ATTACKING IRAN - PROS & CON

February 7, 2007

12 Consequences of Attacking Iran

by Jon Basil Utley

The murdered Israeli leader Gen. Yitzhak Rabin opposed the First Gulf War in 1990, warning that one never knows when starting a war where it will lead. As Bush and the neocons are reportedly planning to attack Iran, we should all think of the likely consequences. Most Americans already believe that George Bush is not much influenced by facts, but rather by his ideology. Already he is reportedly thinking of his legacy and dreaming that history will prove him "right." More disturbing are his religious beliefs, in particular his daily readings of Scottish preacher Oswald Chambers, who argues that if plans and events go wrong, it just means that God is testing believers' faith, not that strategies should be changed. This may also explain Bush's aversion to diplomacy. After all, God does not "negotiate" with evil. Various reports state that Iran is years away from the ability to produce a single nuke. In a few years' time the government in Iran could easily change or modify its positions; indeed, already President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is losing power. But time is running out for Bush (although not for America). An article about Iran in The American Conservative by former CIA officer Phil Giraldi says that Bush may attack before Tony Blair retires in April. Blair has already just sent two British minesweepers to the Gulf. U.S. war plans are reportedly counting on a few weeks of war (as they did with Iraq) to disable Iran's nuclear and military industries. The concept that the U.S. could simply destroy much of Iran then proclaim the war over neglects all the lessons of Iraq, namely that a wounded Muslim nation only gives up when it wants to. Repeatedly, the U.S. loses when we expect enemies to play by American rules. Following are consequences we must anticipate following such an American attack: Iran would blockade the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has new, "state of the art" Russian anti-aircraft defenses as well as powerful Sunburn anti-ship missiles purchased from the Ukraine, Chinese mines, and also itself manufactures other missiles. Anti-ship mines may already be in place, able to be activated from shore. U.S. strategy calls for destroying all the anti-ship missile emplacements and small missile and mine-laying boats long deployed along Iran's coastline. Obviously, a surprise U.S. attack may miss some Iranian weaponry, or U.S. Navy anti-missile systems may not work to defend all ships in the Gulf. Probably Iran would try to sink tankers (see a projected scenario) to set off a worldwide panic for oil rather than just aim at U.S. Navy ships. Even the threat of this would cause insurance rates to skyrocket and possibly shut down the straits. Just the risk of all this happening should be cause of great concern for America and the whole world. War quickly gets out of hand. U.S. plans to destroy Iran's anti-aircraft and military infrastructure could easily escalate to destroying Iran's oil-loading and shipment facilities. This would take even more millions of barrels off the market for a prolonged period. If Bush/Cheney hadn't shown themselves to be so incompetent, one might imagine it was a plan of their Texas oil friends to raise oil prices to the stratosphere. Jim Cramer warned on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Jan. 30 that war would quickly drive U.S. gas prices to $5 per gallon. The far greater risk is that Iran would then retaliate against the hopelessly exposed Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Gulf states oil facilities. Iran has already warned Qatar, where the U.S. has CENTCOM, that its vast gas compression facilities would be targeted if it allows a U.S. attack. Washington announced that it was sending Patriot missiles to defend our "allies," but there is no assurance that these would all work. After all, only one Iranian missile (or ground attack from sympathetic Shias) would need to get through. Also, the Bush administration has made secret the publication of test results for the U.S. anti-missile program. This could easily cover up corruption and incompetence. We already now are finding out that some of our largest defense contractors have designed ships for the Coast Guard that aren't even seaworthy. The whole world's prosperity would be at risk if oil didn't flow again quickly. Any such severe shock to the world economy would cause foreigners to cut back on financing U.S. deficits, with a consequent sharp rise in U.S. interest rates. This would cause very severe repercussions to the whole U.S. economy and government spending. Any real constriction of the Chinese economy would cause a collapse in worldwide commodity prices, with consequent effects on Third World buying power. American citizens and businesses in many nations would be under threat of attack by militant Iranians and other Muslims. War would multiply our terrorist enemies tremendously. Administration officials keep arguing that by fighting in the Middle East we are avoiding terrorist attacks in America. This is the usual American "body count" way of fighting wars. The reasoning assumes that the number of terrorists is somehow finite. But if we keep creating more enemies, we then increase the risk of reprisals inside the U.S. The attack would make America even more suspect and hated in the whole Islamic world. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq was a calamity and was likely to lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large." War would greatly increase Russian power vis-à-vis Europe as the latter would become even more dependent upon Russian energy supplies. Already a majority of Europeans think that Washington is the greatest threat to world peace. War would severely strain the American alliance. In Latin America, new, higher oil prices would further strengthen President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, giving him more money to subsidize further damage against American interests all over the continent. We don't know the effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese weapons that have been sold to Iran. There is a risk that they might be very effective. We might even lose an aircraft carrier. Bush's plan may be to provoke Iran to attack first by putting ships in harm's way in the narrow Gulf. He may be thinking that after such an attack he would have all Americans behind him in retaliating against Iran. It is hard to know what is in his (and Cheney's) mind, but we do know that they are ignorant and full of wishful thinking. American forces in Iraq would be very vulnerable to modern war supplies from Iran, for example, effective anti-tank weaponry such as that used by Hezbollah to destroy dozens of Israeli tanks. The long U.S. supply convoys from Kuwait would be subject to much greater attacks. A sustained Iranian missile attack on the Green Zone in Baghdad or the Doha base camp in Kuwait could kill many Americans. War would curtail the great influence of the religious Right in Washington. Christian fundamentalists are the backbone of support for continuing wars and chaos in the Middle East (see Armageddon Lobby). Their power would finally backfire as more Americans become wary of leaders who claim a direct line to God. The fundamentalists' passion for war, callousness towards the death of foreigners, fear and (almost total) ignorance of the outside world, and unstinting support for police state measures out of Washington have already discredited them among many Americans. Their fomenting another war would be a final blow. The disasters for America could also weaken and challenge the power of the Israel Lobby, especially AIPAC. At least that is the concern of writers at the major Jewish newspaper The Forward. The writers note concern for the perceptions that Israeli interests fomented the attack on Iraq. The antiwar and anti-empire movement is also heavily Jewish, but without "the New York money people" pushing America into war with Iran, as warned by Gen. Wesley Clark. Finally, another war might be the final nail in the Republican coffin for a generation. The party would fracture. Republicans may be the "Daddy Party," which once was thought to provide masculinity to foreign policy, but as James Pinkerton says, "If dad keeps wrecking the car, then there may be reason to change."

