Saturday, January 24, 2009

الفقيد الكبير الوزير الراحل ايلي حبيقة









NINE YEARS...,WE ARE STILL IN DISBELIEF... HEROES LAST FOREVER, TILL THE END OF TIME AND THE DISINTEGRATION OF ALL THE SUNS AND GALAXIES.... GOD WANTED TO KNOW WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING ON EARTH...., SO HE CALLED ON HK ELIE HOBEIKA... JUST TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON.....
RIP HK...YOU ARE ALWAYS IN MY THOUGHTS DAILY....


http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.7031450820.22105.746995820


كانون الثاني-24- 2002 ، من منكم لا يتذكر هذا التاريخ، حين سبقت قصاصات الغدر خيوط فجر ذاك النهار، الذي تحول الى يوم أسود، وغيمة سوداء أصابت مناصري الوزير الراحل شهيدنا البطل الرئيس ايلي حبيقة الذين نزلوا باكراً من أجل القضية، ولم يدركوا ان آخرين ممن يدعون ثقافة الحياة سيكونون بالمرصاد

"نعود بخشوع وأسى اليوم الى ذكرى استشهاد الرفيق الوزير الراحل شهيدنا البطل الرئيس ايلي حبيقة قبل 7 سنة، بعدما أسقط غدراً وبهمجية حاقدة، هو من وقف بوجه الغدر إيماناً منه بحق الوطن بأيام أفضل، وبزعماء وطنيين يعطون كل ذي حق حقه...

لم يرحل الرفيق شهيدنا البطل الرئيس ايلي حبيقة في يوم اغتياله الأسود على أيدي مدعي إحقاق العدل بالإلغاء فقط. فهو استشهد بعدها مرات: في كل مرة نسينا تضحياته في سبيل وطن أفضل، في كل ساعة فشلنا فيها ببناء البلد الذي ضحى في سبيله كثيرون، وفي كل مرة نرى سياسيين يتربعون على أعراش فوق جثث الناس وأحلامهم وحقوقهم بالاختلاف، وآلامهم المسجونة في غياهب النسيان...

انه ايلي حبيقة الذي افتقدناه اليوم، فيلسوف على السليقة، قروي المزاج، رؤوي النظرة، قادر على التحكّم بصناعة الأحلام، وتسويقها الى عالم آخر، يظهر فيه انسانه: كلمة حق، وسيف حرية، في معركة الخير والشر، الاستقلال والعبودية، الجمال والبشاعة. زنده نصير الفقير والمظلوم، أبداً همّه ابراز لبنان بلد الشهامة والكبر، وتاريخه البطولات والقيم!!

إننا اليوم في ذكرى الشهيد البطل الرئيس ايلي حبيقة ، ننحني أمام حزن العائلة الدفين وغصة الرفاق والأصدقاء الباقين من بعده، وندعو الى موقف لحظة لاستعادة التاريخ، والضمير، والذاكرة. فاذا كانت المغفرة نعمة، فإن النسيان خطأ وقد يكون هنا خطيئة"...

"شهيدنا ايلي حبيقة استشهد من أجل وطنه، وليس منة من أحد إن ذكره تجار الهيكل أم لا، فدمه يشهد عن استشهاد المؤمن بيسوع المسيح والكنيسة ولبنان، وليس كغيره من الشهداء المستعارين، لهذا السبب كل الأحرار ساروا على الدرب التي مشاها".

: تصور حلا لمشكلة وطنه لكن ساعة الوفاق لم تكن قد حانت بعد... .حبيقة في ذكرى والده: عاجلك القتلة الخائفون مما تعرف قبل ان تشهد للحقيقة وتنتزع براءتك
Faraya Village Club
أحيا الحزب الوطني العلماني الديمقراطي "وعد" وعائلة مؤسس الحزب الوزير والنائب السابق الشهيد ايلي حبيقة الذكرى السنوية السابعة لاستشهاده ورفاقه فارس سويدان وديمتري عجرم ووليد زين، بيوم صلاة بدأ صباحا، وانتهى بعد الظهر بقداس وجناز في كنيسة قلب يسوع الاقدس في بدارو.

