Political leanings of the expat community?

Bill over at Outside Counsel has posted a link to ExpatsAgainstBush along with an intriguing question:

Actually, it would be interesting to see how Americans overseas shake out on the question of current US leadership. Even if you were to somehow control for American military stationed abroad, I think they would still be overwhelmingly Republican, but that's just a hunch.

Hmmm. I've no doubt the military arm of the expat community is pretty conservative, but I wonder about the civvies.

If you accept that the expat community are generally going to be middle class and well educated, then where does that leave us? I will go out here on a limb and say that those of us who have embraced moving abroad as a choice and an exploration would probably be of a more liberal disposition. Then again, that's just my hunch. I wonder about the political leanings of those who view their expatriate status as a burden rather than a privilege. Then again the desire to stay close to one's family is universal, as is the desire to explore, so all this may just be conjecture.

But there's a factor in the expatriate community that must be allowed for: unless you live in a walled off compound (Bahrain anyone?) surrounded by other Yanks, you're going to be influenced a bit by the natives, especially if you like them and respect them. I'm definitely more liberal than I was when I moved to London. This is not an impressionable college student here. I've just found that you get exposed to a much larger range of opinions and facts than you would back home.

I am in no way anti-American, and neither would I expect are the vast majority of the expat community. I love my country and will return there someday. But we live in a world which is increasingly distrustful of America (unless you watch Fox), and there's no denying that living out there in that world has an influence on expat opinion, for good or evil. I've not heard any gung-ho expats chiming in yet, but I've gotten links and emails from any number of liberal expats.

Surely there are conservative expats? Where are they? Are they blogging? Is it just deeply uncool to be a pro-Bush expat?

Comments

[Bill Altreuter]

Actually, it is uncool to be a pro-Bush anything.

Apart from that, it seems to me that expats are a pretty diverse group, even excluding military. The majority of the expats I know tend to be kind of open-minded types who are probably more socially liberal than not-- but that is true of most of my friends generally, so it is hardly a reliable barometer.

There are quite a few expats that I am aquatinted with, however, that have signed on to work with multinational corporations, and live in what amount to colonies. Many of these folks are probably closer to Ronald Reagan in their politics, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit to find that these are (a) quite a bit more numerous than is supposed; and (ii) big Bush supporters.

[Luke]

In my gut, I would have to agree with the last part - but it's pure conjecture. I don't know enough "compound expats" to be able to say which way they lean.

[michael agelasto]

Most of the expats I meet (living in China or bicycling in Europe) are anti-US foreign policy. I don't think the current president is the REAL problem. I think he does a fairly good job reflecting the views of US citizens. That's where the problem lies.

[John, Tokyo]

Well, I don't know how Conservative I am. I don't have a blog although I keep meaning to start one. If I did though, it wouldn't be overly political and I am not overly partisan and I spoke in defense of Clinton during the Kosovo campaign and during the Lewinsky scandal and against general Clinton-bashing from other expats. Since 9/11 however, I have come to support the "Neo-conservative" point of view and I generally have a favorable impression of Bush's leadership. Some of the Democratic candidates have attractive qualities but I don't like their overall direction and I fear that they would act irresponsibly with foreign policy - chosing popular short term positions while deferring the difficult long term problems.

I have lived in Mexico and currently reside in Japan. My experience in Mexico taught me the importance of branching out from the "compound" or the genral "expat community". It's a must in order to pick up the language and to make the most of your time abroad and come to a better understanding of the place. In Japan, most of my friends and coworkers are Japanese. I speak and read Japanese.

I expect that the expat experience might attract people of a more liberal mindset. I certainly was more liberal when I started out. In many ways, I still am a liberal in the classic sense of the word but I have come to believe that the Liberal politics in the American domestic politics sense are becoming increasingly alienated from liberal ideals. It is a general phenomenon that many people grow more conservative as they get older. I'm still fairly young and I still love the expat lifestyle but what can I say, I would vote Bush over any of the current Democratic candidates.

As you all know, expats often have to explain America and American policy to the curious, the bewildered, as well as the outraged. Whether we like it or not, we are de-facto ambassadors and we can be put on the spot.

Since 9/11 and with the War on Terror, our positions are more sensitive than ever. The build up to the Iraq War was most intense. I can see why it would be even more frustrating for those vehemently opposed to Bush, his stance and the Iraq War (or even the War in Afghanistan). Although, I suppose it would be easier for you when confronted by a person with objections to American policy to just say: "Hey, I agree with you. Don't look at me, I hate Bush."

