think the visceral reaction most people have toward "genocide" (both the term itself as well as the act) is basically one that has been programmed and conditioned by the enemies of the West. There was once a time when Westerners knew how to be ruthless in dealing with aliens, but that instinct has been largely lost these days. I'm often unsure if this loss was any kind of gain. I guess we'll see in the future whether or not Western Man's modern "ethics" were conducive to civilizational survival. Somehow I suspect they may not be, since the proscription against genocide "takes an option off the table," while our opponents may not restrict themselves with similar scruples. In a sense, we might be fighting with one hand tied behind our back.
OD has a policy of prohibiting the advocacy of violence, and I assume that includes advocacy of violence between groups as much as it does threats against specific individuals. This policy is probably a prudent one, since although it is not illegal to advocate or condone the fruits of group-level conflict, in practice shysters like the SPLC have a way of claiming that such political statements "encourage" rash personal actions by individuals against other specific individuals in this society. In the legal climate we find ourselves in, the SPLC unfortunately has a track record of getting its way in the courts. None of what I said above should be taken to mean that I don't agree with OD's policy. I was just interested in examining how people come to hold the values they do about these sorts of things.
2003-05-07 21:19 | User Profile
** AntiYuppie wrote:
Franco is your archetypal "Linderite," the natural outcome of being a Linder disciple and walking lockstep with the VNN rhetoric and line.**
[Sheepishly] Awwww, golly and shucks -- you're just saying that, Mr. AY....tee-hee...[blushing] :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
2003-05-07 21:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 7 2003, 11:36 ** > Originally posted by il ragno@May 7 2003, 02:59 > The hallmark and guiding principle of U.S. policy in the region is simple: one standard for the Arabs, and another one for the Israelis.**
When Linder says it, it's "extremism" that drives away the reinforcements. Just wondering - is it still "Nazi lunacy" if Raimondo rephrases it?**
That statement doesn't drive anyone away. The double standard is obvious to any sane, thinking individual.
Actually, I would say it's the stuff about advocating genocide that creates the separation. For some reason, most folks seem to have misgivings about mass murder. **
That and the fact that Raimondo distinguishes between Neocons and their fellow travellers from ALL jews, which the VNN brigade is unable or unwilling to do.
2003-05-07 21:56 | User Profile
** Phillip wrote:
That and the fact that Raimondo distinguishes between Neocons and their fellow travellers from ALL jews, which the VNN brigade is unable or unwilling to do.**
First, the neocon movement is a RACIAL movement by Jews.
Second, Jews-as-a-race behave largely AS ONE. There are a few good ones, but not many. You must decide whether to give Jews a pass because of the very few good ones. Not me. This WN movement is an all-or-nothing football game. Either we win or we lose.
2003-05-07 23:26 | User Profile
[img]http://www.whiterevolution.com/images/alamopic5.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.whiterevolution.com/images/alamopic5.jpg]http://www.whiterevolution.com/images/alamopic5.jpg[/url]
See the image this guy presents? While what he's saying is probably true, the way he's dressed kills the message, and hurts any semblance of a WN "movement". People have been brainwashed since their eyes could first focus on the one eyed bolshevist in the living room. I don't know what all the arguing is about. WE know that the jews are a big part of the problem. They aren't the only element, but highly integral to the shenanigans going on around us. But an all out Linder style attack in the major media, or even minor media, by anyone on "our side" isn't going to bring that many new recruits. The average Joe needs exposure to Francis, Jared Taylor, god help us Raimondo and others we all know and complain about for one reason or another. This is petty nitpicking to be screaming that 'name the jew' is the only way, or slow and steady is the only way to go. We need to shotgun it. A wide field of approaches is needed. While I applaud some of what Linder has done, I realize that instant exposure to him or the hilariously on the button Chuck Pearson scares the sh*t out of most sheeple.
An introduction through more gentle channels, like Canny Sammy et al works for most. That's how I've been able to bring people around.
Haven't been here in about a month, and I see the same argument is still going.
2003-05-08 00:08 | User Profile
While there is admiration for the NS state and its architects on VNN, at no time have I read an endorsement for its exact replication [swastikas/uniforms/shiny boots]. What VNN does endorse is the acknowledgment that the NS ideology has been, todate, the only one to directly confront the source of the problem.
However, the Franciscans (not you, Roy) love to portray anyone who can be honest enough to make that acknowledgment like the unfortunate fellow pictured above. (Who is that, anyway? Ditka?)
Question to all Hitler-haters (you paragons of virtue): if a Bolshevik Jew fatally shoots Hitler in 1933, where is America today? And, please...answer honestly. If you can.
2003-05-08 00:17 | User Profile
That's right Il Ragno. Fire off a big blast of truth about the yahoodis, and you'll be painted a portrait in the media that will have you as the next Goebel. They'll dig up people who'll swear they saw you water skiing at Havasu with Hitler before they're through with you.
VNN has their point. BUT we are now fighting several generations of calculated brainwashing. We need to crack some holes in those lessons inculcated by the boob tube and the legions of ZOG footsoldiers known as reporters, teachers and college professors in this country. Wake them up, and then they'll be ready for some truly harsh, but true rhetoric. The trick is to make them graduate from Canny Sammy. Look at Rush Limbaugh. Got people hooked, and most of 'em never move on. Now he's pumping the zionist/elite party line daily, with millions of mouth breathing, glassy eyed true believers hanging on his every word.