JEWISH TASK FORCE

What The Bible Really Says
About Surrendering Jewish Land

(Originally published by JTF.ORG on July 21, 2004) Anti-Zionist Jews march with the PLO Nazi terrorist flag in support of Arab Muslim terrorism (July 9, 2004)
The self-hating "religious" Jew on the left is wearing an Arab Muslim terrorist scarf

In return for legalized bribes to their corrupt "religious" institutions, supposedly Orthodox Jewish political parties like Agudah and Shas are willing to support Ariel Sharon's plan to surrender Israel's liberated lands (Yesha) to the Arab Muslim terrorists - Pictured above, Sharon's Bolshevik bulldozers tear down a Hilltop Youth outpost, desecrating sacred Jewish books and other holy Jewish objects

In an attempt to justify left-wing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's evil plan to surrender the entire Gaza District and northern Samaria to the PLO terrorists, so-called Orthodox Jews have been involved in a campaign to deliberately lie about what the Bible and Torah Judaism define as the Land of Israel.

The anti-Zionist "religious" parties known as Shas and Agudah are willing to support Sharon's treasonous and suicidal retreat in exchange for government subsidies for their corrupt "religious" institutions.

Shas and Agudah have always been willing to sell out the whole State of Israel and the whole Jewish people in order to receive government money for their thieving "religious" organizations.

To justify this legalized bribery, Shas and Agudah twist and distort Torah Judaism beyond recognition.

In recent years, Agudah changed its name to the Torah Judaism Party. No name has ever been less appropriate for a political party. Agudah's real name should be the Anti-Torah, Anti-Judaism Party. Or the Bribe Us And We Will Give Away All Of Israel Party.

Anti-Zionist traitors like the "religious" politicians of Shas and Agudah opposed the creation of Israel and discourage young Israeli Jews from serving in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) - The best soldiers in the IDF are the Yesha Jews, who are also the heroic pioneers preventing Israel's suicidal surrender and the creation of a PLO terrorist state

Agudah was formed in the 1920s in Europe to combat the Zionist movement. In other words, to prevent the creation of a Jewish State.

Agudist rabbis and leaders warned European Jews that the Zionists were insane, and that Jews were safer and better off in Poland, Hungary, Germany and the rest of Europe than in the Land of Israel

The vast majority of those European Jews who listened to the Agudist rabbis and leaders were brutally murdered in the German gas chambers and ovens during the Holocaust.

Having learned nothing even after the horrific lessons of the Holocaust, the Agudists continued to oppose Zionism in 1948, when G-d miraculously resurrected the State of Israel after 2,000 years of nightmarish exile.

The fate of Jews who listened to Agudah, now known as the Torah Judaism Party - European Jews who believed in the assurances of their Agudah rabbis - that pre-World War II Europe was safer for them than Israel - were doomed to be the subjects of horrific Nazi "medical" experiments

Little Israel's breathtaking victories against all odds in the 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars - in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy - still did not convince the Agudists that their cowardly anti-Zionism was wrong.

The Agudists have always supported Israeli retreats from Jewish land as long as Agudah was part of the coalition government making the retreats. In other words, as long as Agudah was being paid off with government subsidies for their shady "religious" institutions.

Shas, which falsely claims to represent the non-European Jews (Sephardim) of Israel, is the treasonous Sephardi equivalent of Agudah - Shas is anti-Zionist, supports Israel's suicidal territorial retreats, and enabled the 1993 Oslo "peace" accords which led to the murders of over 1,500 innocent Jewish men, women and children

Shas is a Sephardi (non-European) version of Agudah.

Like Agudah, Shas is anti-Zionist.

Like Agudah, Shas urges young Jews not to serve in the Israel Defense Forces.

Like Agudah, Shas supports suicidal Israeli retreats.

Like those of Agudah, the money-grubbing charlatans of Shas are surrendering Israel to Arab Muslim terrorism in return for Sharon's handouts to their phony "religious" schools, which are often non-existent - The grossly corrupt head of Shas, former Interior Minister Aryeh Deri, spent four years in prison for bribery and extortion. Long lines of Israeli businessmen and community leaders were forced to stand outside of Deri's office bringing him bribes in return for favors which he dispensed while a Cabinet minister of Israel. Blatant malfeasance is a constant of the Shas thieves, a number of whom, including some "rabbis," are currently under investigation by the Israeli authorities. (Shas chief rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Shas Party leader Eli Yishai are shown striking a deal with Ariel Sharon.)

In fact, when the Rabin-Peresite regime in 1993 sought to impose the infamous Oslo agreements with the PLO terrorists on the Jewish people, it was the support of Shas that enabled the Oslo disaster to pass the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) by a bare majority.

Without Shas' evil support, the Oslo agreements - which led to the mass murder of 1,500 innocent Jewish men, women and children - would never have been approved.

An Israeli soldier was murdered and five others wounded by an Arab Muslim terrorist bomb in the Gaza District (June 27, 2004)

Sharon is now formally conducting negotiations with Shas and Agudah to join his coalition government in order to ensure a Knesset majority for his plan to retreat from the Gaza District and northern Samaria.

As expected, the money-grubbing charlatans of Shas and Agudah have made it clear that they cannot wait to join Sharon's regime.

Sharon is also conducting negotations with the Bolshevik Labor Party to join his evil coalition government.

G-d will yet bring down Ariel Sharon, just as He has brought down every Israeli Prime Minister who has surrendered or sought to surrender any part of the Land of Israel

We continue to believe that G-d will eventually bring down the despicable Sharon regime. Every Israeli Prime Minister who has surrendered - or even sought to surrender - any part of the Land of Israel has been removed from office one way or another by G-d.

However, let us return to so-called Orthodox Jews distorting the Torah definition of Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel).

These self-hating traitors claim that the Gaza District is not part of the Land of Israel.

"On that day, G-d made with Abram a covenant saying, 'To your seed, I have given this land from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates." (Genesis 15:18)

Since the Bible clearly defines the southwestern boundary of the Land of Israel as the "river of Egypt," the Gaza District is indisputably an integral part of the Jewish homeland.

The Gaza District is indisputably an integral part of Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) - The Nile, which the majority of Talmudic sages regard as the western border of Israel, is indicated on the map by the red square. But even if, as a minority of Talmudic sages believe, the western border is Wadi El Arish, indicated by the purple square, there is no doubt that the entire Gaza District is part and parcel of the Jewish homeland. (As a further aid to understanding this issue, click on the image of the map or here for a much larger version which clearly and attractively shows the route of the Exodus and other features of the Jewish Sinai.)

The Torah (the first five books of the Jewish Bible) and the rest of the Tanach (Bible) repeatedly emphasize that Israel's southwestern boundary is the "river of Egypt." (See Numbers 34:5; Joshua 15:4; and Isaiah 27:12.)

What is the "river of Egypt"?

There is a machloket (dispute) among Talmudic sages about the definition of the "river of Egypt."

There are two different schools of thought:

1. Most Talmudic sources - such as Rashi, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel and HaRav Yehuda Halevi translate "river of Egypt" as the Nile River. In his commentary on last week's parasha (Torah portion), Parashat Masei, Rashi says that the Nile River and the "river of Egypt" are one and the same (Bamidbar 34:5). HaRav Halevi (in the Kuzari) makes the same determination.