I find it's tough to try to engage someone in discussion, especially in Japan where Pacifism is the overwhelmingly poplur political philosophy. In other ways, Japan may be easier since there is not the general leftist, anti-globalist, ideologically driven opposition here that exists in Europe or the historical anti-Yanqui sentiments of Latin America.

[Andy]

I'm an expat in Korea. I've been teaching English here for five years and about 90% of my socializing is with Koreans. There is a fair amount of anti-Americanism but a lot less than you would expect from watching all the protests on TV.

I would guess that you have a fairly even mix of liberals and conservatives among non-military expats in Korea. I am conservative as are a fair number of the active expat bloggers in Korea. You can always check for yourself on the Korean bloggers list: http://korea.banoffeepie.com/

[angel]

I can't speak for any other expats, but I decided to leave the U.S. when I was about 13 because of America's terrible foreign policies and complete lack of social conscience.

I would conjecture that people who leave a country with the intention of never going back are likely to be unhappy with the government specifically (since, if you were unhappy with your immediate surroundings, you could simply leave the state or the area).

Since the U.S. government is comparatively right-wing (to the rest of the world), it logically follows that ex-pats who are unhappy with the government are more likely to be moderate or liberal.

In my experience, it happens in reverse too: the people I know who have left the UK to emigrate to the US have been very conservative indeed.

YMMV.

[rastagar]

dude, I've been travelling/living in Europe for over a year now. While here, I cannot think of one single occasion when I met an American supporter of Bush - very much the opposite from what I've seen.

[James Morris]

In addition to the following (to find out the real motivation for why we invaded Iraq), please access the "Articles" message board via clicking on "War against Terror" after arriving at http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk

Richard Perle Denounces the Franco-German Couple

The Pentagon Calls on Berlin to Get in Line
Reseau Voltaire Net
Friday 07 November 2003 Pentagon Advisor Richard Perle was on a mission this weekend in Berlin. Taking the side of German Defense Minister, Peter Struck, during a symposium, he denounced the deepening of Franco-German ties and their consequences for Atlantic relations. Responding sharply to the provocation, the former French General Staff Head, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, accused the Pentagon advisor of coming to stir up ill will in Europe. Mr. Perle had come to Berlin to look for German support for a possible U.S. military initiative. The 14th forum “Bundeswehr and Society” took place November 3 and 4 in Berlin. Founded in 1988, this annual event is co-sponsored by the German Defense Ministry and the Sunday supplement of the German daily, Die Welt. Two hundred personalities participated on the premises of the German publishing group, Axel Springer. The principle speakers were Peter Struck (German Defense Minister), Lord George Robertson (NATO General), General James Jones (Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe), Richard Perle (member of the Pentagon’s political advisory council), and Wolfgang Schneiderhahn (Bundeswehr Inspector General). During the debates, Richard Perle gave his viewpoint on “the idea that Germany should submit to French ideas”. He denounced “France and Germany’s strong tendency to express their solidarity on the least opportunity” by virtue of a “false belief that that solidarity is essential for European peace.” An attitude that will only aggravate “the very real problems between Europe and the Atlantic Alliance.” Sharply intervening in the debate, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, former Head of the French armed services General Staff, questioned Richard Perle’s behavior, accusing him of coming to the conference to divide and oppose Paris and Berlin, and in a general way of trying by all means to provoke a crisis between Europe and the United States. French and German authorities have jointly agreed not to publicize this incident. In the European General Staffs, it is believed that Richard Perle came to Berlin to try to split up the Franco-German couple and get the support from Chancellor Schroeder necessary for a new military initiative.

Please read the Sydney Morning Herald which is linked at this URL as "Cheney's Hawks" (Karen Kwiatkowski is a guest on Don Bustany's "Middle East in Focus" radio program in Los Angeles tomorrow at 8 PM local time as you can listen via the link at www.kpfk.org):

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html

The following is the email that I sent this morning to writers of the "Newsweek" cover story on Cheney (my comments about the article are included):

Subj: JINSA/PNAC Cheney on "Newsweek" Cover this Week
Date: 11/11/03 11:01:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: MORRIS434
To: michael.isikoff

Dear Mr. Isikoff,

Thank you for your time on the telephone earlier today. Here is the email which I mentioned that I would send you with comment on your cover article for Newsweek this week:

Cheney's Long Path to War (Cover Article in the November 17th, 2003 issue of "Newsweek" magazine):

The Hard Sell: He sifted intel. He brooded about threats. And he wanted Saddam gone. The inside story of how Vice President Cheney bought into shady assumptions and helped persuade a nation to invade Iraq

http://www.msnbc.com/news/991209.asp?0cv=CB20

This "Newsweek" magazine article is about the Cheney Neoconservative cabal that pushed US to invade Iraq for Israel and oil (as Cheney was on the board of advisors for JINSA and was involved with PNAC as well-he was also the CEO for Halliburton).

