5/31/2009

العذراء وردة حياة المسيحي ولأنها الوالدة الحاضرة دائما في الانجيل والقرآن كان لا بد لنا أن نضيء على قداستها


Unless a denomination has apostolic continuity and the very same faith as the one "the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers" it cannot be considered stricto-sensu 'Christian'.

I hope that I am not misunderstood on this point....

العذراء وردة حياة المسيحي ولأنها الوالدة الحاضرة دائما في الانجيل والقرآن كان لا بد لنا في نهاية شهرها أن نضيء على قداستها

 قدّستها جميع الأجيال والأمم وتحدّث عنها الكتاب المقدّس والقرآن الكريم وتغنّى بها القدّيسون وأحبّها البشر لما كان لها من تأثير مباشر على الحياة المسيحيّة فهي أهدت للعالم نوره، ولذلك ارتأت "النشرة" أن تقدّم هديّة صغيرة لمريم مع نهاية الشهر المريمي في مقبالة مع الأب فادي جندح أجرتها الزميلة الاعلاميّة هلا المر.

*ما أهمية مريم العذراء في حياتنا؟
-مريم ببعدها الانساني وبمجرد قالت كلمة "نعم" للرب كان هذا الباب لدخول النعم الى أرضنا... نحن نعلم أن مريم وسيطة كل النعم وشفيعتنا لدى ابنها يسوع... أهمية مريم أنها لا تتوقف عن الصلاة لأولادها فنحن كما يسوع أبناؤها وأحباؤها... وهي لا تتشفع لنا على صعيد جماعي انما على صعيد فردي... في أحزاننا وأفراحنا واضطراباتنا نحن مغمورون بنعمها... الانسان لا يستطيع أن يعيش من دون والدته فكيف يعيش من دون والدته السماوية.

*بعض الايقونات تصوّر يد مريم تشير الى ابنها وهذا يعني اننا لا نستطيع أن نصل الى يسوع من دون مريم... فهل هي طريقنا الوحيد ليسوع المسيح؟
-لا نستطيع أن نقول أن طريقنا الوحيد الى يسوع هي عبر مريم العذراء فكثيرين خلصوا بطريقة أو بأخرى... ولكن مريم تبقى هذه اليد الممدودة التي تحملنا وتجذبنا نحو ابنها وهي أم لكل الأشخاص الذين يعتبرونها وسيطة نعمهم وحتى للذين لا يعتبرونها كذلك...

*في معظم الظهورات المريمية تدعو مريم لتلاوة المسبحة وصلوات الأبانا والسلام... لكن البعض يعتبر أن لا ضرورة لترداد الصلوات نفسها ويكتفي بالتحدث البسيط والصريح مع الرب يسوع المسيح فما فائدة كل نوع من الصلوات؟
-صلاة المسبحة هي صلاة القلب و"فقراء الروح" فكل مرة أمسك بالمسبحة وعلى كل بيت أقول لمريم السلام عليك وبالتالي "أنا احبك" لذلك أدعو كل شخص يريد أن يقول لمريم "أنا احبك" أو "يا مريم تشفعي بنا"... للامساك بمسبحته فهي تعطي فرحا داخليا لكن الأهم أن نكون متواضعين امام ذواتنا وأمام الله... "كل مرة تصلون مسبحة بتقربو فشخة صوب السماء".

*بعض الرهبان الذين يطردون الشياطين يقولون أن الـ50 السلام الموجودة في المسبحة هي 50 ضربة حجر على رأس الشيطان... لماذا صلاة "السلام" واسم "مريم" يزعج الشرير الى هذا الحد؟
-مريم هي "بيت القربان" المتنقل في العالم وهي أينما وجدت وجد يسوع... أمومة مريم تعطي قوة لانسانيتنا المجروحة، قد لا نتمكّن من أن نفهم اليوم سر مريم ولكننا لا بد أن نفهمه في السماء... أحد الطوباويين الذي يدعى "فان" والذي كان له علاقة قوية مع مريم كان يردد: "يا مريم أمي نحن رجليك ندوس بهما الشيطان"... وكأن يسوع أرسلها الينا لتكون درعنا وحمايتنا... ومن خلالها نحن ندوس كل أرواح الشر في العالم.

*لماذا في بعض الظهورات يطلب بعض الرهبان أن تظهر مريم رجليها؟ هل لأن الشرير قد يظهرعلى شكل العذراء ولكنه لا يستطيع أن يظهر رجلي مريم؟
-الحفاء علامة النقاوة والتواضع والبساطة... وأؤكد أن الشيطان لا يستطيع أن يظهر بشكل مريم... قد يأخذ اي شكل الا مظهر العذراء.

*لماذا شهر أيار هو الشهر المريمي؟ وما أهمية زيارات الحج؟
-الحج مصدر قوة لنا اذ أننا نترك شيء لكي ننال شيئا آخر... مسيرات الحج بمعظمها مسيرات صلاة وتوبة... لنتلقى نعما ونعطي كمسيحيين بدورنا ما تلقيناه...
شهر أيار هو شهر مريم لأنه الشهر الذي تزهر فيه الطبيعة وتتجدد والكثير من القديسين يتلقون رسائل من العذراء في هذا الشهر... ولا بعد لاهوتي للموضوع بل بعد تقليدي. في حين أن لـ 15 آب و 8 أيلول بعد لاهوتي وليتورجي.

*هل عاشت مريم بلا أي خطيئة؟
-من المؤكد أن مريم لم تقترف أي خطيئة وهي معصومة ومختارة... وهي أقدس وأطهر وأعظم نساء الكون... فهي حملت يسوع بقوة الروح القدس وقد لعب مار يوسف دورا رئيسيا بنعمة خاصة من الروح القدس وبرسالة الهية فعندما قال الملاك ليوسف: "خذ مريم الى منزلك" فهو توجّه لكل منا لندخل مريم الى منزلنا.

*حياة مريم لم يتخللها عذابات جسدية، فهل العذابات الروحية التي عاشتها كانت كافية لتقديس مريم؟
-يكفي مريم الآلام التي عاشتها مع ولدها يسوع المسيح ورؤيته يتكلل بالشوك ويصلب ويدق بالمسامير... مريم عاشت الألم بطريقة مختلفة وهي لم تنغلق على نفسها... عاشت ألمها برجاء.

*ما قصة سيدة المنطرة في مغدوشة؟
-مريم كانت تحب كثيرا أن ترافق يسوع في زياراته الى لبنان ولكن صيدا وصور والصرفند كانت مناطق وثنية وكان يسوع لا يحبّذ أن تدخل مريم هذه المناطق لذلك كانت العذراء تنتظره على تلة المنطرة وهي تصلي... ومن هنا يجب ان نعي أن مريم تنتظرنا دائما، أمومتها أمومة انتظار لا تتعب ولا تمل...

*بماذا يمتاز الشهر المريمي؟
هناك تقاليد تطبع هذا الشهر، فبعض الاشخاص يعمدون على اقامة مزارات... وآخرون يثابرون على الصلاة أو اضاءة شمعة أمام صورتها... وهذه تقاليد يجب أن تمتد على مجمل أشهر السنة.


A personal "interpretation" of the Bible...