ففي التاسعة والدقيقة الأربعين - التوقيت الذي وقع فيه الإنفجار- توجهت السيدة جينا ايلي حبيقة ونجلها رئيس حزب "وعد" جو حبيقة يرافقهما الأب بشارة أبو ملهب وأفراد العائلة وعائلات الشهداء الثلاثة ورئيس بلدية الحازمية جان الأسمر وأعضاء من المجلس البلدي ورئيس بلدية فرن الشباك ريمون سمعان وأمين عام الإتحاد لأجل لبنان مسعود الأشقر ومحازبون وأصدقاء، الى المكان الذي وقع فيه الإنفجار قبل سبع سنوات في الحازمية، حيث وضع المشاركون أكاليل وباقات من الورود ورفعت الصلاة عند مزار السيدة العذراء الذي شيد في المكان.

بعدها توجهت السيدة حبيقة والمشاركين الى مدفن الشهيد ايلي حبيقة ورفاقه في بعبدا حيث رفعت الصلاة وأضيئت الشموع ووضعت الورود، ومن ثم الى مدافن مار متر حيث تكرر المشهد.

الأب بشارة أبو ملهب قال: "شهيدنا ايلي حبيقة استشهد من أجل وطنه، وليس منة من أحد إن ذكره تجار الهيكل أم لا، فدمه يشهد عن استشهاد المؤمن بيسوع المسيح والكنيسة ولبنان، وليس كغيره من الشهداء المستعارين، لهذا السبب كل الأحرار ساروا على الدرب التي مشاها".

وفي الثالثة بعد الظهر أقيمت صلاة القداس والجناز في كنيسة قلب يسوع الأقدس في بدارو. وترأس الصلاة مطران بيروت للطائفة المارونية بولس مطر وعاونه لفيف من الكهنة، في حين تولت جوقة بعبدات بقيادة جورج ملكي خدمة الذبيحة الإلهية.

حضر الصلاة الوزير جو تقلا ممثلا رئيس الجمهورية ميشال سليمان ورئيس مجلس الوزراء فؤاد السنيورة، والنائب بيار دكاش ممثلا الرئيس نبيه بري والنائب كميل خوري ممثلا العماد ميشال عون والنائبان سليم عون وابراهيم كنعان، والعميد نبهان نبهان ممثلا الوزير الياس المر والسيدة ميريام سكاف ممثلة زوجها الوزير الياس سكاف والأمير مالك ارسلان ممثلا وزير الشباب والرياضة طلال ارسلان، ونديم أبو جودة ممثلا النائب ميشال المر والوزيران السابقان كريم بقرادوني ووئام وهاب وعضو المجلس السياسي لحزب الله ممثلا الحزب الدكتور احمد مللي، وطوني سليمان فرنجية ممثلا والده رئيس تيار المردة سليمان فرنجية، والنائب السابق عدنان عرقجي وومثلون عن وزراء سابقين ووفود من التيار الوطني الحر وتيار المردة والحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي وحركة أمل والحزب الديمقراطي اللبناني وجبهة الحرية وقدامى القوات اللبنانية والاتحاد لأجل لبنان وشخصيات سياسية وعسكرية، وفاعليات إقتصادية واجتماعية ورؤساء بلديات ومخاتير ووحشد غفير من المحازبين والأصدقاء.

المطران مطر
والقى المطران مطر عظة جاء فيها: "نرفع الصلاة في هذا القداس لراحة نفس الوزير الراحل المرحوم إيلي حبيقه ورفاقه الأعزاء، فارس سويدان وديمتري عجرم ووليد الزين، في الذكرى السابعة لانضمامهم إلى قافلة الشهداء على أرض لبنان الحبيب. وإننا ما زلنا إلى اليوم نشعر بالصدمة الرهيبة أمام ذلك الحدث المشؤوم الذي هز البلاد والعباد في مرحلة كنا نخال أننا دخلنا معها إلى السلم الأهلي المنشود بعد حروب متتالية دامت إلى ذلك الحين حوالي سبع وعشرين من السنوات. فإذا بحقبة جديدة من العنف تتوالد من رحم المأساة وتحصد لنا على سبع سنوات جديدة عددا من القادة ومن المواطنين الأبرياء مخلفة مزيدا من الأحزان في القلوب ومطلقة موجة جديدة من اليأس في الضمائر".

وقال: "نحن لا نتكلم في هذه المناسبة عن الدماء التي تراق بحقد أعمى على يد الأعداء، وقد شهدنا منذ أيام في غزة الجريح سقوط ألوف من المدنيين الأبرياء بين قتيل وجريح، بفعلة باردة يندى لها الجبين، وبروح آثمة أطلقت عنان العنف القاتل في هذا الشرق منذ ستين عاما ولا تزال. بل نريد التأمل بحال الدماء التي تسيل في بلادنا على أيدي أخوة ضيعوا الحب في ما بينهم وأسقطوا من الحساب حساب الرحمة والغفران واستبدلوا التفاهم والحوار في جو من الديمقراطية والاحترام المتبادل، بالرغبة في إلغاء الآخر وبمنطق التصفيات الجسدية والتراجع الحزين نحو منطق الغاب، فيما التاريخ يدعو الناس إلى الارتقاء نحو منطق التحاور وسعة الصدر وإلى فرح الحياة والحرية والمحبة والسلام".