The "Newsweek" article still falls short though because it doesn't mention that Cheney, Feith, and Perle (who are all mentioned in the article as being part of the Neoconsevative cabal) are all associated with JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) which had wanted regime change in Iraq for years before the tragic 9/11 attack... The article allowed Cheney to have a staff member get away (without being challenged about Cheney's JINSA/PNAC association) with conveying that Cheney wasn't for "regime change" in Iraq until the tragic 9/11 attack..
As JINSA had wanted regime change in Iraq for years before 9/11 (and Cheney had been associated with JINSA and PNAC), Cheney (via his staff member who commented for that "Newsweek" article) is lying. In addition, Cheney was associated with PNAC (Project for the New American Century) which had wanted regime change in Iraq well before 9/11 as well (see the Bob Barr article on PNAC which is included below as it also mentions Cheney). So of course Cheney was involved with distorting and "cooking" intelligence to suit his JINSA/PNAC agenda of wanting to invade and do regime change in Iraq as soon as possible.

To read about Iraq and JINSA, type in "Iraq" at www.jinsa.org (if the "Iraq" material is still referenced there like it was before the Iraq invasion). In addition, Wolfowitz (whose mentor was JINSA/PNAC Zionist extremist Richard Perle) had put together that pre-emptive strike doctrine while Cheney was the Secretary of Defense under Bush Senior in the early 1990's, so Cheney was fully aware of it and wanted regime change in Iraq for years before the 9/11 attack.

Also, the writers of that "Newsweek" article didn't mention the Israeli spies at the Pentagon as you can read in the "Israeli Spies at the Pentagon" article from the UK Guardian newspaper which is linked under the photos of the Zion traitors (Israel Firsters) at www.nowarforisrael.com.

In addition, the "Newsweek" writers did not mention that "A Clean Break" document which JINSA Zionist extremists Richard Perle and Douglas Feith wrote for Israeli Zionist extremist Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996 (as "A Clean Break" advised for Israel to do regime change in Iraq and in Syria as well as dissolve the Palestinian peace process). When Perle and Feith got into power/influential positions at the Pentagon in the current Bush regime, they had the US military do regime change in Iraq instead of Israel (with Syria to follow soon if they can get away with it). Zionist (Jew) extremist David Wurmser (who is also mentioned in the "Newsweek" article) was also involved with putting together that "A Clean Break" advisory paper (which you can read by clicking on the embedded link for "A Clean Break" at the following URL):

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j100603.html

It is important to also know that Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and John Bolton (all mentioned below in the article from the "Forward" which is a respected Jewish publication out of New York) are JINSANs as well.. Perle is also associated with PNAC (which would like to have a confrontation with Russia and China sooner rather than later as you can access the JINSA web site at www.jinsa.org and PNAC's URL via www.newamericancentury.org). Robert Fisk (a respected journalist for the London Independent newspaper as you can read more via www.robert-fisk.com) wrote about JINSA (and Dick Cheney's association to JINSA as he is also associated with PNAC) in the following article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk0910.html

Fisk mentions this article ("Men from JINSA and CSP") from "The Nation" which is a must read as well:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020902&s=vest

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

March 24, 2003 issue

The American Conservative

Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties

http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html
Counterpunch
December 13, 2002

A Rose By Another Other Name

The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties

by KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON
former CIA political analysts

Subj: Re: New Neocon Player Added to Secret White House Cabal

The following article appeared in the UK Guardian newspaper (via www.guardian.co.uk) and mentioned Meyrav Wurmser who is now working with Dick Cheney (as conveyed in the article from the "Forward" which is included after the following):

World dispatch

Selective Memri

Brian Whitaker investigates whether the 'independent' media institute that translates the Arabic newspapers is quite what it seems