The idea that the Bible should, or even could, be read like a cookbook ("follow the recipe") is a typically Western error which stems form Martin Luther's wholly non-Christian idea of sola scriptura. As any spiritual book, the Bible needs to be read within a specific hermeneutical methodology. For example, Patristic Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism use the "same text" (not really, the Rabbis used the Masoretic text, traditional Christians the Septuagint, but nevermind that now) and come to diametrically opposed conclusions... A personal "interpretation" of the Bible is therefore necessarily completely mistaken as it simply cannot be correct.
It would be nice if God took control of this planet, but he hasn't.

If He did that, you would bitch about Him not allowing free will :-)

Seriously, what you want is what I call the "cop God". A good which uses His omnipotence to make us all behave. The problem is that according to most religions, God wants our FREE submission to Him because He does not want robots, but humans who CHOOSE the Truth.

I can never understand why religionists see religion as the basis of human morality and good government, when the historical record demonstrates the exact opposite.

I can never understand why secularists see secularism as the basis of human morality and good government, when the historical record demonstrates the exact opposite: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Hitler would make the worst of the worst of all bloodthirsty religious mass murders in history look like meek sheep in comparison to their millions of killed people. How about capitalism itself, the religion of greed and wealth? Or do you believe that the European settlers which "genocided" all the native Americans did so moved by a deep religious feeling?
Yes, the record of murder, genocide and imperialism of many religious nations is appalling. But what the secularists did only in the 20th century really should put them to shame beyond any kind of finger pointing at religious folks...

Life in a country organized according to the principles of the Christian Identity or Christian Reconstructionist movements would be a living hell.

Yep, quite true. What you are confusing is God, religion and religious people. Think carefully. If we assume that there is a God and that He chose to interact with mankind by granting it a religion (regardless of how He would do that), and if we observed that there are 10 religions out there, we could only have two possible conclusions: a) all religions are mistaken (like Bertrand Russell once wrote "God created mankind in His image and mankind returned Him the favor"] or b) only ONE religion is true. In that case blaming the "true" religion for the mistakes of the 9 others would make no sense. Blaming God would be even more absurd. So when you lash out at religion you are missing the target almost by definition. Furthermore, you are clearly forming opinions about one religion (Christianity - of which there are many branches, but nevermind) on the basis of the kind of crazies that you see in the USA claiming to represent Christ and the faith he granted us...

You know what the traditional definition of true Christianity is? It is the faith established by Christ, preached by the Apostles, and preserved by the Church Fathers. To know if something truly belongs to that faith, it needs to be a teaching which has been believed everywhere, always and by all, i.e., believed by in all parts of the Christian world, in all times since Christ and by all Christians (thus, no innovation can possibly be considered Christian). Furthermore, any text, including the Bible, to be understood in the truly Christian manner must be approached in the so-called "spirit/ethos of the Fathers" (their spiritual, ascetic and mystical mind) and its correct interpretation would only be one on which the Fathers would agree ("consensus patrum").

By this traditional criterion of Christianity your "Christian Identity" or "Christian Reconstrucitonists" are not even Christians, regardless of their claim to the contrary. And yet, you would use them as examples of Christianity and blame Christians for the kind of folly they embody....


ALL I am saying is that "other" teachings are not the ones of the faith "established by Christ, preached by the Apostles, and preserved by the Church Fathers", that's all. Theirs might be infinitely better (at least they are free to think so), but its not the "real thing"...

I am saying is that Christianity is not whatever anybody and everybody wants it to be. It is something which has an objective content and an objective historical reality...

* judgment about religions in general and Christianity in particular is rather superficial and not really based on any meaningful knowledge of that faith?





مقتطفات من شهادة جبران تويني في جلسة محاكمة سمير جعجع والتي نشرت في جريدة النهار بتاريخ 1995-2-25-


Killers and assassins.....

مقتطفات من شهادة جبران تويني في جلسة محاكمة سمير جعجع والتي نشرت في جريدة النهار بتاريخ 1995-2-25-
"افادة جبران تويني وكانت الساعة قد بلغت الثانية بعد الظهر. وقال: "اسمي جبران غسان تويني، والدتي ناديا حماده، مولود عام 1957 في بيروت الاشرفية. المهنة صحافي". وسئل هل تربطه عداوة او قرابة مع بعض المتهمين. فرد: "هناك خصومات سياسية، ولا عداوة". وحلف اليمين القانونية. وكانت اسئلة من الرئيس خيرالله: خيرالله: "هل لديك معلومات عن قضية مقتل المرحوم داني شمعون؟" تويني: "مش اكثر مما قرأت في الصحف نتيجة التحقيقات". كيف كانت علاقتك بداني شمعون؟ - كان داني شمعون اكثر من اخ لي. هل كنت تشعر معه بخطر على حياتكما. - كل انسان يتعاطى السياسة وكل انسان في لبنان شعر بالخطر على حياته في الحرب. هل تعرضت لشيء من هذا القبيل؟ - اكرر افادتي تعرضت لاهانات وتعرضت مكاتبي للدهم. ما هي قصة العناصر التي حضرت الى منزلك في بيت مري وادعت انها جاءت للاطمئنان اليك؟ - اكرر افادتي التي اعطيتها في التحقيق وفي اختصار يوم الجمعة السابق بيومين لقتل شمعون ونحو الساعة السادسة مساء وصل ثلاثة يرتدون البسة الجيش اللبناني في سيارة مدنية خضراء من نوع B.M.W 520 او 525 وقاموا بدورة حول فندق "البستان: ثم استداروا وعادوا الى منزلي ونزل ضابط او بالاحرى كان يدعي انه ضابط في الجيش وسأل عني وصعد الى المنزل مع العنصرين اللذين كانا برفقته وبقي الاثنان على مدخل البيت ودخل الضابط الى مكتبي وكنت اجلس مع اشخاص ومنهم داني منصوراتي ووليم خيرالله. وهذا الضابط المزعوم نظر الي وقال "بس جئت اطمئن عنك"، ولم يكن مسلحا بسلاح ظاهر الا ان سترته كانت فوق البنطلون فامسكها وضبها. اما العنصران اللذان كانا معه فكانا مسلحين بسلاح "كلاشنيكوف" وجلس هذا الضابط الى يميني لمدة ثلاث دقائق فسألته عن صحته والى اي لواء ينتمي فاجاب في الكتيبة 51. وسألته عن اسمه فقال لي الملازم الاول طوني عيد ثم استأذن في الانصراف وطلبت منه البقاء ثم طلبت من داني منصوراتي ايصاله الى الباب ونزل معه وتبعه العنصران. وسأله داني: الى اي قطعة ينتمي؟ فقال له:

"اللواء الاول". وانا كان عندي شخصان في الخارج مسلحان احدهما من اللواء الخامس، وشخصان اخران في الداخل مسلحان وقد بقيا في جوار العنصرين الوافدين، ولما لاحظنا ان الضابط المزعوم اعطى جوابين مختلفين وقع الشك لدى داني وقال لي: "الشغلة مش نظيفة" فقلت له: "لشو جايي ضابط يطمئن عن صحتنا؟" وفي المساء اتصلت بالضابط المسؤول عن جهاز الامن في اللواء الاول وسألته اذا كان عنده ضابط باسم طوني عبيد، واذا كان ارسله للاطمئنان عنا فاجاب بالنفي. ثم طرحت السؤال نفسه على العقيد سهيل خوري قائد اللواء الخامس هاتفيا فاجابني بالنفي ايضا. وطلبت منه ان يتأكد اذا كان في اللواء الخامس ضابط في مواصفات الذي دخل علي. الا انه لم يجبني وبعد 36 ساعة حصلت قضية اغتيال داني شمعون. والضابط الذي دخل علي طويل القامة عريض، شعره اسود له شاربان ويمشي برجلين متجهتين الى الداخل ويمكن ان رجليه مسطحتان. في اثناء التحقيق هل اطلعت على صورة تشابه الشخص الذي دخل الى منزلك؟ - في اثناء التحقيق عرضوا علي صورا لا صورة واحدة وتعرفت في احدى الصور الى الشخص الذي دخل الى منزلي وقالوا لي ان هذا الشخص يدعى عاطف الهبر. وعرفت بعدئذ ان هذا الشخص بحسب التحقيقات التي نشرت هو الذي نفذ عملية اغتيال داني شمعون وبعد عملية اغتيال داني شمعون تركت المنزل وتوجهت الى بتغرين الى منزل الوزير ميشال المر لان الوزيرين مروان حماده وميشال المر اعتبرا ان هناك خطرا على حياتي وبعدئذ عدت الى منزلي يوم الثلثاء وشاركت يوم الاربعاء في مأتم داني شمعون في دير القمر وارسل الجيش عناصر حماية الى منزلي وفي اليوم التالي غادرت الى فرنسا. .... "

(....)"بالنسبة الى المرحوم داني شمعون ما كان وضعه عند بدء "حرب الالغاء"؟ - التقيت داني في القصر الجمهوري في بعبدا فاخبرني ان مجموعة دهمت منزله في الاشرفية واحتجزت زوجته وطفلته الصغيرة وبعدئذ بدأت المفاوضات من قصر بعبدا وكان حاضرا شاكر ابو سليمان والاباتي بولس نعمان فتوجها الى الاشرفية للتوسط في خصوص المعارك التي اندلعت في المناطق الشرقية بين الجيش اللبناني والقوات اللبنانية، بقصد وقفها تفاديا للاخطار. هل كان داني شمعون يتلقى اشارات تهديد من سمير جعجع؟ - الاشارات نفسها كنا نتلقاها في الاخبار بوجود محاولات من هنا وهناك. وحصلت حادثة ان شخصا اتى بسيارة ملغومة وكان بحسب المعلومات يريد ان يضعها في الدكوانة وكنت انزل يوميا مع داني الى النادي للصيد في الدكوانة وهذا الشخص سلم نفسه وذكر انه كان مكلفا من القوات اللبنانية نقل السيارة المفخخة وانا لا اعرف من كان مستهدفا ولو انفجرت السيارة لكان قتل من كان في النادي ثم جمعنا المصاري لهذا الشخص حتى تمكن من مغادرة لبنان. كما انه خلال العمليات العسكرية جرى قصف ليس فقط على منازلنا بل على المناطق التي كانت فيها "الجبهة اللبنانية" وكان رئيس الجبهة داني شمعون وانا نائبه وكانت تضم ممثلين للاقليات وحزب "حراس الارز" والاحزاب الاخرى الموجودة في الشرقية. ماذا حصل ل"حراس الارز" عند بدء "حرب الالغاء"؟ - عندما كنا في الاجتماع في القصر الجمهوري في بعبدا توجهت مجموعة الى مركز اتيان صقر وقبضت عليه ونقلته الى الكرنتينا واعتقد انه بقي محبوسا كذا شهرا وبعدئذ افرج عنه وذهب الى الجنوب.....

(.....)وسأل النائب العام التمييزي عويدات الشاهد تويني: "متى عرضت على الشاهد الصور التي تعرف من بينها على الاشخاص الثلاثة الذين جاؤوا الى منزله بالالبسة العسكرية؟ تويني: "انا تعرفت فقط على عاطف الهبر وشككت بالنسبة الى الشخصين اللذين كانا برفقته. ويوم اخذوا افادتي في ايار 1994 في وزارة الدفاع والاخرى في قصر العدل، في كل افادة عرضوا علي مجموعة من الصور وكانت كل مجموعة مختلفة في العرضين. يؤكد الشاهد انه تعرف الى عاطف الهبر كونه هو الذي دخل الى منزله. - انا تعرفت الى الصورة وهي صورة الذي دخل الى منزلي وقالوا لي ان اسمه عاطف الهبر. فالشك موجود عند كل انسان ولكن اعتبر انه هو هذا الشخص الذي دخل الى منزلي. هل كان الشاهد عضوا في "الجبهة اللبنانية" الموسعة عام 1988 وفي هذا التاريخ رشح داني شمعون نفسه لرئاسة الجمهورية، فهل كان المتهم سمير جعجع مؤيدا لهذا الترشيح وداعما له؟ - لم يحصل اي تأييد علني من سمير جعجع ولا من الجبهة ولا اعتقد ان سمير جعجع كان مؤيدا الترشيح. هل سبق لسمير ان استدعى جبران تويني وطلب منه الكف عن تسويق دعم داني شمعون لمنصب رئاسة الجمهورية؟ - نعم سمير جعجع وغيره ومنهم امين الجميل طلبوا ذلك. هل سبق للجبهة اللبنانية ان طلبت من عناصر الاحرار و"حراس الارز" و"التنظيم" الانسحاب من الجبهة بحجة انها انحرفت عن المقاومة الوطنية؟ - نعم هل سبق للجبهة اللبنانية ان اتخذت قراراً بحل القوات اللبنانية وبتحويل الاسلحة عدة وعداداً الى الجيش اللبناني؟ - نعم. هل سبق لهذه الجبهة ان وجهت اتهاماً الى القوات بأرتكاب مجزرة نهر الموت وجريمة اوتوبيس المتحف. - نعم. هل سبق ان اعتبرت هذه الجبهة ان مسلحي القوات اللبنانية ينفذون مؤامرة تهدف الى ضرب الجيش وبقية المؤسسات العامة؟ - نعم. كيف يصف العلاقة التي كانت قائمة بين داني شمعون والعماد ميشال عون؟ - كان هناك حلف سياسي. عند حصول دهم مكاتب جريدة "النهار" في الاشرفية من كان يقود الداهمين - خليل واكيم.........

5/29/2009

وليد جنبلاط..... قصة بسيطة CIA


وليد جنبلاط..... قصة بسيطة CIA...just like the little skunk Geagea next to him is a dirty CIA tool too...always been....

Walid JUMBLATT is and remains a CIA agent....despite his latest moves in 2010....always been with CIA.

لا ينفك اللبنانيون والسياسيون يطلقون على رئيس الحزب التقدمي الاشتراكي وليد جنبلاط صفات "الاستشراف"، ويشيدون بقدرته على التقاط إشارات التطورات الأولى للأحداث بسرعة.
وفي الحقيقة: لا يمكن للمراقب الدقيق أن ينبهر بهذا "الاستشراف" ولا بهذا "الالتقاط والتبدل" حينما يعرف أن هذه "الانقلابات والاستشرافات" -التي ينبهرون بها ويهللون لها- تكلّف لبنان واللبنانيين الكثير من الدماء والدموع والمآزق السياسية.