اضاف: "هل نذكر تأليف لجنة الحوار الوطني التي تسابقت في نشاطها مطلع صيف 1975، مع اندلاع الحرب التي طغت على كل كلام سوي وأحرقت بنارها الأخضر واليابس؛ وقد يكون رمادها اليوم مخفيا في طياته أجمارا حارقة يجب أن تطفأ فلا تعود من جديد إلى الاشتعال. والغريب أننا عدنا إلى طاولات الحوار سواء على أرض الوطن أم على أرض الأخوة والأصدقاء، دونما شعور واضح منا بأننا نلتقط الحوار خشبة خلاص ليس لنا إلاها، وإلا فبئس المصير. هذا فيما شعور آخر ينتابنا بأننا ضيعنا على ذواتنا فرصا لا تعوض منذ حصولنا على استقلال البلاد، فلم نحصن بلادنا المستقلة لا سياسيا عبر ممارسات ديمقراطية متقدمة ولا اقتصاديا عبر تخفيف الفوارق الاجتماعية بين المواطنين ولا أمنيا عبر تطوير وسائل دفاعية مقنعة وبالأخص عبر تلاحم وطني يمنع رياح السموم من اجتياح البيت الوطني من منافذه المشرعة على كل الأخطار. فتحضر أمامنا كلمة الرب يسوع في إنجيله الطاهر عن البيت الذي بني على الصخر فصمد أمام العواصف الهوج، وعن البيت الآخر الذي كان بناؤه على الرمل فلما هطلت الأمطار وعصفت الرياح سقط ذلك البيت وكان سقوطه عظيما".

تابع المطران مطر: "لذلك يجب أن نحسب ألف حساب قبل أن نحاسب جيلا من الشباب تحمس لوطنه واستعد لإهراق دمه فداء عن الكرامة والحقوق. وقد عرضت عليه الحرب ولو بين الأخوة وسيلة ما دونها وسيلة لإحقاق الحقوق وللذود عن الكرامات. أما الوزير إيلي حبيقه فكان من جيل تلك الحقبة التي اختلف فيها اللبنانيون ولم يقفوا صفا واحدا لمواجهة قضايا الوطن الكبرى... فوقعت الفرقة في ما بينهم، ويا ليتها ما وقعت، لأنها أوقعت الجميع أو كادت في شباكها الآسرة. لقد أدخل الحرب فتيا فدخلها بعزيمة وهمة. لكنه ما إن أدرك خطأ السير في تشعباتها إلى ما لا نهاية حتى عقد العزم على وضع حد لها والخلاص من سمومها الرهيبة، فتصور حلا لمشكلة وطنه، لكن ساعة الوفاق لم تكن دقت بعد، وكان لساعة الخلاف أن تجري عقاربها دون هوادة نحو مزيد من التقهقر والفوضى. أراد المصالحة الوطنية وسار في ركابها، وما إن عقد اتفاق الطائف حتى انبرى في الحكم مسؤولا واعدا أحب الناس وخدمهم بعزم واندفاع كبيرين. وبغفلة من الزمن امتدت يد الإجرام عليه لتنصب نفسها حكما وإلها دون الله الذي يملك وحده على المصائر. فدخل الوزير الشاب في عداد اللبنانيين الذين قدموا دماءهم في سبيل وطنهم. ومن المخزي أن يكون السؤال لم يطرح لا أمس ولا اليوم عن المفتعلين.... ما سهل السبيل إلى اعتماد القتل وسيلة لصراع الأفكار بإلغاء الرأي الآخر عن طريق إلغاء أصحابه ومؤيديه".