2. A minority of Talmudic sources - such as Rambam (in Hilchot Shabbat) and HaRav Saadya Gaon - contends that the "river of Egypt" is Wadi El Arish in the Sinai.

If the majority of Talmudic sages is correct - in claiming that the "river of Egypt" is the Nile - then the Land of Israel includes not only the Gaza District, and not only the vast Sinai, but all territory going far beyond the Sinai up to the Nile River. Again, this is the majority opinion of the Talmudic scholars whom all Torah-true Jews are required to follow.

It is completely forbidden even to consider surrendering a single inch of sacred Jewish soil - Arab Muslim terrorists raise the PLO terrorist flag over Bethlehem in July 2003

But even if the minority opinion in the Talmud is correct - in claiming that the "river of Egypt" is Wadi El Arish - then the Land of Israel still includes the entire Gaza District and roughly one-third of the Sinai.

Either way, there is absolutely no dispute that the Gaza District is an inseparable part of the eternal, G-d-given Land of Israel, and it is completely forbidden to even consider surrendering a single inch of this sacred Jewish soil under any circumstances whatsoever.

All self-hating Jews - including those claiming to be "religious" - who deliberately distort Torah Judaism are liars, frauds and traitors to the Jewish people - Ariel Sharon meets self-hating "Orthodox Jewish" U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) under a photograph of Marxist traitor David Ben Gurion, the first leader of resurrected Israel

Israel's "religious" parties are standing by and not attempting to prevent - or taking part in, for their personal ambition and profit - Ariel Sharon's frantic effort to vivisect the tiny Jewish homeland - The opportunist Shaul Yahalom of the National "Religious" Party dozes in the Knesset while Sharon proceeds with his work to destroy Israel

All self-hating Jews - including those who claim to be "religious" - who deliberately distort the clear teachings of Torah Judaism are liars, frauds and traitors to the Jewish people.

The only Torah-true political party that will bring G-d's blessings and protection to the Jewish people is the Chayil (Valor) Party of Jewish hero Baruch Marzel.

BORDER PATROL AGENTS - AN AMERICAN DISGRACE

---

---

INVASION USA
Government admits lying about jailed border agents
Inspector confronted on Capitol Hill, says promised 'proof' does not exist

---

Posted: February 6, 2007
8:06 p.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas

A Department of Homeland Security official admitted today the agency misled Congress when it contended it possessed investigative reports proving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean confessed guilt and declared they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" prior to the incident that led to their imprisonment.

The admission came during the testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, according to Michael Green, press secretary for Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas.

Culberson was questioning Skinner about a meeting DHS officials had Sept. 26 with him and three other Republican congressman from Texas, Reps. Ted Poe, Michael McCaul and Kenny Marchant.

WND previously reported that at that meeting the DHS Inspector General's office asserted it had documentary evidence Ramos and Compean:

1. confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect;
2. stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;
3. stated that day they "wanted to shoot a Mexican";
4. were belligerent to investigators;
5. destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.

Under questioning by Culberson, Skinner admitted DHS did not in fact have investigative reports to back up the claims: "The person who told you that misinformed you," Skinner reportedly replied.

This prompted a startled and angry response from the congressman.

"You lied to me and you lied to all of us," Culberson charged. "Your office tried to paint a picture of Ramos and Compean as dirty cops, and now you come before this committee and tell us you never had the information to back up those claims."

Ramos and Compean began prison sentences last month after their actions in the shooting of a drug smuggler who was granted immunity to testify against them.

Responding to Skinner's testimony yesterday, Poe said it "explains why DHS has been stonewalling Congress."

"DHS didn't turn over the reports to us to back up their September 26 accusations for one simple reason – the reports never existed," the Texas congressman said.

"Why did it take DHS four months to admit their error?" he asked. "I wonder how much more has DHS told the public and Congress about Ramos and Compean that simply isn't true?"

Poe said he's determined to get to the bottom of DHS's claim.

"I expect this new revelation will lead to a lot more questions before we're done," he said.

Andy Ramirez, who has been involved with the case as chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol, told WND the DHS's actions "represent obstruction of justice, and they should be held in contempt of Congress, and, if possible, prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

"This admission today is yet more proof of how they are willing to distort the facts, as I have charged all along, in order to ensure a conviction," he said.

---

If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.

..........................................................................................................

DO NOT BUY SOG KNIVES - THERE ARE BETTER CHOICES....

AN AMERICAN DISGRACE - PARDON THESE MEN NOW

---

---

INVASION USA
Border Patrol agent
beaten up in prison
Ramos' family confirms: 'They kicked me
in the head, they kicked me all over the body'

---

Posted: February 5, 2007
10:27 p.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Imprisoned Border Patrol agent Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos was severely beaten in prison, Ramos' family members have confirmed to WND.

Monica Ramos embraces her husband, former U.S. Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos, two days before he was sentenced to 11 years in prison (Courtesy El Paso Times)

In interviews with WND tonight, both Ramos's wife Monica and father-in-law Joe Loya confirmed that Ramos says he was assaulted in prison on Saturday night by a group of five Hispanic inmates who Ramos took to be illegal immigrants.

In a phone call from prison, Ramos told his wife earlier today that the assailants allegedly threatened him in Spanish, taunting him with, "**** la migra," insulting him – "migra" roughly translating as "immigration," slang for Border Patrol agent.

The assault occurred at Yazoo City Federal Correctional Complex, a medium facility federal prison in Mississippi, where Ramos had been moved about 10 days ago.

Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean began prison sentences last month, of 11 and 12 years respectively, for their actions in the shooting and wounding of a Mexican drug smuggler who was granted full immunity to testify against them. The case has caused national outrage, and dozens of congressmen are publicly insisting President Bush grant an immediate pardon of the two law enforcement officers.

Ramos's family feels that the decision to place him in a medium security prison violates a promise from federal authorities Ramos would be kept in isolation at a minimal security prison.

At Yazoo, Ramos was housed with the general prison population. A medium security prison such as Yazoo would be expected to house illegal immigrants, including those incarcerated on drug offenses.

The prison attack came immediately after the airing Saturday night of a segment on Ramos and Compean by the "America's Most Wanted" television show.

"On Saturday night my husband said he went to bed," Monica Ramos told WND late today.

She recounted the telephone call from her husband in prison earlier in the day: "He just told me that he dropped his guard. 'They got me,' Nacio told me, 'they got me pretty good.'"

"'What happened?'" Monica Ramos said she asked her husband. "He told me they were in the television room watching 'America’s Most Wanted.' After that, some time after 10 p.m., he went back to his cubicle and was almost falling asleep. He awoke to the sound of shoes stomping. It startled him because at night the prisoners are supposed to take their shoes off and put flip-flops on."

She continued: "He said he didn't have a chance to turn around and look at any of the guys attacking him at that time. He just felt a blow to the back of his head. The prisoners were kicking him with steel-toe shoes, the work boots they are issued in prison. They kept kicking and kicking. And they kept calling him in Spanish a **** immigration officer, saying 'darle, darle,' which means, 'give it to him.' They were cussing him out in Spanish. He couldn't fight back he was outnumbered."