- بعد أسابيع قليلة من اغتيال الرئيس رفيق الحريري دعا جنبلاط لتشكيل جبهة عريضة تضم القوى الوطنية والإسلامية اللبنانية والفلسطينية وسوريا لمواجهة أي هجوم أميركي على لبنان، وبعد أن استمر لفترة طويلة يقتات من موائد المقاومة وإيران، وبعد أن ساهم حزب الله -من خلال التكليف الشرعي في الانتخابات النيابية- بإيصاله هو وكتلة كبيرة من النواب إلى البرلمان, أعاد جنبلاط تقييم خطواته، وقرر أنه يقبل بأن "يكون زبال في نيويورك على أن يكون زعيماً وطنياً في لبنان".

وكان أحد الصحفيين روى أنه التقى جنبلاط في هذه الفترة من الزمن، وفوجئ بكلامه بأن "الغرب انتصر في كل هجوم له على العرب، وسأتحالف مع الأميركي المنتصر"، معيباً على من يقف إلى جانب المهزوم.. وعدم تخليص نفسه مما أسماه "المذبحة القادمة".

وفي حديث لابن جنبلاط الشاب "تيمور" مع أحد الصحف الكندية -بتاريخ 3 كانون الأول 2007- كلام مطابق قال فيه: «قَدمت لوالدي ضمانات من الرئيس الأميركي جورج بوش, بالعمل على قلب النظام السوري بداية عام 2006، والسعوديون أعطوه ضمانات مالية وأمنية.. استعاض بها عن الدعم الإيراني".

وقبل حرب تموز 2006، شنّ جنبلاط هجوماً على سلاح المقاومة.. واعتبره "سلاح الغدر"، معتبرًا: أنه طالما هذا السلاح موجود فهو سيؤدي إلى زوال البلد، وزوال اتفاق الطائف، وزوال اتفاق الهدنة.. وقامت الحرب وكان فيها ما فيها من تصريحات جارحة ومؤذية بحق المقاومة وأهلها وشعب لبنان الصامد.. حينما اتهم جنبلاط السيد حسن نصرالله بالعمالة لإيران وسوريا، ونفى عنه جنسيته اللبنانية وانتقد "النصر الإلهي".

متناسيًا أن إيران كانت تدعمه وتمدّه بالأموال.. كما اعترف ابنه، قام جنبلاط في أيار 2008 بشنّ هجوم على حزب الله، واتهمه بالتحضير لاغتيال ما.. ضد شخصية سياسية، وبالسيطرة على أمن مطار بيروت، والحصول على سلاح إيراني مهرب عبر المطار، وطالب بطرد السفير الإيراني من لبنان، ومنع الطائرات الإيرانية من أن تحط في مطار بيروت الدولي... اتهامات مهّدت لقرارات حكومية خطيرة.. اعتبرت سابقة في تاريخ لبنان، وتهديدا خطير للمقاومة وسيدها وسلاحها.

ومباشرة بعد 7 أيار-الذي كان نتيجة أكيدة لما خطط له جنبلاط وحرّض خلاله على اتخاذ القرارين الشهيرين اللذين اتخذتهما الحكومة اللبنانية ضد شبكة اتصالات المقاومة، واعتبرتها مسًا بالسيادة اللبنانية- وما أن استشعر جنبلاط بترنح المشروع الأميركي في المنطقة.. وأدرك خلال جولته في واشنطن أن هناك تغييرًا حقيقيًا في السياسة الأميركية في المنطقة، حتى عاد جنبلاط إلى العروبة وفلسطين والمقاومة، فشدد على أن "لا تناقض بين لبنان والمقاوم، وبين السيادة والمقاومة، ولا تناقض بين الطائف والمقاومة، ولا بين الاستقلال.. ولا بين العدالة والمقاومة، أو التاريخ والمقاومة، أو بين المحكمة والمقاومة".

واليوم.. يتناسى الشعب اللبناني -أو بالأحرى يودون له أن ينسى- كل ما حصل، فيشكرون جنبلاط على ترحيبه بكلام السيد حسن نصرالله، ولكن.. أليس مفارقة غريبة أن مَن سبّب 7 أيار بتصاريحه وقراراته وتهديده -بحرق الأخضر واليابس- لم يعتذر ولم يقدم على الاعتراف بالخطأ..؟!

أليس غريبًا.. أن من هدد المعارضة بأنها "لن تأخذ الثلث المعطل إلا على جثثنا"، وطالب المقاومة بتسليم سلاحها، واعتبر أنه يستطيع أن يقضي عليها وينزع منها الصواريخ التي تهدد بها إسرائيل.. يتم التهليل له اليوم, لأنه صرّح بأن مقال "ديرشبيغل" مفبرك ويشبه "بوسطة عين الرمانة"..؟!

على ماذا يهتفون ويهللون للمواقف الجديدة..؟

وهل من يدرك متى تنتهي مدة صلاحيتها..؟

إن كان أحد يدّعي معرفة ذلك.. فإما أنه "بريء جدًا" أو "عقله مخرّب."

5/11/2009

“Hawks scramble to get on board with two-state solution...”



“Hawks scramble to get on board with two-state solution...”

The creation of the Sate of Israel in 1948 constituted a betrayal of the Palestinian people. Those who doubt this statement are referred to the provisions of the 1925 Treaty of Versailles which specifically set up a protectorate for the Palestinian people. It is time for the world to recognize this betrayal and to insist Israel pursue the only reasonable solution to the existing dilemma before Israel’s hard line ambitions lead us into an impossible conflagration....

If Israel ever set her borders and kept within them like most countries, we’d see a different dynamic I think. If Israel were not expanding, seizing homes, farms and water on a daily basis perhaps they could let bygones be bygones.

I know many Muslims, many Palestinians who’ve expressed or agree they wish Israel stood as a progressive and democratic example to shame the dictators that reign over them.

Jon, don’t you think the expansion of settlements, the harassment and blockade of Palestinians is atrocious incitement? These ARE assaults of War under the UN’s/Geneva conventions. I’d say the Palestinians have show remarkable restraint.....

Watch what they do not what they say, is the watchword. Obama like all politicians is very much enamored with how things appear - to the general i.e. ignorant public. Israel will of course say a few apt words about peace and the two-state solution and at the same time continue to prepare for the extermination of the Palestinian people as the world watches ‘helplessly’ i.e. apparently helplessly, and History will honor them by creating shadows within which certain segments of our past can be hidden and pretty much forgotten. It is within those shadows that the nightmare we all secretly dread lies sleeping....

I wonder if you are aware of the recent translation into English of a leaked government report from Israel about the settlements. It’s long and I haven’t had a chance to read it but when Ha’aretz reported it earlier this year they seemed to think it revealed or confirmed some new and interesting information about, as they put it, “the full extent of the settlements”. Here’s the link to Ha’aretz:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060043.html

And here’s the page which has a link to the English translation (it’s near the bottom of the page): They will fight like banshees to keep the settlements....

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/israel/

The Likud wants the settlements to be a “fact on the ground”, the removal of which would be too expensive to be practical. I say leave the settlements be, re-establish the 1967 borders and let the “settlers” be Palestinian citizens, paying taxes, etc. That way they can stay on their sacred ground if they so wish. If they choose, they can move back to Israel or Brooklyn from whence they came. Of course, they may have a problem coming up with a legitimate deed if they want to sell out. Their howls of outrage will be heard on other planets....

I remember Menachem Begin’s farewell speech as the Israeli prime minister, which went something like – you go on negotiating as well as building settlements, what else there is to do? This has been Israel’s policy since Begin and only James Baker tried to put a stop to it. Plus ca change….

