Month: July 2005

Gene Callahan disputes Stanley Crouch’s theory of evolution.

Regular readers of my “Behind the Headlines” column on Antiwar.com will perhaps recall this account and this one of the curious case of Israel’s intelligence service “harvesting” New Zealand passports by stealing the identities of the disabled, notably a house-bound paraplegic in whose name they applied for travel documents.

In this age of international terrorism, where mobility is a key factor in planning and executing covert operations, a New Zealand passport is a valuable item, permitting the holder to be waved through with relatively little fuss at practically any airport in the world. When the news of the Israeli passport scam first came out, speculation was rife about what purpose the plan served: what were they planning to do with the passports? In January, 2003, the word went out that the Mossad would henceforth reserve the right to strike out at its “enemies” on foreign soil — anywhere they might be:

“Israel is embarking upon a more aggressive approach to the war on terror that will include staging targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries, former Israeli intelligence officials told United Press International.

“Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has forbidden the practice until now, these sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“The Israeli statements were confirmed by more than a half dozen former and currently serving U.S. foreign policy and intelligence officials in interviews with United Press International.”

Hmmmmm ….

In any case, the government of New Zealand didn’t like what it discovered one bit, and instead of merely deporting the Israeli spies quietly — as would have happened in the U.S. or Great Britain — they prosecuted them and the trial was a media sensation (at least it was in New Zealand: we heard practically nothing about it here.) After the spies were convicted and briefly jailed, the New Zealanders insisted that Israel apologize, which Israeli stubbornly refused to do. Prime Minister Helen Clark downgraded relations between the two countries, and even cancelled a pending trip by Israei President Katsav.

Well, now, over a year after the scandal erupted, the Israelis have finally come through with an apology, albeit a grudging and very guarded one. While Clark avers that this apology amounts to an open admission that Israel was conducting illegal covert activities in New Zealand, the letter from Israel’s Foreign Ministry says no such thing: according to the Israeli government, the letter was sent “to express our regret for the activities which resulted in the arrest and conviction of two Israeli citizens in New Zealand on criminal charges and apologize for the involvement of Israeli citizens in such activities.”

The letter also promises that “Israel commits itself to taking steps to prevent a reoccurrence of similar incidents in the future.” However, the Jerusalem Post reports:

“The ministry, however, stressed that it was not taking responsibility for the activities of the Israelis beyond the normal responsibility it would bear for the actions of any of its citizens.’

The official story is that these were private “citizens” acting on their own initiative. Yeah, suuuuure they were: read this transcript of the spies’ interrogration by New Zealand authorities and decide for yourself.

Gee, I wonder how long it will take them to apologize for the AIPAC spy scandal currently unfolding in the U.S.? Now that the Israelis have been caught not only stealing sensitive intelligence from the Pentagon, but peddling (pilfered and U.S. taxpayer-subsidized) military technology to China, perhaps Washington will acquire the backbone to demand it.

To those who doubt that an evolving fascist ideology motivates the War Party, here is wing-nut extraordinaire David Horowitz on why the antiwar movement, and more specifically “the left,” has to be “watched”:

“This is the lesson of London: Take the hostile force within your country and within your political coalition seriously. It’s not a game anymore. This is something I learned in my years on the left. All too often, people mean what they say. Make no mistake, those who talk revolution and war against our country are quite capable of acting on their talk — of aiding and abetting those who are already at war and want to kill us. When the day comes that they step over the line and translate their words into action, they will do it with the best of intentions: to make the world a better place. That is the reason they are so dangerous. Like Mohammed Atta who did it for Allah, they will do it for a noble cause.”

Horotwitz’s opponents are “like Mohammed Atta.” For all the self-righteous indignation on the neocon Right every time some marginal Ward Churchill type goes off the deep end, what about Horowitzian hyperbole of this sort? Excuse me, but Atta and his fellow crazoids killed over 3,000 human beings — is this really the moral equivalent of not agreeing with Horowitz’s views on the war?