According to Loya, Ramos also said of the attack: "They kicked me in the head, they kicked me all over the body. I'm all bruised and very sore."

How did the attack stop?

"No security came to his rescue," the jailed Border Patrol agent's wife told WND. "Another inmate came and got Ramos and said 'Hey, dude, let me help you up.' The other inmate walked my husband over to security."

Did the prison give him any medical treatment?

"As of the time we talked this afternoon, the prison still hadn't given him any medical treatment," she said, adding that he told her, "'I asked all day yesterday.' I’m in a lot of pain and I have blood coming out of my left ear.'

"His head and his back are hurting him badly. He said it was almost time for the prison doctor to go for the day and he wasn't sure when any doctor would be able to see him."

Ramos told his wife he was able to identify only one of the five assailants: "They all cursed me in Spanish," he said, according to Loya. "As they were beating me up and kicking me, they kept calling me 'migra,' 'migra.' I'm pretty sure they were all illegal immigrants."

Ramos told his wife that he was badly bruised and bleeding from the ears. He said that immediately after the attack, he was placed back into solitary confinement, where he has been for the last two days.

"He told me that he asked to call me Sunday, after the attack," Monica Ramos continued, "but the prison wouldn't let him call me and they wouldn't let him call his attorney. He said the only reason the prison was letting him call now, on Monday, was because the Congress intervened, otherwise he wouldn't have been permitted any calls at all."

Patti Compean, wife of imprisoned agent Jose Compean, told WND her husband was in a different prison, still in solitary confinement.

Today is Ramos' 38th birthday. According to Loya, Ramos's three sons, aged 7, 9 and 13, woke up crying, not wanting to go to school. The children wanted to buy a cake and wait for their father to call so they could sing "Happy Birthday" to him on the phone and blow out the candles.

Early this morning, Loya began working with the office of U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R.-Calif., to see if the warden would give Ramos special permission to call home on his birthday, after his children got home from school.

However, the birthday call didn't happen, Monica Ramos told WND.

"We went out and bought a cake," she said. "The kids came home expecting their dad to call from prison so they could wish him a happy birthday. But there isn't going to be any call. My 7-year-old, when he woke up this morning, the first thing he asked was if we could still celebrate today. I told him, 'Sure we can, baby,' and he's been looking forward to it all day."

However, Monica added, in tears: "He told me, 'They're not going to let me call later today.' He said the call in the afternoon only happened because Congress allowed it to happen. He said he doesn't have any privileges in prison. He hasn't even gotten the mail that everybody has been sending him. He told me, 'You really need to get me out of here.' That's what he told me last."

Vice President Dick Cheney

DO NOT BUY "SOG" KNIVES
.............................................

NEWS | OPINIONS | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING | Discussions | Photos & Video | City Guide | CLASSIFIEDS | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE

The Unraveling of Dick Cheney

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, January 29, 2007; 12:18 PM

While Dick Cheney undoubtedly remains the most powerful vice president this nation has ever seen, it's becoming increasingly unclear whether anyone outside the White House believes a word he says.

Inside the West Wing, Cheney's influence remains considerable. In fact, nothing better explains Bush's perplexing plan to send more troops to Iraq than Cheney's neoconservative conviction that showing the world that we have the "stomach for the fight" is the most important thing -- even if it isn't accomplishing the things we're supposed to be fighting for. Even if it's backfiring horribly.

But as his astonishing interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer laid bare last week, Cheney is increasingly out of touch with reality. He seems to think that by asserting things that are simply untrue, he can make others believe they are so.

Maybe that works within the White House. But for the rest of us, it's becoming a better bet to assume that everything -- or almost everything -- Cheney says is flat wrong.

Meanwhile, the trial of Cheney's former chief of staff Scooter Libby is exposing to public view the vice president's role as master-manipulator of misinformation and vindictive retaliator-in-chief -- once again, indifferent to the truth. (For example, Cheney ordered his staff to lie to reporters about the contents of a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate.)

And former aide Cathie Martin's testimony on Friday validated the most cynical conspiracy theories about how Cheney manipulates the press.

President Bush, while taking action that clearly suits the vice president, has nevertheless moderated some of his rhetoric -- acknowledging serious troubles in Iraq, for instance, and admitting that American soldiers are now caught in the middle of sectarian warfare.

But for Cheney, Iraq is an "enormous successes," it's the media's fault that more people don't recognize that, and showing "lack of stomach" in Iraq would lead not just to a debacle there but to cataclysmic domino-style effects across the globe and terrorist attacks within our borders.

So perhaps it's not a surprise that Cheney is losing support even from fellow Republicans who, looking ahead to the 2008 elections, do not relish carrying the burden of defending his increasingly indefensible world-view.

The CNN Interview

Maura Reynolds writes in Thursday's Los Angeles Times: "A day after President Bush struck a conciliatory tone toward critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney did the opposite Wednesday, denouncing as 'hogwash' the assertion that the administration had lost credibility because of blunders in Iraq. . . .

"Cheney long has been a polarizing figure for the administration, which is one reason why he has generally limited his public appearances to conservative groups. But in recent months, Cheney has become an increasingly problematic figure even among stalwart Republicans, in part for how he defended former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld."

Peter Baker writes in Thursday's Washington Post: "Vice President Cheney said yesterday that the administration has achieved 'enormous successes' in Iraq but complained that critics and the media 'are so eager to write off this effort or declare it a failure' that they are undermining U.S. troops in a war zone, striking a far more combative tone than President Bush did in his State of the Union address the night before.

"In a television interview that turned increasingly contentious as it wore on, Cheney rejected the gloomy portrayal of Iraq that has become commonly accepted even among Bush supporters. 'There's problems' in Iraq, he said, but it is not a 'terrible situation.' And congressional opposition 'won't stop us' from sending 21,500 more troops, he said, it will only 'validate the terrorists' strategy.' . . .

"Cheney has been criticized in the past for presenting what some called an overly rosy view of the situation in Iraq, most notably in 2005 when he said the insurgency was in its 'last throes.' The view he expressed yesterday seemed no less positive, and he sparred repeatedly with 'Situation Room' host Wolf Blitzer, telling him 'you're wrong' and suggesting he was embracing defeat."

Here's the transcript and video of the CNN interview.

There were so many baseless assertions, it's hard to know where to start. Blitzer tried valiantly to challenge some of them, to no avail.

Here's Cheney talking about what would have happened if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq: "Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would, at this point, be engaged in a nuclear arms race with Ahmadinejad, his blood enemy next door in Iran --

"Q But he was being contained as we all know --

"THE VICE PRESIDENT: He was not being contained. He was not being contained, Wolf.

"Q -- by the no-fly zones in the north and the south.

"THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, the entire sanctions regime had been undermined by Saddam Hussein. He had --

"Q But he didn't have stockpiles of weapons of --

"THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- corrupted the entire effort to try to keep him contained. He was bribing senior officials of other governments. The oil-for-food program had been totally undermined, and he had, in fact, produced and used weapons of mass destruction previously, and he retained the capability to produce that kind of stuff in the future.

"Q But that was in the '80s.

"THE VICE PRESIDENT: You can go back and argue the whole thing all over again, Wolf, but what we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do; the world is much safer today because of it. . . .

"Q But the current situation there is --

"THE VICE PRESIDENT: But the fact of the matter was -- the fact of the matter was that al Qaeda was out to kill Americans before we ever went into Iraq."

On credibility:

"Q Here's the problem that you have -- the administration -- credibility in Congress with the American public, because of the mistakes, because of the previous statements, the last throes, the comment you made a year-and-a-half ago, the insurgency was in its last throes. How do you build up that credibility because so many of these Democrats, and a lot of Republicans now are saying they don't believe you anymore?

"VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, Wolf, if the history books were written by people who have -- are so eager to write off this effort, to declare it a failure, including many of our friends in the media, the situation obviously would have been over a long time ago. Bottom line is that we've had enormous successes, and we will continue to have enormous successes. It is hard. It is difficult. It's one of the toughest things any President has to do. It's easy to stick your finger in the air and figure out which way the winds are blowing and then try to get in front of the herd. This President doesn't work that way. He also -- be very clear in terms of providing leadership going forward for what we need to do in Iraq.

"Now, fact is, this is a vitally important piece of business. It needs to be done. The consequences of our not completing the task are enormous. Just think for a minute -- and think for a minute, Wolf, in terms of what policy is being suggested here. What you're recommending, or at least what you seem to believe the right course is, is to bail out --

"Q I'm just asking questions.

"VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: No, you're not asking questions.

"Q Yes, I am. I'm just asking."

When Blitzer asked Cheney to respond to criticisms from within the Republican base regarding the pregnancy of his lesbian daughter, Cheney lashed out: "I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question."

Newsweek Interview

In a Newsweek interview, conducted much more obsequiously by Richard Wolffe and published online yesterday, Cheney was not as petulant. But he was equally sure of himself.

On the danger of withdrawal: "All of a sudden, the United States which is the bulwark of security in that part of world would I think no longer -- could no longer be counted on by our friends and allies that have put so much into this struggle."

On the loss of Republican support for the escalation: "My sense of it is that what's happened here now over the last few weeks is that the President has shored up his position with the speech he made a couple of weeks ago, specifically on Iraq. And I think the speech, frankly Tuesday night, the State of the Union address was one of his best. I think there's been a very positive reaction of people who saw the speech. And I think to some extent that's helped shore us up inside the party on the Hill."

Asked how he responds to criticism from former associates such as former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, who has said that he does not know Cheney anymore, Cheney shot back: "Well, I'm the vice president, and they're not."

Cheney Opinion

Ann McFeatters writes in her Scripps Howard column: "A group of Republican lawmakers was waiting for an elevator on Capitol Hill when one of them said in frustration to his colleagues, 'What's with Cheney? Anybody know?'

"One colleague muttered, 'The guy's getting a little strange, seems to me. Big chip on his shoulder.'

"Vice President Dick Cheney has re-emerged from the shadows, causing a new ripple of speculation about whether his pit-bull attitude serves the president well, whether he's the one dictating Iraq policy, whether he's even thinking clearly.

"Whether swearing at a Democrat on the Senate floor or calling Donald Rumsfeld the best defense secretary in U.S. history, his conduct makes even some Republicans nervous."

Maureen Dowd writes in her New York Times opinion column (subscription required): "Delusional is far too mild a word to describe Dick Cheney. Delusional doesn't begin to capture the profound, transcendental one-flew-over daftness of the man.

"Has anyone in the history of the United States ever been so singularly wrong and misguided about such phenomenally important events and continued to insist he's right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? . . .

"You must have a real talent for derangement to stay wrong every step of the way, to remain in complete denial about Iraq's civil war, to have a total misunderstanding of Arab culture, to be completely oblivious to the American mood and to be absolutely blind to how democracy works."

She adds: "In a democracy, when you run a campaign that panders to homophobia by attacking gay marriage and then your lesbian daughter writes a book about politics and decides to have a baby with her partner, you cannot tell Wolf Blitzer he's 'out of line' when he gingerly raises the hypocrisy of your position."

Carl Hiaasen writes in his Miami Herald column: "There are several possible explanations for the vice president's bizarre performance:

"* He's crazy as a loon.

"* He's a compulsive liar.

"* He's gotten his prescriptions mixed up with Rush Limbaugh's.

"Whatever the clinical reason might be, Cheney continues to float blissfully through a smug and surreal fog."

Greg Mitchell writes in his column in Editor and Publisher: "Is it just me, or is Vice President Cheney, in his latest statements, starting once again to sound like another balding, rose-colored-glasses wearing war spokesman, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, better known as 'Baghdad Bob'?"

From a New York Times editorial: "In his State of the Union speech, Mr. Bush stuck to his ill-conceived plans for Iraq, but at least admitted the situation was dire. He said he wanted to work with Congress and announced a bipartisan council on national security.

"That lasted a day. By Wednesday evening, Vice President Dick Cheney was on CNN contradicting most of what Mr. Bush had said. We were left asking, once again, Who exactly is running this White House?"

On Comedy Central, Jon Stewart brilliantly riffed -- at length -- on Cheney's CNN interview.

For instance, he showed a clip of Cheney's response to Blitzer's question about his biggest mistake in Iraq.

Cheney: "Oh, I think in terms of mistakes, I think we underestimated the extent to which 30 years of Saddam's rule had really hammered the population, especially the Shia population, into submissiveness."

Stewart: "Yes, that was your mistake. The Shia's submissiveness -- if by submissiveness, you mean warlike vindictiveness."

And Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles nails it.

The Scooter Libby Trial

Carol D. Leonnig and Amy Goldstein write in Friday's Washington Post: "Vice President Cheney personally orchestrated his office's 2003 efforts to rebut allegations that the administration used flawed intelligence to justify the war in Iraq and discredit a critic who Cheney believed was making him look foolish, according to testimony and evidence yesterday in the criminal trial of his former chief of staff. . . .

"Previously described in court filings and by the news media, Cheney's role was brought to life yesterday by Martin's account. She is the first witness in the case who worked closely with Cheney and Libby as they tried to refute former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was sent to Niger by the CIA to determine whether Iraq had sought uranium for a weapons program. . . .

"Martin's testimony also illustrated how doggedly Cheney insisted that the administration had significant evidence that Iraq was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction -- even after the White House had backed off that claim and admitted it was not solid enough for the president to have cited it in his 2003 State of the Union address. . . .

"Cheney told Martin to alert the news media that a highly classified and recent National Intelligence Estimate indicated no doubts about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium. Intelligence analysts have said that the uranium claim was never a key finding of the NIE and that there were doubts about it."

