NOVANEWS
Editor’s note: Satire or not, I hope they do! Joe & Judy Six-Pack will get a wake-up call to the true reality of Zio power in the US…
I thought it might be worth asking just where this veto power is to be found in the Constitution or the US Code? Writers: Atzmon, Sabrosky, Petersen and Sniegoski weigh in…
Hagel’s defeat would obviously mean a victory for the zio-cons and other hard-line supporters of Israel and would be a step closer to war with Iran.
“Time is ripe for America’s liberation…”
by Gilad Atzmon
The Onion (a spoof publication) reports that “top-ranking government officials in Jerusalem confirmed Tuesday that Israel would exercise its longstanding, constitutionally granted veto power over American policy if U.S. lawmakers confirmed retired congressman Chuck Hagel as the United States’ next Secretary of Defense.” Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev is quoted saying “In light of Mr. Hagel’s worrying remarks on Israeli-Palestinian relations and questionable classification of Israeli interests as ‘the Jewish lobby,’ we consider him a highly inappropriate choice for Defense Secretary who stands far out of line with our national priorities, and therefore we are prepared to swiftly and resolutely use our official veto power over this U.S. action.”
According to The Onion, “sources confirmed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had sent the White House a list of three individuals the Israeli leader considered appropriate to head the American military from which U.S. President Barack Obama could choose.”
I must admit that it all sound genuine rather than ‘conspiratorial’, ‘phantasmic’ or ‘funny’. The messages is clear – it isn’t a joke. Time is ripe for America’s liberation.
Gilad Atzmon was born a secular Israeli Jew in Tel Aviv and trained at the Rubin Academy of Music in Jerusalem. His work can be found at: Gilad Atzmon – Writings
by Alan Sabrosky
Yes, I know about the Onion. Satire can be an effective tool. BUT it can also backfire, in the same way as exaggerated hyperbole. The Zionists take great pleasure in easily puncturing holes in many of our criticisms, as when the attack on the USS Liberty is described as a holocaust (spare me….) and the attack onthe First Peace Activists Flotilla is characterized as a massacre. Cannot give them an inch or an opening, with their leverage over the Mainstream Media, they’ll make our side look ridiculous.
Aside from that, the US Constitution is very explicit about how constitutional amendments are made: two-thirds of both Houses of Congress usually propose them, and three-quarters of the 50 states have to ratify them. “Signing statements” modifying them are absolutely off the table. And there is nothing in the US Constitution about Israel, period.
Also history flies in the face of the 1,400 vetoes in 64 years. Until the arrival of the Fifth Republic (De Gaulle) in France, IT was the principal supporter & supplier of Israel: e.g., the planes that attacked the USS Liberty were obtained from France. When De Gaulle came on the scene, the Israelis switched to the US (note that this is about when AIPAC came into existence). Also in 1956, the US kicked Israel (as well as the UK & France) out of Egypt, and I doubt if that would have happened if the Israelis had that veto power. JFK was certainly not Israel’s friend, and as late as 1982 (following that Israeli invasion of the Lebanon), the US sent ships & Marines to the Beirut area, and there were several direct confrontations between the Israelis & US Marines that came right to the edge of outright shooting. Again, highly unlikely if that veto power were around. To say nothing that if it DID exist and that existence ever came to light, it would be political death for almost any US politicians who did not vote to scrub it.
That’s the good news. The one possible exception is the aforementioned “signing statements” by presidents, which CAN be used with any legislation (like a foreign aid bill for Israel) and rarely ever see the light of day. Any president from Reagan on could have made such a statement, and there is no feasible way of tracking them down. But I tell you this: if that happened and it came to light, which political party was in power in the White House would join the dodo in terms of viability. And Israel would be cut off at the political knees.
Alan Sabrosky ((Ph.D., University of Michigan). A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Sabrosky’s teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University; while in government service, he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Read more here
by Rufus Petersen
The Onion is a total satire entity, so there should be no worry. The absolutely wonderful thing is that by doing such, The Onion is creating a hoax based on the fact that very many are aware of the extent of Israeli zio-control. You don’t create a satire/hoax item if no one’s getting the joke. So in a sense, The Onion has just joined in on our side- the pro Hagel side!
Rufus Peterson, a fifty-something, bohemian Paleoconservative artist and writer living in Idaho.
by Stephen Sniegoski
Hagel obviously represents the old foreign policy establishment, which does support an imperial America, but one which is realistic. Hagel wants to protect the American economic power which entails reducing, but certainly not eliminating, American military involvement in the world, peaceful relations with Russia and China, and cutting back the military budget which certainly contributes to America’s dire economic situation. Most importantly from my standpoint, he and is associates—Brzezinski, Scowcroft, Baker—are opposed to the neocon inspired Israel first war policy in the Middle East. The Atlantic Council, which he has headed, has even issued a report not simply calling for a peaceful policy towards Iran but that it could become America’s ally.