Monday August 12, 2002

For some time now, I have been receiving small gifts from a generous institute in the United States. The gifts are high-quality translations of articles from Arabic newspapers which the institute sends to me by email every few days, entirely free-of-charge.
The emails also go to politicians and academics, as well as to lots of other journalists. The stories they contain are usually interesting.
Whenever I get an email from the institute, several of my Guardian colleagues receive one too and regularly forward their copies to me - sometimes with a note suggesting that I might like to check out the story and write about it.
If the note happens to come from a more senior colleague, I'm left feeling that I really ought to write about it. One example last week was a couple of paragraphs translated by the institute, in which a former doctor in the Iraqi army claimed that Saddam Hussein had personally given orders to amputate the ears of military deserters.
The organisation that makes these translations and sends them out is the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), based in Washington but with recently-opened offices in London, Berlin and Jerusalem.
Its work is subsidised by US taxpayers because as an "independent, non-partisan, non-profit" organisation, it has tax-deductible status under American law.
Memri's purpose, according to its website, is to bridge the language gap between the west - where few speak Arabic - and the Middle East, by "providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media".
Despite these high-minded statements, several things make me uneasy whenever I'm asked to look at a story circulated by Memri. First of all, it's a rather mysterious organisation. Its website does not give the names of any people to contact, not even an office address.
The reason for this secrecy, according to a former employee, is that "they don't want suicide bombers walking through the door on Monday morning" (Washington Times, June 20).
This strikes me as a somewhat over-the-top precaution for an institute that simply wants to break down east-west language barriers.
The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease.
Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: "Memri's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."
Memri might, of course, argue that it is seeking to encourage moderation by highlighting the blatant examples of intolerance and extremism. But if so, one would expect it - for the sake of non-partisanship - t o publicise extremist articles in the Hebrew media too.
Although Memri claims that it does provide translations from Hebrew media, I can't recall receiving any.
Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market, the institute also emphasises "the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel".
That is what its website used to say, but the words about Zionism have now been deleted. The original page, however, can still be found in internet archives.
The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.
Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.
Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.
Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the sixth is a former stand-up comedian.
Col Carmon's co-founder at Memri is Meyrav Wurmser, who is also director of the centre for Middle East policy at the Indianapolis-based Hudson Institute, which bills itself as "America's premier source of applied research on enduring policy challenges".
The ubiquitous Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's defence policy board, recently joined Hudson's board of trustees.
Ms Wurmser is the author of an academic paper entitled Can Israel Survive Post-Zionism? in which she argues that leftwing Israeli intellectuals pose "more than a passing threat" to the state of Israel, undermining its soul and reducing its will for self-defence.
In addition, Ms Wurmser is a highly qualified, internationally recognised, inspiring and knowledgeable speaker on the Middle East whose presence would make any "event, radio or television show a unique one" - according to Benador Associates, a public relations company which touts her services.
Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output.
The email it circulated last week about Saddam Hussein ordering people's ears to be cut off was an extract from a longer article in the pan-Arab newspaper, al-Hayat, by Adil Awadh who claimed to have first-hand knowledge of it.
It was the sort of tale about Iraqi brutality that newspapers would happily reprint without checking, especially in the current atmosphere of war fever. It may well be true, but it needs to be treated with a little circumspection.
Mr Awadh is not exactly an independent figure. He is, or at least was, a member of the Iraqi National Accord, an exiled Iraqi opposition group backed by the US - and neither al-Hayat nor Memri mentioned this.
Also, Mr Awadh's allegation first came to light some four years ago, when he had a strong personal reason for making it. According to a Washington Post report in 1998, the amputation claim formed part of his application for political asylum in the United States.