(For more on that NIE, see Murray Waas in the National Journal in March 2006.)

David Johnston and Jim Rutenberg write in the New York Times: "The assertion by lawyers for I. Lewis Libby Jr. that White House aides had sacrificed him to protect Karl Rove, the senior political adviser, appears to be based primarily on Mr. Libby's own sense that the administration had failed to defend him adequately as the C.I.A. leak case unfolded.

"But there is little known evidence to buttress the suggestion by Mr. Libby's defense team in his obstruction and perjury trial that unnamed White House officials were deliberately setting Mr. Libby up to be a scapegoat."

In fact, the two men had some history of working well together. "Both men had a hand in the marketing, and later, the defense, of the Iraq strategy. But they approached it from different angles. Mr. Libby was deeply involved in developing and assessing intelligence about Iraq and using it to build the case for the war, and then defending that case as it began to unravel. Mr. Rove built a re-election strategy for Mr. Bush that relied heavily on his prosecution of the war against terrorism and the Iraq invasion."

Michael Isikoff writes for Newsweek: "White House anxiety is mounting over the prospect that top officials -- including deputy chief of staff Karl Rove and counselor Dan Bartlett-may be forced to provide potentially awkward testimony in the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis (Scooter) Libby.

"Both Rove and Bartlett have already received trial subpoenas from Libby's defense lawyers, according to lawyers close to the case who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters."

Isikoff wirtes that an "embarrassing conflict could emerge next week when former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer takes the stand. . . .

"Fleischer's testimony is critical to Fitzgerald's case: as the prosecutor laid out this week in his opening statement, Fleischer has said that Libby told him over a White House lunch on July 7, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and made a point of describing this information as 'hush and hush.' Fitzgerald used that account to undercut Libby's grand-jury assertion that he was surprised and 'taken aback' just three or four days later when, he claims, Russert told him about Wilson's wife. 'You can't learn something startling on Thursday that you're giving out Monday and Tuesday of the same week,' Fitzgerald said. Fleischer has also testified that Bartlett also later told him about Wilson's wife and, after hearing it from both Libby and Bartlett, the then-White House press secretary disclosed the information to NBC reporter David Gregory.

"On its face, Fleischer's account seems to contradict the repeated public assertions of his immediate successor, Scott McClellan, in October 2003 that nobody at the White House was in any way involved in the leak of Plame's identity."

The Associated Press is Web-posting trial exhibits. (The prosecution exhibits can also be found here.) The Firedoglake blog is live-blogging the trial.

Cheney's Media Strategy

Dana Milbank writes in Friday's Washington Post that the Scooter Libby trial "has already pulled back the curtain on the White House's PR techniques and confirmed some of the darkest suspicions of the reporters upon whom they are used. Relatively junior White House aides run roughshod over members of the president's Cabinet. Bush aides charged with speaking to the public and the media are kept out of the loop on some of the most important issues. And bad news is dumped before the weekend for the sole purpose of burying it.

"With a candor that is frowned upon at the White House, Martin explained the use of late-Friday statements. 'Fewer people pay attention to it late on Friday,' she said. 'Fewer people pay attention when it's reported on Saturday.'

"Martin, perhaps unaware of the suspicion such machinations caused in the press corps, lamented that her statements at the time were not regarded as credible. . . .

"Martin, who now works on the president's communications staff, said she was frustrated that reporters wouldn't call for comment about the controversy. She said she had to ask the CIA spokesman, Bill Harlow, which reporters were working on the story. 'Often, reporters would stop calling us,' she testified.

"This prompted quiet chuckles among the two dozen reporters sitting in court to cover the trial. Whispered one: 'When was the last time you called the vice president's office and got anything other than a "no comment"?'"

Martin's notes showed that she considered "Meet the Press" a good venue for Cheney for this reason: "Control message." And, Milbank writes: "She walked the jurors through how the White House coddles friendly writers and freezes out others."

Tim Rutten writes in the Los Angeles Times: "The lesson to take away from this week's unintended seminar in contemporary journalism is that the vice president and his staff, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, believe that truth is a malleable adjunct to their ambitions and that they have a well-founded confidence that some members of the Washington press corps will cynically accommodate that belief for the sake of their careers.

"It's a sick little arrangement in which the parties clearly have one thing in common: a profound indifference to both the common good and to their obligation to act in its service."

Cheney's Pressure

Jonathan S. Landay writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "Vice President Dick Cheney exerted 'constant' pressure on the Republican former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to stall an investigation into the Bush administration's use of flawed intelligence on Iraq, the panel's Democratic chairman charged Thursday."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia "said that it was 'not hearsay' that Cheney, a leading proponent of invading Iraq, pushed Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., to drag out the probe of the administration's use of prewar intelligence.

"'It was just constant,' Rockefeller said of Cheney's alleged interference. He added that he knew that the vice president attended regular policy meetings in which he conveyed White House directions to Republican senators.

"Republicans 'just had to go along with the administration,' he said.

"In an e-mail response to Rockefeller's comments, Cheney's spokeswoman, Lea McBride, said: 'The vice president believes Senator Roberts was a good chairman of Intelligence Committee.' "

Poll Watch

Brian Braiker writes for Newsweek: "The president's approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll's history -- 30 percent -- and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over, a sentiment that is almost unanimous among Democrats (86 percent), and is shared by a clear majority (59 percent) of independents and even one in five (21 percent) Republicans....

"With Bush widely viewed as an ineffectual 'lame duck' (by 71 percent of all Americans), over half (53 percent) of the poll's respondents now say they believe history will see him as a below-average president, up three points from last May. The first time this question was asked, in October 2003, as many people thought Bush would go down in history as an above average president as thought we would be regarded as below average (29 to 26 percent). Only 22 percent of those polled think Bush's decisions about Iraq and other major policy are influenced mainly by the facts; 67 percent say the president's decisions are influenced more by his personal beliefs."

Here are the results.

Closing the Barn Door

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley writes in a Washington Post op-ed that Bush "concluded that the strategy with the best chance of success must have a plan for securing Baghdad. Without such a plan, the Iraqi government and its security institutions could fracture under the pressure of widespread sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing and mass killings. Chaos would then spread throughout the country -- and throughout the region. The al-Qaeda movement would be strengthened by the flight of Sunnis from Baghdad and an accelerated cycle of sectarian bloodletting. Iran would be emboldened and could be expected to provide more lethal aid for extremist groups. The Kurdish north would be isolated, inviting separation and regional interference. Terrorists could gain pockets of sanctuary throughout Iraq. . . . "

Note to Hadley: That's all happening already.

Iran Watch

David E. Sanger writes in the New York Times: "To many in Washington, especially Mr. Bush's Democratic critics, the new approach to Iran has all the hallmarks of an administration once again spoiling for a fight.