Read what the neocon-dominated Washington Post writes about the Atlantic Council’s report on Iran, from which I quote below:
http://www.washingtontimes.
The Washington think tank overseen by President Obama’s defense secretary-designate predicts that Iran one day will be a “natural partner” for the United States and could possess nuclear weapons.
It also puts the onus on Israel to make peace with Palestinians, many of whom are governed by Hamas, an Iran-backed terrorist group bent on the destruction of the Jewish state.
The views are contained in a major policy paper by the Atlantic Council, for which former Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska serves as chairman. The paper shows the foreign policy culture from which Mr. Hagel emerges to face Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearings.
The paper also may explain the underpinnings for Mr. Hagel’s dovish views on Iran for which he will receive close scrutiny by fellow Republicans.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Hagel will pursue what is good for a large American economic interests and thus wants to protect a global capitalistic economy that favors these interests.This entails a stable world order based on international law.
Hagel and his associates realize that it does not help America to antagonize a billion or so Muslims as well as the rest of the world by its warlike actions in the Middle East. The Likudnik Israeli position, in contrast, is to destabilize Israel’s Middle East enemies in order to enhance Israel’s security. This represents the interests of the Jewish state. As Hagel said once when faced with pressure from the Israel lobby, he was a senator from Nebraska, not Israel.
Now the positions of Atlantic Council are undoubtedly different from leftists who would want to destroy global capitalism, disarm the US, eliminate America’s dominant position in the world, etc. But they certainly differ from the neocon Middle East war agenda. And the Palestinians would certainly be better off if their positions became US policy.
However, the problem, as I see it, is that Hagel will NOT make a major effort to implement the policies of the Atlantic Council in the Middle East because of the overwhelming power of the Israel Lobby. Hagel is already backing away from his pro-peace stance on Iran and saying that war could be an option. Hagel, like Obama, is concerned about his own personal success—to which being smeared by the Israel lobby is not conducive—and also the achievement of the non-Middle East goals sought by people who reflect the realist positions of the Atlantic Council. To achieve these other policy goals, Hagel might reluctantly go along with the war agenda—in a manner similar to that of Colin Powell under the younger Bush. Like Powell, Hagel’s support for an Iran war agenda would give that policy much greater credibility, just as was the case for Powell’s ultimate support (UN presentation, etc) for war on Iraq in 2003.
So having Hagel become Secretary of Defense is not a panacea, but I still think he is about the best that Obama could come up with. Obama has been forced to take a harder line on Iran than he would like to take, I believe. Obama, with his repeated warnings to Iran, has painted himself in a corner over Iran, so that he might be forced by circumstances to opt for a military strike to prevent the Islamic Republic from achieving a real, or imagined, nuclear weapons breakout capacity. Obama’s administration needs a strong voice to oppose this development. He will not get this from some non-entity thankful for getting a job, certainly not from individuals attuned to American politics who would be concerned about antagonizing the Israel lobby, and certainly not from any of the war liberals who now loom large in the higher echelons of the Democratic Party. Given the alternatives, Hagel is probably the best hope to preserve peace with Iran.
The anti-Hagel effort, currently spearheaded by neocon Bill Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel, needs to go beyond hard core pro-Israel senators to prevent Hagel’s confirmation.Gay rights people, for example, are being brought into the opposition. Obviously, it would also be helpful to have the left attack Hagel as a dangerous America imperialist and lackey of global plutocrats. At the very least, this could weaken any vocal support for Hagel from Obama’s normal allies. In short, I do not think Hagel’s confirmation in the Senate is a done deal. His defeat would obviously mean a victory for the neocons and other hard-line supporters of Israel and would be a step closer to war with Iran.
Stephen J. Sniegoski, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in American history, with a focus on American foreign policy, at the University of Maryland. His focus on the neoconservative involvement in American foreign policy antedates September 11, 2001. Read more
Ed note: Jim Ruttenberg noted in the NYTimes over the weekend, it’s starting to sound a lot like 2006: Hawks on Iraq Prepare for War Again, Against Hagel
In the bitter debate that led up to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said that some of his fellow Republicans, in their zest for war, lacked the perspective of veterans like him, who have “sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off.”
Those Republicans in turn called him an “appeaser” whose cautious geopolitical approach dangerously telegraphed weakness in the post-Sept. 11 world.
The campaign now being waged against Mr. Hagel’s nomination as secretary of defense is in some ways a relitigation of that decade-old dispute. It is also a dramatic return to the public stage by the neoconservatives whose worldview remains a powerful undercurrent in the Republican Party and in the national debate about the United States’ relationship with Israel and the Middle East.Politic: Chuck Hagel comments on Iraq resolution