The best solution for the Settlements as well as the Palestinian right of return. Here it is. The Settlers can remain Citizens of Israel and be Residents in Palestine. The returning Palestinian refugees can be Citizens of Palestine and Residents in Israel. They will vote in their own elections, as an American who resides in Canada or Mexico can still vote in the US elections. This preserves the Jewish nature of Israel, and does not require a single settler to move. Security can be done jointly by Israeli and Palestinian police and military for a 10 or 20 year transition period. Jerusalem is a international city and jointly Capital of both States. Jews can buy land and settle anywhere in Palestine/Judea-Samaria they want, and Palestinians can return to Haifa and wherever else they choose. The US and International community will help enforce this and pay for new homes and construction. There. Done. Got the will to make it happen?

The Palestinians will never reconcile themselves to two states. They may accept a two-state solution as a tactical maneuver, but they will always want to return to a unitary Palestine. Perhaps future generations on both sides will come to accept one state in which Muslims, Jews and Christians can live together with equal rights. A Jewish-dominated state amounts to a foreign body in the modern Middle East. It will eventually disappear — peacefully, one hopes....

It is easy to look at the past and predict a future will not present any change. What is taking place is distinctly different from anything that has happened since Jimmy Carter. Obama is saying, “Enough is enough.” The USA simply cannot and should not put up with any more Israeli intransigence. The threats to both American and Israeli national security are now infinite. Since his speech to AIPAC last year when he was criticized by the left for being too obsequious — he supported the two state solution, the elimination of travel barriers for Palestinians and the economic development of Palestine. In his inaugural address, Obama announced a new era of US relations with the Muslim World, and at the State Department only a few days later — he spoke in favor of human right for Palestinians. That much we know — what we do not know is what has been said by George Mitchell and Hillary Clinton to their counterparts in Israel — that dialogue is what is driving the obvious changes in Israeli policy. Avigdor Lieberman touted war with Iran until two weeks ago, when he inexplicably changed his tune to stating that Afghanistan was the primary threat to Israel. The Israeli press is filled with stories about Obama’s changes in foreign policy vis a vis Israel and the approach to the Palestinians. Rahm Emanuel has been quoted in print in Jerusalem that there will be a two state peace settlement within four years — just in time for Obama’s re-election campaign. The demands of power are falling on the nascent government of Israel — and while the outward appearances to the public may seem like nothing is changing — peace negotiations based on Obama’s forthcoming plan will probably start in the very near future — say later this summer or in the fall. Then there are the secret operations involving many cases of Israeli espionage and financial chicanery that are being swept under the carpet for public consumption but are painful for the Israelis — US financial collapses that involved substantial transfers to Israeli bank accounts; the Madoff scandal and the exodus of many Israeli assets from official positions that are being quietly closed over in preparation for a calm meeting in the Oval Office between Obama and Netanyahu — during which Bibi will be well prepared to do a lot of boot-licking.....

Obama’s Middle East Imperialism....

.
Senators Urge Obama to Block Release of New Detainee Abuse Photos.

.
Pentagon’s Black Budget Grows to More Than $50 Billion.

.
US accused of illegal white phosphorus attack in Afghanistan.

.
Law’s Unintended Consequences:....

.
....

God is with Medes (ancient Iran) and Assyria on this one - it is written in the book of Isaiah @ 13:17 "I am stirring up against them the Medes, who think nothing of silver and take no delight in gold."

Iran will destroy the Babylonian economy of the US and EU!

And in Isaiah 10:5-6 "Woe to Assyria! My rod in anger, my staff in wrath. Against an impious nation I send him and against a people under my wrath I order him to seize plunder, carry off loot, and tread them down like the mud of the streets."

Assyrian nations will destroy the demonic cult of false Jews and reigning Freemasons who call themselves 'Israel', but seek only to rebuild the Temple of Solomon to place the Antichrist on the Throne.

But, Assyria will be punished for pride in victory - Isaiah 10:12-13 "[But when the Lord has brought to an end all his work on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, I will punish the utterance of the king of Assyria's proud heart, and the boastfulness of his haughty eyes. For he says: By my own power I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I am shrewd."

Damascus will be destroyed....

But OBVIOUSLY the so-called Jews DON'T read their prophets. In fact, they stoned them all and killed their Messiah - so that's not surprising.

God will destroy the cult of Satanic Freemasonry that rules in the false 'Israel', using Medes and Assyria. May God bless them (He already has).

The 'remnant of Israel' that will return are the Christians; followers of the Holy One of Israel and those 'who seek refuge in the name of the Lord', Jesus Christ - the REAL Christians, not the Protestant-Freemasonry cults that fill America and England!


5/10/2009

Lebanon's elections in context

The whores of CIA/MOSSAD plotting in a corner....



As has been the case for the past six decades or so, the usually turbulent politics of Lebanon mirror almost perfectly the many strands of political, ideological, commercial and criminal activities that define public life in the Arab world. So it is again with the elections that will take place on June 7, comprising a series of positive and negative attributes that give these elections much greater significance than would normally be the case. I would suggest five dimensions where the election results could shed light on pertinent national, regional and global issues.

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2009/05/hezbollah-secretary-general-sayyed.html

First, this is a rare election in the Arab world where the results are not known ahead of time - and, when they are known, they definitely will not show one party winning with 97.8 percent of the vote, as happens in so many other Arab countries where elections are an insulting joke. This is especially true given that somewhere around 17-19 seats whose results are not predictable (out of 128 in total) will determine the overall results. The resolution of an ideological contest through a truly contested free vote should be celebrated as one of Lebanon's meaningful contributions to Arab civilization. This is the last little corner of Arabism where people valiantly hang on to the idea that democratic pluralism is at once appropriate, desirable and functional.

Second, ideological contests in Lebanon often are proxy battles for wider antagonisms in the Middle East and globally. The two main camps - roughly the Hariri-led group that is allied with the United States and the conservative Arabs, and the Hezbollah-and-Michael Aoun-led group that is allied with Syria and Iran - reflect the two dominant ideological confrontations that now define the Middle East. The election results will clarify the relative strengths of these two camps, probably revealing nearly equally matched strengths that will reinforce the need for negotiated coexistence and power-sharing.

Third, on the national front, the elections are often contested on the basis of what could be called, in very rough shorthand, pro- or anti-Syrian platforms. The results could produce a new configuration of power-sharing that modifies the current system of the government majority and the opposition both wielding veto power on major decisions - perhaps a small centrist block linked to the president, and certainly a clarification of relations between Lebanon and Syria. This is of monumental importance for most Lebanese, and of marginal interest for everyone else in the world. However, it deserves watching because the local developments touch on, and reflect, the wider trends that make Lebanon such a powerful microcosm of the Middle East as a whole.

Fourth, the elections may be an important step in clarifying if Lebanon and the entire region move toward more secular, non-sectarian and meritocratic governance systems, or sink deeper into the current regional trend where religion, ethnicity and sect are playing a greater role in life, power, and identity. The Lebanese people have repeatedly expressed their desire for a more non-sectarian governance system - as agreed in the Taif Accord that helped end the civil war in 1990 - but to date they seem incapable of making the transition to that new world.