At the time, he was one of six Iraqis under arrest in the US as suspected terrorists or Iraqi intelligence agents, and he was trying to show that the Americans had made a mistake.
Earlier this year, Memri scored two significant propaganda successes against Saudi Arabia. The first was its translation of an article from al-Riyadh newspaper in which a columnist wrote that Jews use the blood of Christian or Muslim children in pastries for the Purim religious festival.
The writer, a university teacher, was apparently relying on an anti-semitic myth that dates back to the middle ages. What this demonstrated, more than anything, was the ignorance of many Arabs - even those highly educated - about Judaism and Israel, and their readiness to believe such ridiculous stories.
But Memri claimed al-Riyadh was a Saudi "government newspaper" - in fact it's privately owned - implying that the article had some form of official approval.
Al-Riyadh's editor said he had not seen the article before publication because he had been abroad. He apologised without hesitation and sacked his columnist, but by then the damage had been done.
Memri's next success came a month later when Saudi Arabia's ambassador to London wrote a poem entitled The Martyrs - about a young woman suicide bomber - which was published in al-Hayat newspaper.
Memri sent out translated extracts from the poem, which it described as "praising suicide bombers". Whether that was the poem's real message is a matter of interpretation. It could, perhaps more plausibly, be read as condemning the political ineffectiveness of Arab leaders, but Memri's interpretation was reported, almost without question, by the western media.
These incidents involving Saudi Arabia should not be viewed in isolation. They are part of building a case against the kingdom and persuading the United States to treat it as an enemy, rather than an ally.
It's a campaign that the Israeli government and American neo-conservatives have been pushing since early this year - one aspect of which was the bizarre anti-Saudi briefing at the Pentagon, hosted last month by Richard Perle.
To anyone who reads Arabic newspapers regularly, it should be obvious that the items highlighted by Memri are those that suit its agenda and are not representative of the newspapers' content as a whole.
The danger is that many of the senators, congressmen and "opinion formers" who don't read Arabic but receive Memri's emails may get the idea that these extreme examples are not only truly representative but also reflect the policies of Arab governments.
Memri's Col Carmon seems eager to encourage them in that belief. In Washington last April, in testimony to the House committee on international relations, he portrayed the Arab media as part of a wide-scale system of government-sponsored indoctrination.
"The controlled media of the Arab governments conveys hatred of the west, and in particular, of the United States," he said. "Prior to September 11, one could frequently find articles which openly supported, or even called for, terrorist attacks against the United States ...
"The United States is sometimes compared to Nazi Germany, President Bush to Hitler, Guantanamo to Auschwitz," he said.
In the case of the al-Jazeera satellite channel, he added, "the overwhelming majority of guests and callers are typically anti-American and anti-semitic".
Unfortunately, it is on the basis of such sweeping generalisations that much of American foreign policy is built these days.
As far as relations between the west and the Arab world are concerned, language is a barrier that perpetuates ignorance and can easily foster misunderstanding.
All it takes is a small but active group of Israelis to exploit that barrier for their own ends and start changing western perceptions of Arabs for the worse.
It is not difficult to see what Arabs might do to counter that. A group of Arab media companies could get together and publish translations of articles that more accurately reflect the content of their newspapers.
It would certainly not be beyond their means. But, as usual, they may prefer to sit back and grumble about the machinations of Israeli intelligence veterans.
The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and Clarifications column, Wednesday August 21 2002
In an article headed Atrocity stories regain currency, page 13, August 8, and in an article headed Selective Memri on the Guardian website, we referred to Dr Adil Awadh, an Iraqi doctor who alleged that Saddam Hussein had ordered doctors to amputate the ears of soldiers who deserted. Dr Awadh has asked us to make it clear that he has no connection with Memri (Middle East Media Research Institute), and that he did not authorise its translation of parts of an article by him. He is no longer a member of the Iraqi National Accord (INA). He is an independent member of the Iraqi National Congress (INC). His reference to orders by Saddam Hussein to cut off the ears of deserters has been supported by evidence from other sources.

