Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Terrorist for Israel

Jihad Khazen Al-Hayat 16/07/05/

Under the headline “Terrorists against Bolton” the web magazine Front Page has published an article by Steven Stalinsky defending John Bolton. In his first paragraph the writer says the Arab and Iranian press have over the past few months launched persistent attacks against Bolton, that the same outlets blame America for terrorist activity throughout the world and make racist comments about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The second paragraph refers specifically to me, thus indirectly linking me to the first paragraph. Stalinsky picks lines from my columns criticizing Bolton including “his appearance is inappropriate. He looks like a sea animal”. In Arabic, I said he looks like a walrus.

Any defender of Bolton is clearly of his ilk, a rabid right wing Israeli apologist. Stalinsky name caught my eye as it is derived from Stalin; it reminded me of Stalinist propaganda and the disinformation of the Cold War era.

The writer also refers to Syrian and Egyptian media and journalists. I only speak for myself:

I claim that I support US policies more than Tony Blair does. I only object to one part of the US foreign policy, that which concerns the Middle East, not the whole U.S. foreign policy or any other Bush policy, domestic or otherwise. The reason I oppose the US foreign policy in the Middle East is that Bolton and other neocon supporters of Israel have hijacked this policy and used it in the service of Israel at the expense of American interest.
I support Dr. Rice and believe she works for the good of her country. I have written many times in support of her effort. I have also written supporting the work of Karen Hughes and Dina Powell to improve the US image abroad despite Bolton and his defenders. Is it that Stalinsky prefers selective reading of my columns or is he just lying?
If I were to exercise any racism it would be against American whites not blacks. I lived in the US in the eighties and I only felt comfortable dealing with members of the black caucus in congress. If other things are equal I would always prefer an American black to a white.
I don’t know what the Iranian press says of Dr. Rice; I don’t know any Iranian journalist and have never read Iranian newspaper. I insist that John Bolton and other neocons in the administration and around it are there to serve Israel not America. They are responsible for spreading hatred of the US around the world while Dr. Rice and her assistants are working to rectify the situation.
It must be made absolutely clear that the only terrorism in the Middle East is that of the Israeli government and the terrorist leading it, Ariel Sharon an unreformed mass murderer.
Palestinian groups are a national liberation movement facing Israelis institutionalized terrorism. I go to the leaders of Hamas and Jihad and tell them in their offices to stop suicide bombing and I write this in my column. Israelis apologists like Bolton and his defenders encourage extremism in a government that is already extremist. The result is that innocent Palestinian schoolchildren and Israeli civilians are killed. Their blood is on the hands of the Israeli government and its defenders, or partners in crime, in the US.

Everything I wrote about Bolton was from American sources. All my information without exception was American. I did say that Bolton looked like a walrus and the description was repeated on April 15 in an article in the Washington Post by Robert Givhan under the headline “Bolton’s hair: no brush with greatness”. The column was far more critical of Bolton’s appearance than my few words. Givhan spoke of Bolton not combing his hair or straightening his tie or finding a shirt that fit his neck size to the point of being an “insolent mess”. More important, Senator Chuck Hagel, the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, described Bolton as rude, crude and his armpit stinks… well not the exact words, but definitely the exact sentiment. He was also criticized by Senator George Voinovich, another Republican. One can imagine what Democrats like Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd said of Bolton. This is all on record. My revelations about Bolton were that proverbial tip of the iceberg.

Finally I have this to say about Bolton: he is damaged goods whether he is chosen as ambassador or not. All I would do if I find him at the UN is to refuse talking to him or dealing with the US mission until he is removed.

I had not expected George Bush to appoint another Andrew Young to the UN, but I had hoped that the new ambassador would be as qualified and suitable for the job as John Negroponte who worked for his country at the UN and who is continuing the good work in overseeing US intelligence agencies. I will not compare Negroponte with a man who used classified intelligence information against his colleague. One last time, I did not say that; US senators, including Republicans, said that.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Letter To The President


H.E. President Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Av.
Washington D.C.

Dear Mr. President,

I heard you speak about Iraq the other day, and I became so interested that I acquired the text and read it twice. I also read comments on the speech, before deciding to send you this letter.

I wish to God that everything you said about Iraq is true, but it is not. Still I want to be positive and agree with you on one of the most important points in the speech: you definitely must not set an artificial timetable for withdrawal as it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would then wait you out. I support the continued presence of American troops in Iraq, until you accomplish the mission of defeating the terrorists (like you, I see them as terrorists not resistance or even insurgents).

From here on it is downhill.

One general point that I find disturbing is the repeated use in the speech of the 9/11 terrorism, while speaking about the war on Iraq. There is absolutely no link between the two. And Iraq did not have WMD either. I don’t find the cost of removing Saddam justified.

More specifically, you say that you wanted “to take the fight to the enemy”, that “Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war”, and that “there is only one course of action against them (the terrorists): to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home”.

Why should the Iraqis suffer on your behalf? They had nothing to do with 9/11, and yet they have lost about 100.000 men, women and children to the war, against your loss of about 3.000 in the murderous attack on the World Trade Center.

I agree with the picture you present of Iraq today: ruthless killers are carrying out the violence, hundreds of foreign fighters from Arab and foreign countries have been killed or captured by your troops, the terrorists are making common cause with criminal elements and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime , the terrorists explode car bombs in busy shopping streets, send a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital and behead civilian hostages.

This is all true and horrible and was not there until you liberated (occupied) Iraq.

Mr. President,

You said in your latest speech about Iraq that you spoke about the coalition goals in Iraq about a year ago. I remember that speech vividly. It was delivered at the U S Army War College in Pennsylvania. And you know what Mr. President? I find the two speeches similar, almost identical.

Are you going to deliver the same speech in a year from now? Also the following year? I hope not.

Maybe the two speeches are similar because you don’t have a new offer to make to the American and Iraqi peoples. Maybe a new policy is unachievable because you find yourself in a position where you cannot win and cannot withdraw.

The text of your speech that I have is in eight pages of which two and a half are devoted to you’re achievements in Iraq, like improving roads, schools, health services, sanitation, electricity and water.

You are a man who believes in God and the truth, but someone is telling you a lie. One example suffices: electricity is now available to the Iraqis about eight hours of 24. Under Saddam Hussein after the liberation of Kuwait, electricity was made fully available within weeks. The huge Dawra power station was repaired by Iraqis with local material. Do you accept that your great country fails to achieve over two years what Saddam Hussein achieved in a few weeks under the sanctions. I suggest that you punish companies like Halliburton, because the 200 billion dollars squandered in Iraq so for would have been put to better and more urgent use at home, like repairing your inner cities.

Mr. President,

Please read an editorial in the New York Times, which I read in the International Herald Tribune. It was published Tuesday morning and you spoke Tuesday night. That brilliant editorial said three facts must be acknowledged for a sober conversation about Iraq: The war has nothing to do with
September 11, the war has not made the United States, or the world, safer from terrorisms; if the war is going according to plan someone needs to rethink the plan.

If you do rethink the plan, I hope you do not listen to the war party of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and the Israelis around them. They are responsible for the current mess and are adding to it. One day the Vice-president says the insurgency is in its “last throes”, the next day the Defense Secretary says it will take 12 years to defeat the insurgency.

You need a better legacy to leave to your country and the world than the war party can provide. Please change course. Admitting a mistake is the first step towards rectifying it.

With respect,
Jihad El Khazen.