And fifth, the issue that might be clarified by the election results and the political deal-making that will follow is whether Lebanon - like most Arab countries - will opt for a strong central state that is also efficient and equitable in serving its citizens, or instead will remain with the current model of a weak central state dominated by special interests, ethnic groups, religious organizations, and armed CIA proxy-militia groups - most directly and openly supported, funded and armed by foreign governments' intelligence agencies in order to foment trouble in the Levant and beyond..., and to sustain the criminal activities of the infamous White House Murder Machinations INC, for years...

These five issues are critical to monitor as the election results come in and a new government is formed. The outcome of the voting will be significant far beyond Lebanon, because the country today mirrors the impact of every single major issue and trend in the Middle East, including the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian, Syrian, American and Saudi influences, cultural liberalism and democratization, Islamism, United Nations intervention (through peacekeepers, sanctions, resolutions, and tribunals), terrorism, militia culture, youth emigration, and several others.

The Lebanese election is best seen in the wider context of six important elections elsewhere, starting last November and on into this year, with an impact on the Middle East: in the US, Iran, Israel, Turkey, and probably soon in Palestine. These elections will tell us much about our political cultures, ideological leanings, national identities and conceptions of statehood. How refreshing to follow a handful of elections that will help define our societies with more clarity and legitimacy than we have experienced from the criminality, police states, street fighting, foreign invasions and resistance dominating the region in recent decades....


The feudal rascals...men in power in Lebanon and their minds….

So what do we see? the same people ( feudal rascals/ phony Zae'ems and so on) dictating Lebanese politics for decades and no change.... It seems to me that they want no change because they will lose power and control…

But the good news is that it can be changed in spite of them. With the right people at the right place and civil society pressuring for this.
Some have the credentials to initiate (continue) this process, [ like Ibrahim Kanaan ] and maybe that is why some politicians want to remove him from his job....

All this change doesn’t have to be done at once, Start with changing the voting system, one person one vote and direct vote for president (even keeping the job for a Christian for now) who gets 50% plus 1 vote is the man in charge.

But again the society has to want it to change and work for it to happen.

AND THE NEPOTISM HAS TO GO....

I think Lebanon is in a better position than Egypt or Tunisia. Lebanon have been exercising democracy (something close to it) longer than the rest of the Arab world, it is an important asset.....
More and more, as so often advocated, the true revolution needed is the one that is going to throw out all these traditional feudal rascals/za3eems in Lebanon. How feasible this is and what can take their place as a power structure is unclear. Of course the Lebanese Diaspora, some 12 million strong or so, can and should play a role in such revival. Unfortunately, however, unlike the Jewish Diaspora, the flame of a true passion for a genuine Lebanese homeland is weak at best and cryogenically cold at worst, an inertia caused by fear, comfort with success, resentment of bad experiences while in Lebanon, etc.

5/06/2009

In Congress we trust . . . not


In Congress we trust . . . not

May 6, 2009,

I have been known to quote long-dead men in my past writings. Whether eloquently expressed thoughts by our founding fathers, or those artfully expressed by ancient Greek thinkers, these quotes have always done a better job starting or ending my thoughts that tend to be expressed in long, winding sentences. For this piece I am going to break with tradition and start with an appropriate quote from a living current senator, John Kerry: “It’s a sad day when you have members of Congress who are literally criminals go undisciplined by their colleagues. No wonder people look at Washington and know this city is broken.”

The people do indeed look at Washington and know that this city is ‘badly’ broken, Senator Kerry. The public confidence in our Congress has been declining drastically. Recent poll results highlight how the American people’s trust in their Congress has hit rock bottom. A survey of progressive blogs easily confirms the rage rightfully directed at our Congress for abdicating its role of oversight and accountability. Activists scream about promised hearings that never took place -- without explanation. They express outrage when investigations are dropped without any justification. And they genuinely wonder out loud why, especially after they helped secure a major victory for the Democrats. The same Democrats who had for years pointed fingers at their big bad Republican majority colleagues as the main impediment preventing them from fulfilling what was expected of them.

The recent stunning but not unexpected revelations regarding Jane Harman by the Congressional Quarterly provide us with a little glimpse into one of the main reasons behind the steady decline in Congress’s integrity. But the story is almost dead -- ready to bite the dust, thanks to our mainstream media’s insistence on burying ‘real’ issues or stories that delve deep into the causes of our nation’s continuous downward slide. In this particular case, the ‘thank you’ should also be extended to certain blogosphere propagandists who, blinded by their partisanship, myopic in their assessments, and ignorant in their knowledge of the inner workings of our late Congress and intelligence agencies, helped in the cremation of this case.

Ironically but understandably, the Harman case has become one of rare unequivocal bipartisanship, when no one from either side of the partisan isle utters a word. How many House or Senate Republicans have you heard screaming, or even better, calling for an investigation? The right wing remains silent. Some may have their hand, directly or indirectly, in the same AIPAC cookie jar. Others may still feel the heavy baggage of their own party’s tainted colleagues; after all, they have had their share of Abramoffs, Hasterts and the like, silently lurking in the background, albeit dimmer every day. Some on the left, after an initial silence that easily could have been mistaken for shock, are jumping from one foot to the other, like a cat on a hot tin roof, making one excuse after another; playing the ‘victims of executive branch eavesdropping’ card, the same very ‘evil doing’ they happened to support vehemently. Some have been dialing their trusted guardian angels within the mainstream media and certain fairly visible alternative outlets. They need no longer worry, since these guardian angels seem to have blacked out the story, and have done so without much arm twisting.

Hastert redux

I am going to rewind and take you back to September 2005, when Vanity Fair published an article, which in addition to my case and the plight of National Security Whistleblowers, exposed the dark side of the then Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, and the corroborated allegations of his illegal activities involving foreign agents and interests.

Vanity Fair printed the story only after they made certain they were on sure footing in the face of any possible libel by lining up more than five credible sources, and after triple pit bull style fact-checking. They were vindicated; Hastert did not dare go after them, nor did he ever issue any true denial. Moreover, further vindication occurred only a month ago. On April 10, 2009, The Hill reported that the former Speaker of the House was contracted to lobby for Turkey. The Justice Department record on this deal indicates that Hastert will now be “principally involved” on a $35,000-a-month contract providing representation for Turkish interests. That seems to be the current arrangement for those serving foreign interests while on the job in Congress -- to be paid at a later date, collecting on their IOUs when they secure their positions with ‘the foreign lobby.’

In a recent article for the American Conservative magazine, Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer stationed in Turkey, made the following point:Edmonds’s claims have never been pursued, presumably because there are so many skeletons in both parties’ closets. She has been served with a state-secrets gag order to make sure that what she knows is never revealed, a restriction that the new regime in Washington has not lifted.”

He hits the nail on the head: “In Hastert’s case, it certainly should be a matter of public concern that a senior elected representative who may have received money from a foreign country is now officially lobbying on its behalf. How many other congressmen might have similar relationships with foreign countries and lobbying groups, providing them with golden parachutes for their retirement?”

The Congress went mum on my case after the Vanity Fair story, with, of course, the mainstream media making it very easy for them. They turned bipartisan in not pursuing the case, just as with the Harman case, and similarly, the mainstream media happily let it disappear. At the time I was not aware that during the publication of the Hastert story, Jane Harman’s AIPAC case was already brewing in the background. Moreover, one of the very few people in Congress who was notified about Harman was none other than Hastert, the man himself. The same Hastert, who in addition to being one of several officials targeted by the FBI counterintelligence and counterespionage investigations, was also known to be directly involved in several other high profile scandals: from his intimate involvement in the Abramoff scandal, to the Representative William Jefferson scandal ; from his ‘Land Deal’ scandal, where he cashed in millions off his position while “serving,” to the 2006 House Page scandal.