وقال: "إنها حقا أسوأ ما في الحرب بين الأخوة والأشقاء من مآس. وهي الوسيلة الأقسى لضرب الحوار ومجانبته عبر عقود من الزمن بدأت فعلا مع الاستقلال ولما يوضع لها حد نهائي إلى الآن. فهل يعني الأمر أننا والاستقلال على طرفي نقيض؟ إننا حقا في هذا الموقع أمام تحديات كبيرة يجب أن ترفع وعلى مفترق طرق يجب أن نختار ما يوصلنا منها إلى غاياتنا الوطنية السامية. وإن دم الشهداء إلى أية جهة انتموا يدعونا إلى إنقاذهم حتى بعد موتهم لأننا إذا ضيعنا شهادتهم ولم نبن الوطن الذي كانوا به يحلمون نكون قد عرضناهم للموت مرتين وهناك الطامة الكبرى والخسارة التي لا تعوض.
فنحن لا نستطيع الاستمرار في هدر الفرص لإنقاذ لبنان ولا يجوز لنا أن نبني من جديد في كل عقد من الزمن ما هدمناه في العقد السابق ثم نعود إلى الهدم ثانية فلا تقوم للدولة قائمة ولا يعلو لها برج حصين ولا يتجمع لنا تراث من جيل إلى جيل. ولا سبيل للخروج من الحالة العبثية هذه إلا بقبول الحوار الوطني الهادئ المبني على أساس من الأخوة الجامعة لا العصبية المفرقة بكل ألوانها. إن وطنية أي مواطن فينا وأية جماعة عندنا ليست منة من أحد وكلنا أهل نتمتع بنفس الحقوق ونقر بنفس الواجبات".

تابع: "فلنقلع عن الاتهامات المتبادلة، وليكن الجدل في ما بيننا في حيز الأفكار والتنافس نحو الأفضل. وإذا رفعنا راية الديمقراطية في هذا الشرق الحزين، فلنحمل أيضا مسؤولياتنا حيالها ليكون لنا فضل حقيقي بتثبيتها من أجل أجيالنا أولا، ومن أجل الأخوة المتكلين على نجاحنا في هذا المجال، ليقوى فيهم الأمل بقيام مجتمع جديد. أما إذا اقتنعنا بالمصالحة الحقيقية في ما بيننا فسوف تتحقق المصالحة مع دم شهدائنا أولا ومع قيم حركت آباءنا وأجدادنا عبر العصور ومع الولوج إلى المستقبل الزاهر ومع مواكبة الشعوب الحرة في نضالها من أجل عيش آمن كريم يليق بنعمة الحياة التي قبلناها من رب الحياة".

وختم: "هذه صلاتنا من أجل الوزير إيلي حبيقه ورفاقه الأحباء، فليرقدوا بسلام على رجاء القيامة. ولتكن شهادتهم وشهادة كل الذين سقطوا من أجل لبنان قوة نهوض لنا جميعا نحو مستقبل حقيقي لبلادنا نعمل له بكل قوانا ونفرح به حقيقة راهنة بكل جوارحنا.
وعلى هذا الرجاء المحيي لنفوسنا نتقدم بالتعزية مجددا من عائلته العزيزة ومن ذويه ومحبيه راجين لهم أن يتقبلوا هذه الشهادة من أجل لبنان، وأن يسيروا بهديها على طريق العمل الوطني بالحوار والمصالحة فنلتقي جميعا على إعلاء مصالح البلاد العليا وتعود ابتسامة الوزير الشهيد حلوة على شفاه جيل جديد من اللبنانيين ينعم بفرح الحياة وطيب العيش بين أخوة وأهل يقوون بالحق معا ويسعدون بالحب وينالون من ربهم فيضا من نعمه وبركاته.آمين".

حبيقة
وبعد القداس القى جو ايلي حبيقة كلمة الحزب وفيها:
"أيها الرفاق، أيها الأصدقاء الأوفياء،
والدي الشهيد: للسنة السابعة نفتقد حضورك بيننا، يفتقدك مجتمعك، تفتقد حضورك الساحة الداخلية اللبنانية في زمنها الصعب، نفتقد جميعا مواقفك، نفتقد رؤاك السباقة التي دفعك البعض ثمنا باهظا جراء عجزه عن فهمها ومواكبتها، نفتقدك العلامة الفارقة في الزمن المصيري، وإن كنت اليوم تحيا بخياراتك...
والدي ايلي حبيقة، لم نرد يوما، ولن نريد إطلاقا لذكرى استشهادك ورفاقك أن تتحول مناسبة للتوظيف السياسي، دعنا إذا في الظرف الذي يستدعي منا كلاما، أن نقول ما يجب قوله عنك.
إذا استذكرنا مراحل النضال دعما للدولة والجيش وتثبيت الهوية ونهائية الكيان، والحؤول دون تمرير مشاريع التوطين وقيام الوطن البديل، يحدثوننا عنك قائدا مقداما مستبسلا على الجبهات وحارسا يقظا لأمن مجتمعك. ورفاق الساح والسلاح يحفظون لك الدور والعزيمة والشجاعة والشهامة".