It’s funny, but I once had a rather polite e-mail exchange with Andrew Sullivan, back when I was defending him on gay websites during the brouhaha over his online sex ad: when I pointed out to Sullivan that he allowed his writings to be used by Horowitz, who hates gays — at a National Review conference I once heard Horowitz’s loooong unintentionally hilarious account of how he once “infiltrated” a gay bath-house , a “talk” fairly dripping with hate and contempt — Sullivan told me that he couldn’t denounce Horowitz because Andrewsullivan.com “needs the hits.”

Yes, we understand Andy: it’s hard being a coward. Well, if that sort of obsessive gay-baiting doesn’t get yer goat, then what about Horowitz’s call to jail the antiwar movement? Again, speaking of the anti-war “left,”, Horowitz has come out of his closet and is now openly advocating police state measures against those who are actively opposing this war:

“Understand this, and you will understand that people who use the language of war need to be isolated and regarded with care. Understand this, and you will understand that those who describe America as Hitler Germany can be dangerous, and need to be watched.”

Isolated — in what sense? Horowitz is, I believe, deliberately ambiguous: he’s speaking in code, but the real meaning of his weasel words is clear to his increasingly frenzied followers, and ought to be clear to everyone else by now: the man longs to lock up his political opponents. There can be no doubt, in any case, that he wants the antiwar movement and the Left in general to be “watched” — by state agencies.

Old Commies never change — although they sometimes shift their allegiances, their authoritarian style rarely follows suit.

What really needs to be watched, however, is a “conservative” movement that is fast morphing into the closest thing to American fascism we have yet seen. Aren’t there any princpled old-fashioned conservatives out there — you know, the type who believe in limited government — willing to put the neo-authoritarians in their place?

The Financial Timesreports that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has rejected calls for an official inquiry into the London bombings, “insisting such a move would distract from the task of catching the perpetrators.”

Move along — nothing to see here ….

Nothing but this and quite possibly this.

Leonard Clark, who is currently serving as a member of the 860th MP Company of the Arizona National Guard patrolling the streets of Baghdad, has been arrested. Clark is a vocal opponent of the Iraq war, and this is clearly retaliation for expressing his views. Here’s the text of an e-mail from one of his fellow soldiers:

“I’ve just learned today that Leonard Clark was arrested for campaigning for the Senate! Well, it looks as if they could not muzzle him according to military law (the attorney said he had a right to speak his opinion), so they found another excuse! Apparently they can arrest him for campaigning for office. There’s just one thing wrong with that—Leonard Clark had not actually campaigned in the sense that we recognize campaigning (raising funds, soliciting campaign workers, etc.) All he has said is that he opposes the reasons for being in Iraq because he is there to see the truth and that he hopes he makes it back so he can run against Kyl. This is NOT in my view an actual campaign at this point. His papers have not even yet been filed! So how can he be accused of campaigning and arrested under this outrageous pretext? This is so shameful we should all be furious enough to write to as many government officials as we feel can help and copy as much media as possible!”

The next time some neocon fool writes me and says: “Our troops in Iraq are fighting so that morons like you can express your traitorous views” I’m going to refer them to Guardsman Clark.

This is a perfect story for the supposedly “liberal” media — so where the heck are they?

Support our troops — free Leonard Clark!

UPDATE: One of the great things about this blog is that I get responses from my readers pretty quickly, sometimes minutes after posting. Here’s one:

“I first learned about Leonard Clark’s arrest listening to Thom Hartmann’s radio program today and then googled and located your posting.

I called my Congresswoman (Zoe Lofgren) and 2 Senators (Boxer and Feinstein) and asked that they look into this outrage. The people that I spoke with were not aware of Clark nor his arrest. Lofgren’s office sounded intent on following up and I believe Boxer’s office will as well. As usual, I hold out no hope that Feinstein will do the right thing. Also, I called the San Jose Mercury News and left a voice mail message for the national news desk with a plea that the paper investigate and cover the story.”

Ok, folks, let’s follow this reader’s good example and get on those phones! What’s up with arrest Leonard Clark?

Andrew Sullivan, who has accused the antiwar movement of being a “fifth column,” is hallucinating again: he accuses me of “peddling” the story that “the Jews knew about the London bombings in advance” — a brazen lie, as anyone who reads my column can see for themselves. (Sullivan, the supposed Uber-Blogger, doesn’t even give the correct link to it. Typical.)

