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.
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.
posted by Khazen at 4:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home