وقال: "وإن توقفنا عند حمل الأثقال فنادرا ما يجد مجتمع واحدا منه يقبل أن تلقى عليه كل التبعات، فحملوك أثقال قضية مجتمعك المسيحي فتحملتها بصمت، ولم تلقها لا على أحياء ولا على الأموات ولا على فاعليها. ودفعت الثمن باهظا جدا وبقيت صامتا، فكنت أصيلا في معدنك المسيحي حين احتملت لأجل الآخرين ولم تحمل الآخرين لأجلك.... وقبل أن تشهد للحقيقة، وتنتزع براءتك، عاجلك القتلة المجرمون الخائفون مما تعرف ومما كنت ستقول، والمستفيدون من إزاحتك وإلغائك، بالقضاء عليك مستبقين ساعة الحسم والعدالة.
وإن استوقفتنا المصالحات والانفتاح على الآخر اليوم، تسترجعنا الأيام الى مواقفك لأربع وعشرين سنة خلت، في ذروة جولات الجنون والعنف حين حطمت جدار الخوف والتقوقع ومددت يدك للشريك في الوطن الواحد الموحد، فأردت تغليب منطق الحوار والانفتاح على منطق الحرب، لكن منطق الحرب تغلب عليك فدفعك التهجير العنفي والقسري أنت ورفاقك الى خارج حدود الدويلات والكانتونات".

اضاف: "آثرت التخلي عن كل ما يحظى به أمراء الدويلات من امتيازات، وفضلت شظف العيش من دون أن ترحمك سهام التجريح القاتلة، على ألا تتخلى أو تتراجع عن موقف جريء وصادق يوقف التقاتل ويفتح باب السلام والوطن على وفاق وشراكة ومشاركة.
وإن حدقنا في الدستور، الذي يتأبطه ساسة اليوم كواحد من قدس الأقداس، نجد فيه بنود الاتفاق الثلاثي مستنسخة لكن في طبعة باهتة مر عليها الزمن.
وإن طالعتنا اليوم عناوين الانفتاح المشرقي والحضاري، نتوقف حين عبرت قبل ربع قرن ما كانت تسمى حدود العداء لتؤكد جذور مسيحيتك المشرقية ولتدخل المسيحيين في المعادلة المشرقية بطريقة تحمي وجودهم وتكرس دورهم كشركاء أقوياء فاعلين".

تابع: "والدي الشهيد: نفخر اليوم وكل يوم بتضحياتك وتضحيات رفاقك، ونكبر فيك مواقفك، أنك كنت رجل الدولة والتنمية بحق، وكنت رجل الوطنية في زمن الشركة اللبنانية - الطائفية المحدودة المسؤولية، ورجل العلمانية في زمن التعصب الطائفي والمذهبي، والساعي الى المواطنية في عصر التجمعات القبلية.
ايلي حبيقة: الكل اليوم ينشد خياراتك، وهذا إقرار صارخ بصوابيتها.
واستحلفك ألا تظن أني أخاطبك بلغة عاطفة الأبن تجاه أبيه لأضعك في أعلى المستويات والمراتب، وفي مصافي المنزهين عن الخطأ، لكن والدي صدقني أن ما أقول هو الحديث اليومي لعارفيك، الذين يفتقدونك بحرقة الخائف على الأداء والوجود والمصير. وهؤلاء اليوم يأملون من حزبك الذي أسسته أن يكون على مستوى تطلعاتك.
من هنا ومن أمام مذبح الرب، وفي ذكرى استشهادك ورفاقك، أعاهدك أن وعدك لن يحيد عما رسمت وصممت، وسيكون حاضرا في كل الاستحقاقات المقبلة".

وختم حبيقة: "أيها الرفاق أيها الأصدقاء الأوفيا، باسم عائلتي وباسم عائلات الشهداء فارس سويدان وديمتري عجرم ووليد زين، وباسم عائلتي الوعد، أشكر وفاءكم ومشاركتكم، وأرجو لكم كل الخير".

وفي الختام تقبلت عائلات الشهداء التعازي من المشاركين.