"Some see an attempt to create a diversion, focusing the country's attention away from a war gone bad in Iraq, and toward a country that has exploited America's troubles to expand its influence. Others suspect an effort to shift the blame for the spiraling chaos in Iraq, as a steady flow of officials, from the C.I.A. director to the new secretary of defense, cite intelligence that Iranians are smuggling into Iraq sophisticated explosive devices and detailed plans to wipe out Sunni neighborhoods. . . .

"But as they present their evidence, some Bush administration officials concede they are confronting the bitter legacy of their prewar distortions of the intelligence in Iraq. When speaking under the condition of anonymity, they say the administration's credibility has been deeply damaged, which would cast doubt on any attempt by Mr. Bush, for example, to back up his claim that Iran's uranium enrichment program is intended for bomb production."

Secrecy Watch

Adam Liptak writes in the New York Times: "The Bush administration has employed extraordinary secrecy in defending the National Security Agency's highly classified domestic surveillance program from civil lawsuits. Plaintiffs and judges' clerks cannot see its secret filings. Judges have to make appointments to review them and are not allowed to keep copies. . . .

"In ordinary civil suits, the parties' submissions are sent to their adversaries and are available to the public in open court files. But in several cases challenging the eavesdropping, Justice Department lawyers have been submitting legal papers not by filing them in court but by placing them in a room at the department. They have filed papers, in other words, with themselves."

'Commander in Chief'

Garry Wills writes in a New York Times op-ed column: "The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: 'The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.'"

Overuse of the term "commander in chief of the United States," Wills writes, "reflects the increasing militarization of our politics. The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline."

The Bush Library

Miguel Bustillo writes for the Los Angeles Times: "More than a quarter of the faculty at Southern Methodist University on Thursday demanded a referendum on whether the Dallas campus should become the home of the George W. Bush Presidential Library, if that means accepting a conservative think tank as part of the deal."

Doonesbury's Garry Trudeau draws Tony Snow defending the library and its "belief tank" -- "It's like a think tank. Only without the doubt."

The Alfalfa Dinner

Lynne Duke writes in The Washington Post from outside the black-tie event: "President George W. Bush, who has attended Alfalfa every year of his presidency, once again served as the chief executive of comedy with a blast of one-liners that seemed hilarious, if only on the printed page. And that, dear reader, is all we can go on, since part of the exclusivity of the Alfalfa Club dinner includes a bar against press attendance -- the better to let the nation's 'best men' and women let loose.

"'In our very first meeting, Speaker Pelosi told me her number one priority was helping the unemployed, so, Jeb, I gave her your number.'

"That was Bush, according to his remarks."

A Miserable Failure

Noam Cohen writes in the New York Times that "a favored online tactic to mock the president -- altering the Google search engine so the words 'miserable failure' lead to President Bush's home page at the White House -- has been neutralized.

"Google announced on Thursday on its official blog that 'by improving our analysis of the link structure of the Web' such mischief would instead 'typically return commentary, discussions, and articles' about the tactic itself."

Danny Sullivan writes for Search Engine Land that bloggers "bombed" the Google results by linking the words miserable failure to the Bush bio.

RIP Deborah Orin-Eilbeck

Geoff Earle, Rita Delfiner and Cynthia R. Fagen write in the New York Post: "Deborah Orin-Eilbeck, The Post's longtime Washington, D.C., bureau chief whose passion for politics and unrivaled integrity kept the high and mighty on their toes, died yesterday after a battle with cancer."

In an official White House statement, Bush announced: "Laura and I were saddened to learn of the death of Deborah Orin-Eilbeck. . . . Deb fought a valiant battle against cancer with the same tenacity, devotion, and determination that she brought to her work in the White House briefing room through numerous Administrations."

Froomkin Watch

Thanks for all the very kind get-well-soon e-mails. I had been feeling a bit dodgy for a while, and on Wednesday discovered that I had pneumonia. After a few days off, I'm feeling a bit more energetic, and hopefully am back on my regular schedule.

I am, however, almost three weeks and several hundred e-mails behind on my correspondence. I'll try to catch up soon, but if I haven't gotten back to you, please forgive me.

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

www.jtf.org

Netanyahu Did Not
Learn From History

(Originally published by JTF.ORG on December 30, 1998)

Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin with Egyptian Muslim Nazi terrorist dictator Anwar Sadat and the far left-wing Jew-hater Jimmy Carter at Camp David

At the recent Wye Plantation summit, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu decided to betray the Land of Israel by surrendering 13% of Judea and Samaria to the Arab Hitler Yasser Arafat and his PLO-Fatah terrorist mass murderers.

Every Israeli government that has surrendered Jewish land has fallen disgracefully by the hand of G-d.

The first example of this immutable law of Jewish history was seen in the Israeli elections of 1977.

The Communist Labor regime of the late Bolshevik dictator Yitzchak Rabin (he was also Prime Minister in the 1970s) had retreated from roughly one-fifth of the sacred Sinai Peninsula in the so-called 1975 "interim agreement" with Nazi Egypt. That surrender led directly to the Marxist Labor party's ouster from power in 1977 after 29 years of totalitarian rule over the people of Israel. But the self-hating Jewish politicians who run Israel did not learn.

Jimmy Carter, a classic left-wing Jew-hater, put relentless pressure on little Israel and its leader, Menachem Begin, to commit suicide

The New York Times rejoices in the surrender of the Sinai to Muslim terrorist Egypt - The Sinai's loss reduced the Jewish homeland to a quarter of its former size and deprived it of valuable petroleum and mineral resources, all for a worthless piece of paper promising "peace" with the Egyptian military dictators

In 1977, Menachem Begin's Likud party took power promising not to surrender a single inch of Jewish land.

Yet within months of becoming Prime Minister, the hopelessly weak and cowardly Begin was already offering Egyptian Nazi dictator Anwar el-Sadat the entire G-d-given Sinai.

Begin carried out, in stages, the complete surrender of the sacred Sinai. The final surrender came in April 1982.

Guided by Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, Egyptian Muslim terrorist military dictator Anwar Sadat, who supported the German Nazis in World War II and wrote eulogies to Adolf Hitler, tours the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial (November 20, 1977) - During the same Jerusalem visit, Sadat wore a tie patterned with the Nazi swastika to the Israeli Knesset (Parliament)

Due to the Sinai surrender, Israel's economy was devastated and Begin tried to prove his "toughness" again by entering into a disastrous military excursion in Lebanon.

In 1983, Begin was forced to resign as a sick and broken man whose government had been an abysmal failure in all areas. But the self-hating Jewish politicians who run Israel did not learn.

In 1984, a new "national unity government" was formed because neither Labor nor Likud could muster enough coalition support to form a regime on its own. That was also the year when Israel was greatly blessed by the election of the giant of our generation, HaRav Meir Kahane, to the Knesset (Israeli Parliament).

The new Likud-Labor "unity" regime barred Rabbi Kahane from running again in 1988 when his movement was about to win 10% of the Knesset seats according to national polls.