Read Memri's response to this article
21.08.2002: Media organisation rebuts accusations of selective journalism

Email
brian.whitaker@guardian.co.uk

Cheney wants to "remodel the entire middle east"--"Shadow Government"

11/03/03

> New Player Added to Secret White House Cabal

> QUOTE:

> "The question is, how does the vice president's [national security staff]
> function in relation to the president's national security staff and how
> important policy decisions are made in the White House. While the vice
> president has a critical role to play, the secrecy surrounding his
> unusually large foreign-policy staff raises many questions which the
> American public needs answered."
>
>
> http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.10.31/news2.wurmser.html
>
>
>
> FORWARD
> OCTOBER 31, 2003
>
> Cheney Taps Syria Hawk As Adviser On Mideast
> By MARC PERELMAN
> FORWARD STAFF
>
> Despite mounting criticism of the administration's Iraq policy, Vice
> President Dick Cheney appears to be ratcheting up his commitment to the
> circle of neoconservative intellectuals who helped spearhead President
> Bush's war policy, adding one of its most controversial proponents to his
> national security staff in a little-noticed move last month.
>
> David Wurmser, a neoconservative scholar known for his close ties to the
> Israeli right, was appointed in mid-September to join the team led by
> Cheney's national security adviser, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. In recent years
> Wurmser, who boasts a complex network of relationships to a variety of
> pro-Likud think tanks and activist groups, has frequently written articles
> arguing for a joint American-Israeli effort to undermine the Syrian
regime.
>
> Wurmser's appointment sheds light on the prominent role played by Cheney
> and his national security staff in shaping foreign policy and coincides
> with the deterioration in the relations between Washington and Damascus.
In
> recent months, Washington has accused Syria of sheltering Iraqi leaders,
> weapons and money and of allowing terrorists into Iraq. The administration
> backed Israel's recent bombing of a suspected terrorist training camp in
> Syria and dropped its objections to a congressional bill that grants the
> president the right to impose sanctions on Damascus.
>
> "The vice president undoubtedly chooses staff whose views are compatible
> with the policies of the administration," wrote Judith Kipper, a Middle
> East scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations, in an e-mail to the
> Forward. "The question is, how does the vice president's [national
security
> staff] function in relation to the president's national security staff and
> how important policy decisions are made in the White House. While the vice
> president has a critical role to play, the secrecy surrounding his
> unusually large foreign-policy staff raises many questions which the
> American public needs answered."
>
> Cathy Martin, a spokeswoman for Cheney, confirmed that Wurmser had
recently
> been hired, adding that he is serving as one of many foreign-policy
> advisers to the vice president. She declined to comment on questions about
> Cheney's or Wurmser's ideological leanings.
>
> Before his appointment, Wurmser had served as a senior adviser to John
> Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international
> security and one of the sharpest critics of Syria within the
> administration. In speeches and testimonies over the past year, Bolton has
> sounded increasingly alarmist far more so than the intelligence
> community about Syria's weapons programs.
>
> Wurmser's appointment was first reported by Inter-Press Service and
> elicited criticism from the Arab American Institute, an advocacy
organization.
>
> Wurmser is the main author of a 1996 policy paper drafted for then-Israeli
> prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a task force composed of
> neo-conservative scholars. The white paper, titled "A Clean Break: A New
> Strategy for Securing the Realm," advocated a remodeling of the Middle
East
> that some critics see as a rough blueprint for the policy adopted by the
> Bush administration after the September 11 attacks. The paper advocated a
> strategy of preemptive action to remove Saddam Hussein from power, a
> "rollback" of Syria and the search for alternatives to Yasser Arafat.
>
> "Whoever inherits Iraq dominates the entire Levant strategically," said
the
> paper, which was commissioned by the Jerusalem-based Institute for
Advanced
> Strategic and Political Studies, where Wurmser was working at the time.
>
> The task force was headed by Richard Perle, now a key Pentagon adviser who
> sits on the Defense Policy Board. Its members included Douglas Feith,
> currently the undersecretary of defense for policy and one of the main
> proponents of the war in Iraq.
>
> Another member of the task force was Wurmser's Israeli-born wife, Meyrav
> Wurmser, who heads the Middle East studies department at the conservative
> Hudson Institute. She is a founder of the Middle East Media Research
> Institute, or Memri, which translates Arabic press reports and which
> critics say highlights negative views of the West.
>
> The policy paper suggested that in order to transform the "balance of
> power" in the Middle East in favor of an axis consisting of Israel, Turkey
> and Jordan, Saddam should be removed and replaced by a Hashemite ruler.
>
> The next step would be a "rollback" of Syria by sponsoring proxy attacks
in
> Lebanon and even striking at selected targets in Syria. In the late 1990s,
> Wurmser wrote frequently, arguing for a joint U.S.-Israeli effort to
> undermine the Syrian regime.
>
> On Tuesday, retired Air Force General James Clapper, director of the
> National Imagery and Mapping Agency, told reporters he was not surprised
> that U.S. forces had not discovered any chemical, biological or nuclear
> weapons in Iraq, citing a big increase in the number of vehicles heading
to
> Syria before the war. The administration also has renewed long-standing
> accusations that Damascus is developing chemical and biological weapons
and
> is supporting terrorist groups operating against Israel, despite pledges
to
> crack down on them

here's what Bob Barr, hardly a left-leaning figure in politics has to say about the PNAC. the truth sometimes crosses political lines.

The brave new world of the neo-cons
World domination can get mighty pricey
BY BOB BARR

I could deal with "neo-conservatives," if they were just a bunch of converted liberals. But their newly influential movement is more troublesome than that. It threatens the American body politic with ever-expanding government power, larger bureaucracies and losses of our fundamental freedoms.

The movement's elevated status can be traced directly to Sept. 11, 2001, although it was developing into a major political force long before then. Michael Lind writes in The New Statesman that neo-conservatives' roots reach back to the anti-communist liberalism that took hold in America from the 1950s to the 1970s. Others trace its religious fervor -- its self-righteous zeal -- as far back as the Puritans.

Many earlier American political movements were closely tied to an aggressive, military-based foreign policy. In the 19th century, the push toward "manifest destiny" was rooted in an understandable desire on the part of America's leaders to extend America's continental reach to meet the needs of a nation struggling to industrialize and capitalize its resources. In the early 20th century, Teddy Roosevelt, often viewed as an imperialist, actually exercised considerable restraint in the use of American military power when he involved troops in circumstances clearly limited in time and scope. Woodrow Wilson's ill-fated drive to "make the world safe for democracy" was born of a genuine, if unrealistic notion that political freedom was preferable to tyranny and that democratic governments would be less predisposed to war as a tool of political power. Though Wilson's effort failed miserably, the goal was to avoid, not foster, war.

But neo-conservatives rely on the raw and aggressive use of military power to a unique degree, and their almost messianic mission to root out "bad guys" around the world, is unprecedented.

In 1997, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think tank headquartered in Washington, issued a Statement of Principles that lays out the neo-conservative vision of an international order completely subservient to U.S. business, military and political interests. At its core, the statement makes clear that nothing less than total, global American military dominance will suffice. The statement was signed by Dick Cheney, who is now vice president, Donald Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense, and Paul Wolfowitz, now deputy defense secretary.