------------------------------------------------------------------

شهيرةٌ طرفةُ المواطن اللبناني، الذي ورث عن والدِه اسمَ عائلةٍ معيب. حتى بات يخجلُ بوضعه بين الناس. فلجأ الى الواسطة والقضاء وألفِ حيلةٍ وحيلة، ليغيَّرَ ذلك. فلما تحقق مطلبُه، سُئل ماذا تريد أن تسمىَّ، فإذا به يطلب تغييرَ اسمِه الأول، ويُبقي اسمَ عائلتِه المعيب على حاله

طبقُ الأصل هي حالةُ مسيحيي قريطم. يخجلون بنَسَبهم منذ أربعة أعوام. حتى باتوا يُدركون استحالةَ تسويقهم في بيئتهم ومجتمعهم. قبل أسابيع، حبكت معهم، فقرروا تغييرَ أسمائهم... الأولى. لم يعودوا 14 آذار. فكَّروا بكل أيام الشهر. فكَّروا بأيامٍ لم تأت حتى، وبأشهرٍ ليست على الرزنامة. فكَّروا بكل الأرقام. توقفوا بعناية عند جماعة الأربعين... كما عند ال 44. لكنهم اعتمدوا أخيراً على الاسم الجديد: كتلةُ الوسط....CIA

وسرعان ما تعمَّمت التسميةُ الجديدة، على دوائرِ النفوس وحبسِ الأنفاس، وعلى لجان القيد وشابيك القطع والدفع....CIA

هكذا صار أمين الجميل مدافعاً عن كتلة الوسط. وصارت ستريدا طوق جعجع من المقدِّرين لمحاسنها. ميشال المر ذهب أشواطاً في التدليل عليها. حتى أنه بشَّر اللبنانيين بأنه سيجعلهم يتذوَّقون طعماً لم يتجرَّعوه من قبل. وكرَّت الأسماءُ والأقنعة، على طريقة الجوارب النسائية في رؤوس اللصوص... كلُّهم كتلةُ وسط. ولتكتملَ الطبخة، لا بد من بركةٍ بطريركيةٍ لها، فأُعطيت على طريق القاهرة.... علَّها تشفع لتكونَ قاهرةً لإرادة المسيحيين وحقهم في الاختيار، مرة ثالثة. تماماً كما فعلوا سنة 1990،2002 وسنة 2005، وكما يحلمون في 7 حزيران 2009...

ماتت 14 آذار. مات مسيحيو قريطم. ماتت كلُّ الأسامي. عاش الاسمُ الموحَّدُ الجديد: كتلةُ الوسيط....CIA

أمرٌ وحيد لم يتنبَّهوا إليه. هو أنهم غيَّروا اسمَهم الأول. أما العائلة المشينة الموروثة، فثابتة في الاسم والفعل والسلوك والوجوه، وإن كانت مقنعة....CIA

ثابتة، تماماً كما كانت وَسَطِيتُهم في 24 كانون الثاني 2002. يوم توسَّطوا بين الحق والباطل، ليطلقوا النارَ على الحق، وليطلقوا حريةَ الباطل حتى اليوم....

وعد" يحيي الذكرى السابعة لاستشهاد مؤسسه بقداس في القلب الاقدس -بدارو: لا قيامة للبنان إلا بدولة قوية ولا قوة له الا بتضامن جيشه وشعبه ومقاومته....!


When you steal your opponent's lawn signs and replace them with
your candidate's, you only piss people off and ensure that they
will not only vote against you but that they will bring a friend
who will also vote against you.... It's also pretty juvenile and a
sign of last-minute desperation....

However, when you are on a power trip and play political WHORE
it is bound to catch up and bite you..... A loaded gun that
backfired and shot him/her in the foot! "GIVE THEM ENOUGH ROPE
AND THEY HANG THEMSELVES."

Heard a funny rumor. Reported that patrons at Hani's Corner bar
on "FairKSA" Ave are being offered free drinks (and surely
cash ? ) in exchange for votes....

The Black Rock school where I vote is one block away,
and some volunteers told me about this CIA practice


Friday, January 23, 2009

Jordan's Intelligence Chief Sacked: New PNAC marching Orders going forward?