All for one, one for all

How does it work? How do these people escape accountability, the consequences? Are we talking about the possible use of blackmail by the executive branch against congressional representatives, as if Hoover’s days were never over?

Cases such as NSA illegal eavesdropping come to mind, when congressional members were briefed long before it became public, yet none took any action or even uttered a word; members of both parties. Or is it more likely to be a case of secondhand blackmail, where members of Congress keep tabs on each other? Or, is it a combination of the above? Regardless, we see this ‘one for all, all for one’ kind of solidarity in Congress when it comes to criminal conduct and scandals such as those of Hastert and Harman.

Although at an initial glance, based on the wiretapping angle, the Harman case may appear to involve blackmail, or a milder version, exploitation, of Congress by the executive branch, deeper analysis would suggest even further implications, where congressional members themselves use the incriminating information against each other to prevent pursuit or investigation of cases that they may be directly or indirectly involved in. Let me give you an example based on the Hastert case mentioned earlier.

In 2004 and 2005, I had several meetings with Representative Henry Waxman’s investigative and legal staff. Two of these meetings took place inside a SCIF, where details and classified information pertaining to my case and those involved could be discussed. I was told, and at the time I believed it to be the case, that the Republican majority was preventing further action -- such as holding a public hearing. Once the Democrats took over in 2006, that barrier was removed, or so I thought.

In March 2007, I was contacted by one of Representative Waxman’s staff people who felt responsible and conscientious enough to at least let me know that there would never be a hearing into my case by their office or, for that matter, any Democratic office in the House. Based on his/her account, in February 2007 Waxman’s office was preparing the necessary ingredients for their promised hearing, but in mid March the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called Waxman into a meeting on the case, and after Waxman came out of that 20-minute meeting, he told his staff ‘we are no longer involved in Edmonds’ case.’ And so they became ‘uninvolved.’

What was discussed during that meeting? The facts regarding the FBI’s pursuit of Hastert and certain other representatives were bound to come out in any congressional hearing into my case. Now we know that Hastert and Pelosi were both informed of Harman’s role in a related case involving a counterespionage investigation of AIPAC. Is it possible that Pelosi asked Waxman to lay off my case in order to protect a few of their own in an equally scandalous case? Was there a deal made between the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House to keep this and other related scandals hushed? Will we ever know the answer to these questions? Most likely not, considering the current state of our mainstream media.

And the victims remain the same: The American people who have entrusted the role of ensuring oversight and accountability with their Congress. This kind of infestation touches everyone in Congress; one need not have a skeleton of his own to get sucked into the swamp of those infested. Does Waxman have to be a sinner to take part in the sin committed by the Hasterts and Harmans of Congress? Certainly not. On the other hand, he and others like him will abide by the un-pledged oath of ‘solidarity with your party members’ and ‘loyalty to your dear colleagues.’

Back to the enablers: How can we explain the continued blackout by the mainstream media, and/or, illogical defenses of the Harmans and Hasterts alike by the apologist spinners -- some of whom pass as the ‘alternative’ media? Some are committing what they rightfully accused the previous administration and their pawns of doing: cherry picking the facts, then, spin, spin, and spin until the real issue becomes blurry and unrecognizable. The conspiracy angle aimed at the timing; Porter Goss’ possible beef with Jane Harman; accusing the truth divulgers, CQ sources, of being ‘conspirators’ with ulterior motives; portraying Harman as an outspoken vigilante on torture. And if those sound too lame to swallow, they throw in a few evil names from the foggy past of Dusty the Foggo man! If the issue and its implications weren’t so serious, these spins of reality would certainly make a Pulitzer-worthy satire.

Let’s take the issue of timing. First of all, the story was reported, albeit not comprehensively, by Time magazine years ago. It took a tenacious journalist, more importantly a journalist that could have been trusted by the Intel sources to give it real coverage. It is also possible that the sources for the Harman case got fed up and disillusioned by the absence of a real investigation and decided to ‘really’ talk. After all, the AIPAC court case was dropped by the Justice Department’s prosecutors within two weeks of the Harman revelations. Same could be said about the Hastert story. At the time, many asked why the story was not told during the earlier stages of my case. It took three years for me and other FBI and DOJ sources to exhaust all channels: congressional inquiry, IG investigation, and the courts. Those who initially were not willing to come forward and corroborate the details opened up to the Vanity Fair journalist, David Rose, in 2005.

Now let’s look at the ‘blackmail’ and ‘Goss’ Plot’ angles. Of course the ‘blackmail’ scenario is possible; in fact, highly possible. We all can picture one of the president’s men in the White House pulling an opposing congressional member aside and whispering ‘if I were you, congressman, I’d stop pushing. I understand, as we speak, my Justice Department is looking into certain activities you’ve been engaged in. . . . ’ We all can imagine, easily, a head of the Justice Department, having a ‘discreet’ meeting with a representative who’s been pushing for a certain investigation of certain department officials for criminal deeds, and saying, ‘dear congresswoman, we are aware of your role in a certain scandal, and are still pondering whether we should turn this into a direct investigation of you and appoint a special prosecutor . . . ’ But, let’s not forget, the misuse of incriminating information to blackmail does not make the practitioner of the wrong deed a victim, nor does it make the wrong or criminal deed less wrong.

Instead of spinning the story, taking away attention from the facts in hand, and making Harman a victim, we must focus on this case, on Harman, as an example of a very serious disease that has infected our Congress for way too long. Those who have been entrusted with the oversight and accountability of our government cannot do so if they are vulnerable to such blackmail from the very same people they are overseeing . . . Period. Those who have been elected to represent the people and their interests cannot pursue their own greed and ambitions by engaging in criminal or unethical activities against the interests of the same people they’ve sworn to represent, and be given a pass.

As for far-reaching ties such as Harman’s stand on torture, or specific beef with Porter Goss, or wild shooting from the hip by bringing up mafia-like characters such as Dusty Foggo, please don’t make us laugh! Are we talking about the same Hawkish Pro-Secrecy Jane Harman here? Harman’s staunch support of NSA wiretapping of Americans, the FISA Amendment of 2008, the USAPATRIOT Act, the war with Iraq, and many other activities on the Civil Liberties’ No No-list, is known by everyone. But, apparently not by the authors of these recent spins! And, let’s not forget to add her long-term cozy relationship with AIPAC, and the large donations she’s received from various AIPAC-related pro-Israeli PACs. To these certain ‘wannabe’ journalists driven by far from pure agendas, shame on you; as for honor-worthy vigilant activists out there: watch out for these impostors with their newly gained popularity among those tainted in Washington, and take a hard look at whose agendas they are a mouthpiece for.

Despite a certain degree of exposure, cases such as Harman and Hastert, involving corruption of public officials, seem to meet the same dead-end, literally dead. Powerful foreign entities’ criminal conduct against our national interest is given a pass as was recently proven by the AIPAC case. The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of blackout by our mainstream media are known universally and seem to have been accepted as a fact of life. Pursuit of cases such as mine via cosmetically available channels has been and continues to be proven futile for whistleblowers.