The problem is that such total, global American military dominance would require a huge federal bureaucracy. And even worse: It would require an essentially permanent state of war abroad, as well as a climate of fear at home -- leading to ever-increasing levels of government power. The tragic events of Sept. 11 offered neo-cons the perfect catalyst to move into high gear. And, brother, have they ever.

We now have a huge new bureaucracy -- the Department of Homeland Security -- already creeping beyond its legislatively imposed jurisdiction. We have new laws, including the USA PATRIOT Act, that fundamentally alter the balance of power between citizens and government (in the latter's favor, of course). We see movement to break down the sacrosanct barriers between domestic law enforcement and our military, and between domestic law enforcement and the CIA. And we are witnessing the creation of a rash of invasive programs, such as the Pentagon's Terrorist Information Awareness program, designed to forever take from America's citizens their privacy.

One of the most troubling aspects of neo-conservatism is its intolerance for dissent. Former Education Secretary and drug czar William Bennett, who recently formed an organization called Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, audaciously asserts in an open letter printed as an advertisement in the New York Times that internal dissent poses as much a threat to victory over terrorism as do external groups attacking the United States. The message from neo-cons is clear: Questioning where we are and where they want to lead us is unpatriotic. It's a new and scary direction in American politics that neither true conservatives nor true liberals have historically championed.

When the House of Representatives took a rare, small step away from increased government power, by passing an amendment to a spending bill cutting off funds for so-called "sneak and peek" searches, the Justice Department quickly branded the move "devastating" to America's war against terrorism. Such hyperbole is nonsense, of course, but it reflects the dual-pronged, neo-con strategy of branding any opposition to its agenda as essentially unpatriotic and of using fear as its vehicle of choice.

In 1984, George Orwell described a nation built on fear and perpetual war. "The object of being at war, and therefore in danger," he wrote, "makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival." Let's hope that, at least in this instance, Orwell proves not to be as prescient as in many of his other observations.

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, a Republican, represented parts of Cobb County and Northwest Georgia from 1995 to 2003.
http://www.atlanta.creativeloafing.com/flipside.html

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

[chuck loman]

http://www.barrychamish.com

THE PERES SELLOUT; THE ZEEVI MURDER
by Barry Chamish

Why do people fall for such obvious scams? Bush is really mad at Sharon for his unilateral Gaza pullout because it could hurt his re-election chances. So Sharon has to fly to Washington to beg for his approval.
"Please George, let me withdraw from Gaza?"
"Well, I don't know, Ari."
"Please, please, please."
"Oh alright. But you owe me one."
And even Likud members buy this stunt. It doesn't take much thinking nowadays to sell snake oil.
So if weary Israelis will buy this superficial piece of bunco, what chance is there for them to understand that the Gaza pullout is another step in the road to defeating the rise of Judaism in Israel and revenge against the people's rejection of the Sabbatean ideal of Labor Zionism?
Still, we try against all odds to supply the information hoping there is a spark yet left of the mythical Jewish intelligence.
The following hidden history was supplied by two informants, one being a columnist for Makor Rishon.
The planned disintegration of Israel began in 1988 and Shimon Peres was the agent. The locomotive was the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, the Martin Indyk - run monstrosity.

Informant One - Peres was going to be the instrument of a withdrawal to the '48 lines and he was shuttling between the Washington Institute and the Vatican to sell the plan. It was basically what you've been reporting for years; Israel becomes indefensible, the foreign troops patrol the country, the Vatican gets Jerusalem. The whole package. Indyk was the American coordinator of the plan. The new name for it is the Roadmap.

Informant Two - You have to ask who Indyk really is. How does an Australian just show up in Washington one day, get hold of a think tank, and then run Middle East policy for the country?
I thought your Sabbatean claims were far-fetched when I read them, but they explain Indyk's rise from nowhere as well as anything else. Why was Peres running to him to push his plan? Or more likely, who assigned Indyk to Peres?

One - A key player in Nimrod Novick. He was Peres's liaison to Indyk and after the Oslo Accord, was given a position at the Washington Institute. He's been keeping quiet since then, but he's the point man between Peres and Washington. He negotiated the fine points of the withdrawals and pullouts and the paperwork is stored at the Washington Institute. The plan called for Israel to pull out of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, piece by piece, all the while Israelis would be told that this would be the last withdrawal. That's the same system they used to get the PLO back. First, just Gaza and Jericho and if they don't behave, no more. Israelis would have to be convinced that their country was being compromised in the name of security to fall for this. It's a strong-arm extortion tactic. You get what you want by promising this is the last payment. But of course, the payments never stop.

