[sic] Committee Report
and thank you for being the first writer to provide a link to the actual
report [.pdf] in your comments. I had found it for myself via Google searching,
but nowhere in the many articles I've read on the subject. Does anyone but
you make it easy for the reader to access the actual document?
~ Roland Dion,
San Diego, Calif.
are two candidate theories for why MSM "reporters" don't provide you a link
to the actual documents they are paid big bucks to "summarize" for you. One
is that they have never laid eyes on the actual documents and don't know how
to find them. Another is that they have actually read the documents, but don't
want you to read them, seeing as how there is practically no positive correlation
between what they "report" the documents say and what they actually say. I
apologize to longtime Antiwar.com readers for repeatedly citing relevant laws,
resolutions, and reports, many going back 20 years or more. But there may be,
from time to time, new Antiwar.com readers who do not know that, for example,
A.Q. Khan did not "confess" to proliferating Pakistani nuclear technology to
anyone, much less to North Korea, Iran, and Libya. Here is a link to the official
text of his "apology" to the Pakistani people: "Nuclear
anyone expect anything less? Given the influence of the Israeli lobby, if any
political candidate spoke out against the views of AIPAC and other pro-Israel
lobbyists, he/she would be no longer electable. Obama is doing what politicians
do all the time to get elected to any public office in this country.
One can only hope that he is doing a bit of subterfuge – that is, that he's
only saying things at the moment to be elected.
(These are my
personal opinions, not those of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, or
the U.S. government.)
~ Maj. Pil (Peter)
Kang, M.D., Ft. Wainwright, Alaska
afraid I have to agree with you, Justin. Obama's speech before AIPAC was a great
disappointment to me. However, I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that the worst
is simply that Obama is another political opportunist, saying whatever is necessary
to get himself elected, but that your initial impression of his basic instincts
is correct, that he is knowledgeable enough to know giving Israel everything
AIPAC wants is the path to national disaster, and that we will not go down the
road to war in the Middle East again.
I hope so. At
least he is surrounding himself with advisers who were against the Iraq adventure
from the start, as was he. Which remains more than can be said for McCain.
~ W.R. Dalton
sympathize with the sentiments of this article – I too was profoundly disappointed
with Obama's pandering to the Florida electorate with provocative and mistaken
statements about Venezuela and Cuba.
let's not be too reactive to at least some of his statements. His statement
that Iran should never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons is, I believe,
a perfectly valid one. It can only be interpreted as a "threat" to Iran if
it was true that they were acquiring nuclear weapons. The Iranian nuclear program
is based on peaceful use of nuclear power, and allegations that it was developing
a nuclear energy program in order to develop nuclear weapons were dismissed
out of hand when first investigated by the European Community nearly 10 years
~ Warwick Fry
[Justin Raimondo's] commentary, Obama's promise to AIPAC to "do everything
in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my
power. Everything," is taken to mean the Democratic candidate is signing
on to the Likud/neocon project to attack Iran. I sure hope not. In fact, Iran
is a long way from a nuclear weapon, as is borne out by the
U.S. intelligence report that Iran abandoned its weapons program over four years
thinks he can woo the U.S. supporters of Israel's Likud Party, but that is
a complete reversal of a position he took just three months ago in a speech
that astutely claimed Likud's hard-line policies were not in the best interests
of Israel. Here is coverage of Obama's remarks earlier this year in an article
in the Jerusalem Post: "Obama:
Pro-Israel Needn't Be Pro-Likud."
In my humble
opinion, however, Obama made a strategic error in his speech to AIPAC by guaranteeing
an undivided Jerusalem as capital of Israel. … Arab East Jerusalem is
part of the occupied territories and cannot be claimed by Israel if any peace
agreement is to be reached with the Palestinians. The only possible mitigation
for Obama will be if he turns to the United Nations, repudiates the Bush/Cheney/neocon
assault on that organization, and supports comprehensive weapons inspections
in Iran – inspections the Iranians have been reluctantly prepared to accept.
By the way, no
commentary on nuclear weapons proliferation should fail to remind that in 2006
G.W. Bush and the U.S. Congress committed the most egregious violation of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ever, when
they agreed to accept India's nukes as legitimate and even to supply them with
enriched uranium, thus permitting more of the country's indigenous uranium
to be used for weapons.
~ Carl Reynolds,
I supported Obama in every way possible, because I hoped (against hope?) that
his candidacy – in addition to initiating a much improved domestic policy
– would also signify a departure from America's past aggressive and militaristic
behavior and from her blind allegiance to an equally militaristic Israel. I
took it for granted that Obama understood that Bush's attack on Iraq had a great
deal to do with his misguided effort to make the Near East safer for Israel,
as well as with his arrogant and criminal notion of being able to change the
world by military force.
to AIPAC was very disappointing and makes me reconsider my support for him.
The problem is, of course, the absence of any other candidate who has a chance
to ameliorate America's militaristic behavior.
Perhaps the only
remedy, at least for me and my family, will be to do what has been done by
so many other citizens of countries that became a threat to other nations as
well as to their own citizens. … My father tried to emigrate from Nazi
Germany in 1936, and other relatives successfully escaped from Communist East
Germany. Lacking practical alternatives, their only recourse was to vote with
Thank you for
your thoughtful article, depressing as it may be.
~ Erhard Kock,
is being way too hard on Obama's speech to AIPAC. The bottom line is that Obama
went before AIPAC and declared, clearly and unequivocally, that the last seven
years of neocon policies – policies backed by AIPAC – have been an unmitigated
disaster for the U.S. and Israel.
Now is not the
time to subject Obama to unrealistic litmus tests of purity. Obama is not the
messiah, and he shouldn't be. We don't need him to spit in AIPAC's face. We
need him to beat McCain and bounce the neocons out of power. He will do it,
and he told AIPAC he would do it. Let's give him some credit here.
~ Thomas Cassidy