Let’s clear this up right here and now: Israeli intelligence is not “the Jews.” Indeed, there is no such collective entity as “the Jews.” There is, however, a nation called Israel, with a very efficient intelligence service that makes it its business to know what the jihadists are up to. What is so blatantly dishonest about Sullivan’s smear, however, is that he nowhere refers to the basis of my speculation that the Israelis may have known about the bombings in advance: an Associated Press news story that says:

“British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday’s explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.
Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had planned to attend an economic conference in a hotel over the subway stop where one of the blasts occurred, and the warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room instead, government officials said.

“… Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy to say they had received warnings of possible attacks, the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link to the economic conference. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the nature of his position.”

Stratfor.com offers this analysis:

“Contrary to original claims that Israel was warned ‘minutes before’ the first attack, unconfirmed rumors in intelligence circles indicate that the Israeli government actually warned London of the attacks “a couple of days” previous. Israel has apparently given other warnings about possible attacks that turned out to be aborted operations. The British government did not want to disrupt the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, or call off visits by foreign dignitaries to London, hoping this would be another false alarm.”

And finally, here’s Tommy Preston, of Preston Global, a 40-year veteran of intelligence work, who says that it wasn’t the Brits who warned Netanyahu, but the Israeli Embassy:

“Terrorism expert Tommy Preston of Preston Global in Frankfort, Kentucky, said sources in the intelligence community reported that at least one person in London, England was warned of Thursday morning’s terrorist attacks moments before the initial blast. Preston, citing sources in the intelligence community, said former Israeli Prime Minister and current Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was in London this morning for an economic forum. ‘Just before the first blast, Netanyahu got a call from the Israeli Embassy telling him to stay in his hotel room. The hotel is located next to the subway station where the first attack occurred and he did stay put and shortly after that, there was the explosion,’ Preston said.”

Sullivan, who’s been smearing me and Antiwar.com for years, doesn’t care one whit about evidence. He poses as a reasonable right-winger, but when it comes to defending Israel no matter what, he stands alongside Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the born-again dispensationalist nutballs who believe that Israel can do no wrong.

Sullivan also gets in a tizzy because the heroic Paul Craig Roberts calls Tony Blair a war criminal. Oh yeah, that’s really really outrageous — so outrageous that the British government was scared shitless that their illegal war would indeed make them liable for war crimes, as internal documents show. So get your head out of your ass, Sullivan, and quit lying. And what’s even more ridiculous: he throws me — an openly gay man — in with FRED PHELPS, the Baptist “minister” who goes around holding demonstrations with his tiny clique of followers who carry signs saying “God Hates Fags.” Oh yeah, and I’m also supposedly somehow associated with Charles Colson — who has more in common with laptop bombardier Sullivan, and certainly zero in common with me. What is Sullivan smoking?

As I said in this column the other day:

“The War Party is getting desperate. Unhinged by the complete collapse of public support, and hounded by those who insist on recalling the rosy scenarios predicted by advocates of “democratizing” Iraq by force – they were supposed to shower us with rose petals, it was going to be a “cake walk,” remember? – they are flailing about, lashing out at their enemies with the weapon of last resort – brazen smears, backed up by nothing but arbitrary assertions and Stalinesque rhetoric. You’re bound to see an increase in this as the War Party is further discredited and some of them even face a few, uh, legal problems. Their hysteria is a prelude to their final disintegration, and, as such, it is a good sign. Until they are finally and totally defeated, however, we can only be sure of one thing: it’s going to get a lot uglier.”

Sullivan is a pompous has-been who’s too smart to not know what he’s doing. He concludes his smear-job with this:

“I see little to distinguish these people from the Democratic Underground types. Except that the mainstream right is too squeamish sometimes in condemning them. Ever seen one of these guys ripped up on O’Reilly? Thought not.”

Please, please, please — put me on O’Reilly! With Sullivan, preferably. With one or both hands tied behind my back …

NOTE: I edited the ending of this entry and deleted some particularly harsh (even for me) rhetoric, because my good friend Arthur Silber made an excellent point: it detracts from the message. I wouldn’t want to sink the level of my enemies.