Some things have to hit close to them, then they start to see. Gently reel them in, use examples of problems in their own lives, and as their minds open, shuttle them along to the bitter truths presented by those who will tread where Sammy and Taylor don't. At least they don't at the moment.
I admit I do agree with Francis when he says a lot of this is bigger than the jews. It is. But they have been the fulcrum.
2003-05-08 02:06 | User Profile
Gee -- my own reaction to the Nazi guy in the photo above was, "nifty!" I guess I am out of step with the mainstream public....[giggle].
2003-05-08 02:19 | User Profile
Il Ragno- to answer your question, who knows? Let me take a guess, though.
No World War II. No millions of Europeans dead. Perhaps a Europe with their progeny, a stronger Europe, willing to avoid the EU cocoon, willing to avoid their own displacement in their own homelands.
No massacre at Lidice. No bombing of Rotterdam. No savage ravaging of Warsaw.
No Holocaust. No Holocaust guilt-tripping. No Hitler card for anyone to play when you dare to question the diversity program.
Possibly an earlier fall of the USSR. No Stalingrad, no fight for Mother Russia to ensure Stalin's reign continued. No subjugation of E. Europe.
A Prague Spring from 1933 to 2003. No Berlin Wall. No Hungarians slaughtered in 1956.
Best of all? Maybe the Freepers could only say we saved France's butt in one war, rather than in two wars. :lol:
2003-05-08 02:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by Phillip Augustus@May 7 2003, 22:19 ** Il Ragno- to answer your question, who knows? Let me take a guess, though.
No World War II. No millions of Europeans dead. Perhaps a Europe with their progeny, a stronger Europe, willing to avoid the EU cocoon, willing to avoid their own displacement in their own homelands.
No massacre at Lidice. No bombing of Rotterdam. No savage ravaging of Warsaw.
No Holocaust. No Holocaust guilt-tripping. No Hitler card for anyone to play when you dare to question the diversity program.
Possibly an earlier fall of the USSR. No Stalingrad, no fight for Mother Russia to ensure Stalin's reign continued. No subjugation of E. Europe.
A Prague Spring from 1933 to 2003. No Berlin Wall. No Hungarians slaughtered in 1956.
Best of all? Maybe the Freepers could only say we saved France's butt in one war, rather than in two wars. :lol: **
Why stop at altering the time line at 1933? The benefits that Phillip Augustus listed would also have been attained if someone had shot Woodrow Wilson before he had the chance to involve America in World War One. There might not have been any Bolsheviks to begin with....
Wilson is the one I blame for most of the things that went wrong in the 20th century.
2003-05-08 02:34 | User Profile
God bless ya, Phil. Now that is optimism!
2003-05-08 02:43 | User Profile
LOL. I try to be optimistic.
Though, PA had a good point, too. Go back to WWI and if that could have been avoided then perhaps Hitler would have been moot anyway- and other problems before that would have existed, either.
Then again, things might have ended up even worse. :D
2003-05-08 02:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by Phillip Augustus@May 7 2003, 22:43 ** LOL. I try to be optimistic.
Though, PA had a good point, too. Go back to WWI and if that could have been avoided then perhaps Hitler would have been moot anyway- and other problems before that would have existed, either.
Then again, things might have ended up even worse. :D **
Quite right, PA, things could have been worse--change some element about the past, and there are probably consequences we can't predict...something's got to fill the vacuum we'd create.
Lots of people would love to pin the troubles of our era on Hitler, because to do so seems the easy way out--everybody loves to hate Hitler.
What most Americans can't bring themselves to face is that America, and specifically Wilson, is responsible for the bulk of the unfolding of 20th century history. These flag-waving patriots think that America was God's gift to the world, but the truth of the matter is that we have been a curse upon it. America hasn't done "The Lord's Work," but she's brought misery and destruction to every corner of the globe. If this country hadn't acted the way it has on the world's stage this past century, the world would probably have been a better place. The Muslims may have a good point when they call us the "Great Satan."
2003-05-08 12:43 | User Profile
**What VNN does endorse is the acknowledgment that the NS ideology has been, todate, the only one to directly confront the source of the problem. **
That's just it. The VNN party line attributes every single misfortune, evil and calamity in this world to some sinister conspiracy by Jews. If Linder believes a fraction of what VNN puts forth daily then, frankly, he is frightened by shadows. The Jews aren't magical little elves.
That's not to say that Jews haven't had an inordinate part to play in the problems of the West in the last 150 years. For that fact, they are particularly singled out for criticism. But let us be realists and keep some sense of proportion. Is that really too much to ask?
2003-05-08 13:34 | User Profile
**[img]http://www.whiterevolution.com/images/alamopic5.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.whiterevolution.com/images/alamopic5.jpg]http://www.whiterevolution.com/images/alamopic5.jpg[/url]**
Not to distract from this jolly flame war y'all are having, but I'm curious: who is this dude?
2003-05-08 13:37 | User Profile
One of the Village People?
2003-05-08 14:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by Drakmal@May 8 2003, 07:34 ** Not to distract from this jolly flame war y'all are having, but I'm curious: who is this dude?**
[url=http://www.whiterevolution.com/alamopics.shtml]Commander of the Oklahoma National Socialists[/url] apparently.
2003-05-08 14:59 | User Profile
I still say it's Ditka.
2003-05-08 15:42 | User Profile
A man who will one day retire in splendor, courtesy of the Anti-Defamation League and the agents who arrange for the discreet, but substantial, payments.