-
-


















There is something very fishy going on about the recent engagement of Prince Hamza to this Canadian Jordanian of the Al-'Utum tribe from Jerash and the attendance of Queen Nour of the festivities. For Hamza to be back in the public eye at this time and to get engaged to a Jordanian woman (the only precedent for any Hashemite prince or king marrying a Jordanian woman is Prince Muhammad's --brother of King Hussein-- second wife who is of the Majali family from the southern town of Karak and with whom he has no children—his first wife was the Palestinian Princess Firyal whom he divorced). As no Hashemite ever married a tribal Jordanian and Hamza’s planning to do so in the near future (albeit to one born and raised in Canada) is not incidental at this time--especially as he only met her three months ago, which means the Americans cooked this quickly. The Americans are making calculations and want to make sure there is an alternative from within the family. The only step missing is re-designating him as Crown Prince which Abdullah and Rania will not allow, but if Abdullah has to go, the Americans will have do so as the last decision before he abdicates, should it ever come to that. They surely were able to do this with his father, why not with him? After all, Nour who was behind the removal of crown prince Hassan had hoped Hamza could become King which proved impossible due to the succession rules of the constitution, and which is why Abdullah made him Crown Prince as a condition for Abdullah himself to rule as a king for five years and then abdicate to Hamza. Once the deal was sealed, Abdullah reneged and removed Hamza and later appointed his son Hussein. The Americans are now banking on the idea that after all this the chauvinists among the Jordanian people will not accept Prince Hussein (the current crown prince) to rule, as his mother is a Palestinian Arab Muslim, as opposed to King Abdullah II whose mother is English and Hamza whose mother is half white American and half Syrian American Christian. It seems Jordanian Chauvinists prefer their kings to be half anything except half-Palestinian. Indeed Hamza is always marketed as the closest in manners and commitments to his father Hussein and that he knows “the ways” of the tribes, speaks Arabic fluently, and is loved by the army. Brace yourselves, Jordan's GID stooges and lackeys of CIA/MI6, are a branch of MOSSAD and a continuation of its policies and dirty tricks....



....
http://www.ihsglobalinsight.com/SDA/SDADetail19483.htm


Jordan's Intelligence Chief Sacked: New PNAC, ZIOCON marching Orders going forward....as usual...


المخابرات الأردنية هو حديث عن موساد اسرائيلي


On January 2, in the midst of Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip, Jordan's King Abdullah removed General Intelligence Department (GID) head Muhammad Dahabi from his post and replaced him with Gen. Muhammad Raqqad, a deputy in the organization. Dahabi, who is the brother of Prime Minister Nader Dahabi, leaves at a critical time for Jordanian security. The reasons for Dahabi's dismissal are not clear but may relate to the GID's handling of the 2008 rapprochement with Hamas or to Dahabi's unwelcome forays into the political arena.

In either case, his successor is likely to take the organization on a "different" path....?

The MOSSAD Factor

Dahabi is widely believed to have been a driving force behind King Abdullah's summer 2008 decision to thaw relations with Hamas -- frozen since 2000 -- as well as Jordan's subsequent decision to improve its relationship with Syria and Qatar. Eight years after expelling Hamas leaders from Jordan, and two years after embarking on a policy of isolating the Islamist group to strengthen Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, the shift in policy toward Hamas, Syria, and Qatar suggests the GID had little confidence that Abbas would prevail.

The GID director was responsible for opening relations with Hamas, and the move appears to have been influenced by several factors: first, Dahabi mistrusted Fatah, the dominant faction in the Palestine Liberation Organization, which Abbas heads, and was concerned that Fatah elites might negotiate a peace deal with Israel at the expense of Jordanian interests; second, the GID hoped Hamas would stymie those who saw Jordan as an "alternative homeland" for the Palestinians. Simply put, Dahabi sought to protect Jordan from the "Jordanian option."

Within the GID, the working assumption was that the Palestinian Authority (PA) under Abbas would collapse in 2009, either leaving a power vacuum or allowing Hamas to take the helm. In either case, the GID assumed that Hamas would prevent the influx of West Bank Palestinians into Jordan and a spillover from the security deterioration that would likely follow the PA's collapse. Finally, Hamas held some appeal in the GID because, like most Jordanians, the organization feared Abbas's willingness to compromise on the refugee issue at the kingdom's expense.

Several articles supporting this view appeared in the Jordanian press, written by columnists close to the GID. For example, on January 8, Bassam Haddadin, a prominent member of parliament, wrote in al-Ghad that Dahabi "awoke the Jordanian conscience to the state of this looming danger." Haddadin added that one of the reasons for the conflict between Dahabi and Bassem Awadallah, the reform-minded former chief of the Royal Court who is of Palestinian descent, was Awadallah's alleged support of the alternative homeland notion. Jordanian politicians known to have close ties with the GID claim that Awadallah and Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian chief negotiator, arrived at an unwritten agreement supporting the idea. Enraged by a media report to that effect, Erekat subsequently issued a statement denying any involvement in such an arrangement.