Two - In 1997, Rehavam Zeevi heard about the Peres-Indyk records stored at the Institute and tried to get copies. His contact within the Institute was a researcher there named Sheldon Stern. His son Jonathan works there as well today but we are told, was not part of the Zeevi operation. Stern explained that he had seen the records and told Zeevi what was in them. He told Zeevi he could get the records to him for $900,000. Zeevi agreed. But then Stern started getting cute. First he wanted $15,000 up front to bribe two guards at the Institute. Zeevi agreed. Then Stern upped the stakes again, asking for $35,000 in legal fees which the guards would need if questioned.

ONE - Zeevi then figured out he was being taken for a ride and returned to his original offer: $900,000 paid in full once he had the documents. He wouldn't budge and the deal fell through. We don't know if Stern was an honest broker or not, but there is reason to believe that he was.
Either way, Zeevi never forgot what he said was in the Peres-Indyk files and began a campaign within the government to short-circuit Peres.

Within two years, both Zeevi and Peres sat in the same cabinet led by Ariel Sharon. There Zeevi became privy first hand to Peres' continuation of his Vatican/Indyk program. In early October, 2001, Zeevi threatened Sharon. If Peres did not stop his secret diplomacy, he would publicly reveal what it involved. Sharon acquiesced and had a letter drawn promising that he would order Peres to cancel a planned meeting with Arafat in Greece. A week before his murder, Zeevi displayed the letter at a party caucus meeting.
Sharon's appeasement did not succeed for long. On October 13, 2001 Zeevi handed Sharon his final ultimatum: Peres is removed from the cabinet or he will resign from the government and take two parties with him; Yisrael B'aliyah and the National Party. Sharon was given a choice between Peres and suicidal withdrawal, or his coalition. Sharon went with Peres and withdrawal.
On Oct. 17, 2001, four hours before Zeevi was to give his resignation speech to the Knesset, explaining who Peres was and why he couldn't sit in the same government as him, he was shot dead outside his hotel room in Jerusalem. Arabs may have been the triggermen, but the order came from within the Israeli government.
Or, put another way: Zeevi died so Sharon could evacuate Gaza.

end

Here is my tour schedule:

April 24, 5 PM, I address the Revisionist Conference in Sacramento. I will present a dramatic speech which will set matters straight yet bridge a seemingly impossible divide. It's one tough balancing act but I found an approach that will work. Witness it: For conference details write:

hataylor@syix.com

APRIL 26 - BERKELEY - UC Berkeley campus. Room 2060, Valley Life
Sciences Building, Monday, April 26th, 7:30-9:30pm. 510 526 7106 ext 12.
e-mail: jesse@livingtreecommunity.com

APRIL 28 - RENO - Temple Emmanuel April 28, evening. please contact:
Ignatzschnauzer@aol.com
pattylee3@juno.com

Temple address:

1031 Manzanita Lane
Reno, NV 89509
tel. (775) 825-5600
fax (775) 825-5661
e-mail countryrebbe@yahoo.com

MAY 1 - DENVER - Saturday - May 1st at 10:30am
Beth Messiah
8333 Acoma Way
North Denver, Colorado
(one block west of I-25 on 84th Ave and one block south in the El Bethel Community Center)

Contact
Don Wiedeman or Beth Messiah at
1-800-205-6245 or Don@AmericaNewsNet.Com

MAY 5 and 6 - TORONTO - Organizer can be reached at (416)256-2858, ext. 22. The address is Israel's, 870 Eglinton West, on May 6 at 8 p.m.
Atara

And May 5, lecture. Contact:

sumari@trigger.net

MAY 9 -17 I will be speaking twice in Miami. Contact Peter at:

mlinefilms@yahoo.com

Of interest. I copied my English language video Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin to sell at my lecture venues. It's 2 1/2 hours long and really impressive. I now have NTSC copies if anyone would like to order before I travel.

When I get back, I'll be putting together a new book. In the meantime, as usual, you can order my English books, Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin, Israel Betrayed, The Last Days Of Israel and Save Israel! by writing me at chamish@netvision.net.il

[Alice]

Canada's top immigration attorneys. Free assessement and consultation provided.

[james p]

Against the trend. I think Bush is doing a great job and it is good to have someone in the job who has and lives by his moral and ethical beliefs for a change.
Cutting taxes he has increased employment giving the government more tax money unlike socialist governments of the SEU (soviet euro union)
He fights for and defends democracy unlike the SEU.
States vin the US have more freedom to pass laws unlike the SEU.
If it wern't for MR BUsh we'd be in a hellava mess.