Then, you may want to ask, why in the world am I writing this piece? Because more and more people, although not nearly enough, are coming to the realization that our system is rotten at its core; that in many cases we have been trying to deal with the symptoms rather than the cause. I, like many others, believed that changing the congressional majority in 2006 was going to bring about some of the needed changes; the pursuit of accountability being one. We were proven wrong. In 2008, many genuinely bought in to the promise of change, and thus far, they’ve been let down. These experiences are disheartening, surely, but they are also eye-opening. I do see many vigilant activists who continue the fight, and as long as that’s the case, there is hope. More people realize that real change will require not replacing one or two or three, but many more. More people are coming to understand that the road to achieving government of the people passes through a Congress, but not the one currently occupied by the many crusty charlatans who represent only self-interest -- achieved by representing the interests of those other than the majority of the people of this nation. And so I write.

Here I go again, rather than ending this in a long paragraph or two, I will let another long-gone man do it shortly and effectively: “If we have Senators and Congressmen there that can’t protect themselves against the evil temptations of lobbyists, we don’t need to change our lobbies, we need to change our representatives.” --Will Rogers

Sibel Edmonds is the founder and director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her case have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege”; the Congress of the United StatesPEN American Center awarded Ms. Edmonds the 2006 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award. has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University.

The G.O.P. is finished; stick a fork in it

May 6, 2009,


The experts think the Republican Party can get up off the canvas and stage a comeback, but don’t bet on it. The poor GOP isn’t really even a party anymore; it’s more like a vaudeville troupe scuttling from one backwater to the next, performing the same worn slapstick. No wonder party membership is in the tank. Who wants to stick with a loser?

George W. Bush drove a stake through the heart of the party with his gratuitous wars and his reckless spending. He left behind a bloated, intrusive, out-of-control federal government and an economy in tatters. Things have gotten so bad, the party has a hard time fielding a second place candidate in a two-man race.

But the GOP’s problems run deeper than just Bush. The party has become an anachronism, a plodding, dogmatic, self-righteous amalgam of disgruntled white zealots who are wildly out of step with the times. It’s become irrelevant; and that’s its biggest drawback. The party has lost its Reaganesque glitter and become a rigid, monochromatic “non-party” that no one pays much attention to apart from the occasional zinger on the Daily Show or Letterman. The truth is, the party is just plain dull.

That doesn’t mean the Democrats are any great shakes, either. Far from it. In fact, the feckless Dems became Bush’s biggest enablers. In two terms, they never stopped Bush once from doing exactly what he wanted, however heinous it was. Wiretapping. Iraq. Torture. Never. The Dems never seemed to grasp that politics is more than just trolling for campaign contributions and preening for the camera. Every once in a while representatives are expected to earn their pay and show some guts. That message is lost on the Democrats.

The Democratic Party is loaded with pompous windbags like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi who “talk the talk” but never deliver the goods. Frank has proved over and over again that he’s just lobby-fodder for the banking fraternity, faithfully doing their bidding and dressing it up in altruistic mumbo-jumbo. Pelosi’s just as bad. When she’s not applying tooth-whitener or getting her hairpiece re-lacquered, she’s busy making sure that anything remotely resembling progressive legislation never reaches the floor of the House.

Yer doin’ a heckuva job, Nancy.

The only thing the Dems have going for them is that they’re not Republicans. They’re not the party that took over all three branches of government and then drove the country off a cliff. That’s how the Republicans celebrate their victories; mass harakiri. In America’s 230-year history, no party has ever crashed-and-burned so fast or with such fanatical zeal.

Republican leaders have been given a permanent roost at FOX News so they can appear from time to time and hurl stones at Obama or hold forth on the evils of illegal immigration. It’s just more of the same polarizing claptrap that keeps them from becoming a serious contender. They’re determined to dig an even bigger hole for themselves by opposing Obama at every turn. What are they thinking? Their ranks are already thinning faster than anyone expected, and now they want to duke it out with the most popular president in modern times? No wonder they’re the brunt of every joke on late night TV. The Republican strategy is tantamount to suicide.

Who deep-sixed the G.O.P.?

Now that the election is over, the finger pointing has begun and everyone wants to know who’s responsible for destroying the party. Naturally, the first name that comes to mind is George W. Bush.

But Bush wasn’t as important as people think. He was chosen for the job because his supporters thought they could stitch together another Reagan and because he could be counted on to follow orders without question. But Bush wasn’t steering the ship o state, not really. The administration was essentially a franchise split among three main actors: Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove.

Of those three, it was probably Rove who did the most damage through his backroom maneuvering, his ham-fisted public relations operations and his political arm-twisting. Rove’s bullyboy antics produced a number of short-term triumphs, but they cost the party dearly in terms of credibility. Just look at the Terry Schiavo fiasco; an emotionally-charged issue of personal morality which the administration turned into a circus sideshow. The poor husband was blasted as the devil incarnate for simply carrying out the explicit wishes of his stricken wife. Michael Schiavo was ripped to shreds by a feral media that had become the propaganda-arm of the White House. The incident had “Karl Rove” written all over it.

Eventually Rove’s wheeling and dealing caught up to him and he was forced to step down amid a barrage of allegations. His scorched earth, “take no prisoners” approach galvanized the base, but alienated decent conservatives who were not comfortable with his win-at-all-cost shenanigans. Ultimately, the party of Lincoln became the party of Rove, slipping its ideological moorings and abandoning all claim to moderation. By the time Rove left, the party was in ruins.

Obama didn’t beat the Republicans. The Republicans beat themselves. It was a self-inflicted wound. The party had become too ideologically rigid and self-destructive. Besides, how much mileage can a party get on a platform which only contains two planks: War and tax cuts? That’s not a vision of the future; it’s the fast track to disaster.

The Republican Party has never been “the party of ideas”; that’s a complete myth. The Republican leadership hates ideas, because ideas mean social programs which divert money from the coffers of business tycoons and crooked banksters.

Republican ideas are different; they usually involve poking around people’s bedrooms telling them what they can and can’t do or railing against science like evolution or stem cells. The party should lay off ideas altogether and do what they do best; traditional values.

Republicans have always been able to sell the notion that America needs to return to some mythic “Golden Age” where Pop ran the corner store and Mom baked cherry pies. That idealized vision resonates with a broad cross-section of the voting public. The Republicans should go back to the things that won them elections and forget the war on immigrants.

The United States has always veered to the right politically, so winning elections shouldn’t be hard for a party that truly represents conservative values. But the Republican Party doesn’t represent conservative values; that’s another myth. In fact, the party isn’t really even pro-life. If they were, then Bush would have pushed for anti-abortion legislation when he controlled both houses of Congress. But he didn’t, because he knew that if the Republicans put an end to the abortion flap for good, half of their base would have no reason to drag themselves to the polls every two years. Preserving abortion as a permanent issue is all part of a cynical calculation to keep the single-issue fanatics engaged. The Republicans will never end abortion. It’s their meal ticket.

Republicans seem to like their role as minority party; they were never comfortable governing anyway. Besides, wandering aimlessly through the political wilderness has its upside, too. There’s more time for drumming up campaign contributions and appearances on Hannity with the other far-right screwballs. There’s even time to work on that slice and (hopefully) shave a few points off the old golf game.

Political parties are like people. They should do what suits their temperament. The Republicans aren’t suited for governing; they had their chance and they made a mess of it. And that’s a good thing, because no one wants another eight years like the last eight.







http://lebaneseresistance.blogspot.com/

My photo
Disclaimer: the posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.