Israel's left-wing Likud-Labor "unity" regime banned Rabbi Meir Kahane from running for the Knesset (Parliament) when he warned that the regime's capitulationist policies toward the Arab Muslim terrorists would lead to increased war, terror and bloodshed - Rabbi Kahane's warnings were realized in December 1987 when the Arab Muslim terrorists launched their intifada

Then the Arab Muslim Nazi terrorist intifada started in December 1987, and the "unity government" was widely acknowledged to have been a disaster for Israel. But the self-hating Jewish politicians who run Israel did not learn.

In 1988, the Likud took power again and this time began to implement a program of increasing the number of Jewish pioneers who live in the lands liberated by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Government ministers openly conceded that the pressure of the Kahanist movement had been responsible for triggering this program of strengthening the Jewish presence in Biblical Israel. Yet the Likud's insistence upon banning the Kahanist movement would eventually lead to the government's downfall.

The Persian Gulf War started in 1991, and the Likud cowards did not strike back when Iraqi Nazi dictator Saddam Hussein fired 39 lethal Scud missiles at Tel Aviv.

In the 1992 Knesset election, the Kahanist parties were again banned even after the murder of our holy Rabbi, and the Likud was voted out of power. But the self-hating Jewish politicians who run Israel did not learn.

Israeli prime minister Yitzchak Rabin meets with Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany and King Hussein of Muslim terrorist Jordan in Hussein's "royal Bedouin tent" - During the 1967 Six Day War, Hussein urged his soldiers to obey the Koran by dismembering Jewish men, women and children with their bare hands

The Arab Hitler Yasser Arafat and Israeli autocrat Yitzchak Rabin share a Nobel "peace" prize for hastening the dismemberment of Israel

In 1992, the new regime of Yitzchak Rabin and Shimon Peres took power. They immediately negotiated with the PLO Nazi murderers an agreement to surrender Israel's heartland.

Arab terrorist bombs accompanied each Jewish territorial retreat. The Rabin-Peresite regime became extremely unpopular.

In 1995, a young Sephardi Jew named Yigal Amir was entrapped by government provocateurs into assassinating Rabin. Peres became Prime Minister and scheduled early elections for May 1996. More Arab bombs went off, murdering dozens of Jews, and Labor unexpectedly was thrown out of office by the voters. But the self-hating Jews who run Israel did not learn.

Now Netanyahu, who won the 1996 election, is the latest casualty of the self-hating Jewish insistence that Israel must fear Washington or the United Nations or the Nazi news media or the Arab Muslim Nazi world rather than fear the G-d of the universe. The self-hating Jewish politicians who run Israel will never learn.

Binyamin Netanyahu sided with Ariel Sharon until the eleventh hour of Sharon's timetable to expel the Jews of the Gaza District and northern Samaria

Arab Muslims attend the November 1995 funeral of Yitzchak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister who did everything in his power to surrender Israel's sacred heartland to the Arab Muslim terrorists

Which is why Jews and righteous Gentiles who understand the importance of the cause of Israel must support JTF.

For the same G-d Who brings down leaders and nations is also watching each of us individually, and He will ask each of us what we did in this world to fulfill His will. That is the most important question which any of us will ever face.

"Right-wing" Israeli leader Binyamin Netanyahu with the Arab Hitler Yasser Arafat, an AIDS-infected pedophile so notorious for perverted debauchery that the head of the Romanian secret service called him a mix of "blood and filth"

Binyamin Netanyahu refused to see the fate which awaited him if he continued to destroy Israel's sacred heartland in favor of a PLO Arab Muslim terrorist state

Isn't it a disgrace that JTF does not have millions of dollars to reach all of the Jews in Israel with this vital message?

Especially now when most Israeli Jews are very disappointed with how the war in Lebanon was conducted, and are very fearful about the future.

The time is ripe for JTF's message.

Binyamin Netanyahu and his political ally, Ariel Sharon

Having carried out his insane plan to expel the Jews of the Gaza District and northern Samaria, Ariel Sharon was felled by a stroke and has since remained in a coma, suffering successive bouts of intestinal, kidney, lung and heart failure

Now more than ever, we must reach as many Israeli Jews as possible with our vital message of truth.

The more money we raise, the more Jews we reach.

JTF supports the political activities of the Hilltop Youth, and therefore is not tax-deductible.

Left-wing Jewish wimp Shimon Peres with Javier Solana of the Jew-hating European Union

The Voice of Jewish Activism (VJA) is strictly non-political. It supports the educational efforts and the humanitarian needs of the Hilltop Youth and right-wing Jewish dissidents and therefore is tax-deductible.

Now in an almost certainly irreversible coma, Ariel Sharon suffered the same fate as every other leader of Israel who tries to surrender her ancient and sacred soil

Your generous checks and money orders made out to "VJA" can be sent to:

VJA
POB 650327
Fresh Meadows, NY 11365

Visit the JTF Forum in English, created and maintained by friends of our organization

During the 2004 Purim celebration in Israel, a Jewish child dressed as an Orthodox medic, the personnel responsible for recovering body parts after Arab Muslim terrorist suicide bombings

We need loyal, idealistic, Torah-true Jews to lead the struggle against the traitor Sharon's suicidal plan to create an independent PLO terrorist state in the heartland of Biblical Israel.

We have the Torah-true leaders and we have the thousands of young idealists. But they need more money to conduct such a huge and sophisticated campaign.

A young Jew is thrown out of a window by Israeli police thugs at the February 1, 2006 battle for Amona

In the historic struggle for Israel's survival, this is the moment of truth.

Which is why we strongly urge our many loyal readers - both Jews and righteous Gentiles - to immediately do the following four things:

First, if you are a wealthy Jew or a wealthy righteous Gentile, and you have wealthy friends and associates, you can hold a fundraising party for JTF (which is political but not tax-deductible) or VJA (which is tax-deductible and non-political). Even if you are not wealthy - but have wealthy friends and associates - you can organize a fundraising party. If you are interested, please contact us.

Visit the JTF forum in Hebrew, created and maintained by friends of our organization

Second, make out a generous check or money order (which can be anonymous) to "JTF" or "VJA" and send it out right away. If you prefer, you can also mail a cash donation.

Third, zealously spread the word about the JTF.ORG web site. Posting portions of JTF.ORG on popular internet message boards is especially effective. We do get many new hits when we are posted.

Fourth, please remember to include the "Jewish Task Force (JTF)" and/or the "Voice of Jewish


.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

TUES. - Jan. 30, 2007

I do not recommend the purchase of any SOG knife, this is my personal opinion only as I have encountered hostility and misery with their warranty dept. The woman there is very nasty and there are far better choices in the purchase of a knife such as COLD STEEL and BENCHMADE etc, etc, etc. There is no one to talk to that seems to want to help some one like me that runs into defective SOG knives. AT THIS TIME I HONESTLY FEEL THAT THE PURCHASE OF A SOG PRODUCT IS A TOTAL WASTE OF YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY. THERE ARE SO MANY BETTER KNIVES TO CHOOSE FROM MADE BY OTHER COMPANIES.

Teddy