Dahabi may have gone too far in warming relations with Hamas. During the Israeli operation in Gaza, several political factions in Jordan, chief among them the Muslim Brotherhood, staged demonstrations in the kingdom. The regime's tolerance of these demonstrations apparently angered Cairo, whose officials accused Dahabi of being responsible for the "Hamasization" of the Jordanian street. President Abbas was also not pleased with the outpouring of Jordanian public support for Hamas or with the protesters' allegation of his collaboration with Israel.

No doubt, the regional fallout of the Gaza campaign contributed to King Abdullah's decision to remove Dahabi, but the king was likely going to replace him anyway for domestic reasons. Tolerance of Jordanian popular sympathy for Gaza is one thing, but allowing political demonstrations in support of Hamas is another.

CIA Power Struggle

Internal politics -- particularly a dispute between two top royal advisors -- appeared to be a key factor in the king's decision to replace Dahabi. The former chief played a prominent political role that transcended the traditional function of the GID. Important in this regard was the public clash between Dahabi and Awadallah, which played out in the Jordanian press. The GID appeared to support a media campaign to expose Awadallah as a pro-Palestinian reformer bent on implementing reforms to the social and economic detriment of tribal interests in the kingdom. This campaign was so public that the king was compelled to respond. In July, he gave an interview in which he said that the media had crossed the line. Awadallah and his supporters interpreted the king's interview as a victory over Dahabi. Even so, Dahabi refused to reconcile with the chief of the Royal Court....

The GID and many Jordanians were clearly irritated by the role that Awadallah had assumed. Indeed, the harsh public critiques of the chief of the Royal Court were unprecedented. In Jordan, where there is little freedom of the press, the GID had the authority to prevent publication of these critiques, but instead appeared to have encouraged them.

To put an end to this unhealthy power struggle, the king sacked both Awadallah and Dahabi. He removed Awadallah first and then waited a few months to get rid of Dahabi, presumably for fear of giving the impression that his actions were directed against the department itself.

What is Next?

Many in Jordan view the appointment of General Raqqad as a step in the right direction. It appears to symbolize a return to the GID's traditionally limited role of security. Perhaps to reinforce this impression, the king relieved all of Dahabi's top deputies as well. On January 4, Rana Sabbag, a leading columnist for Arab al-Yawm, wrote that by sacking Dahabi, the king sent a clear message that he wanted the GID to focus on its original mission: confronting internal and external threats to Jordanian national security. Sabbag argued that the king sought to limit the political role of the GID, which had grown since 1996 due to the weakness of other state institutions, and for this reason chose an officer known for his professionalism and for his prominent role in dismantling terror cells in Jordan, and who knows very well the PNAC assassins designs for the region from 1995....

Raqqad's appointment is a clear indication that the government has decided to turn inward to protect its domestic front from the Netanyahu PNAC Killers cabal.... The suppression of demonstrations around the Israeli embassy in Amman and the severe beating of the Amman-based correspondent of al-Jazeera satellite TV who earlier had spearheaded an anti-Israeli campaign are evidence of this CIA/MI6 "policy" change...

King Abdullah of Jordan fired his head of intelligence, Mohammed Dahabi, for getting too cozy with MOSSAD. Dahabi had been ordered to maintain a dialog with MOSSAD, but the king believed Dahabi had forgotten who he worked for. Dahabi was replaced by his deputy, who has a reputation for subservience to the throne, and staying well within his CIA2 politics. The king's attitudes are influenced by the fact that most of the population are Palestinian (and descended from Palestinian refugees). Despite that, Jordan has suffered very few al Qaeda/CIA/MOSSAD attacks so far. This is mostly due to the efficient CIA operations within the walls of the Royal Court, who are dominated by the Bedouin minority that runs the CIA/MI6 kingdom. One aspect of that control is to make believe that people can say, and believe, what they want....





While the Palestinian majority does not like the monarchy, they know that the Bedouins would respond violently to any uprising. That has happened often enough in the past half century to convince most Jordanians that, while you can shout nasty things at the king, don't take a shot at CIA/MI6. That said, the current king of Jordan, and his late father, went out of their way to be hypocritical with their Palestinian citizens, as long as there was no violence against the government. The occasional violation of this understanding is met with a swift, and always violent, response. Nevertheless, Jordan has long had to be extremely careful with how it deals with the Palestinians working with MOSSAD for the inevitable Jordanian Option.... In 1970, the government expelled Palestinian militants all the way to Lebanon and Syria, who sought to overthrow the monarchy ("Black September"). Tens of Thousands of the militants were killed by tanks, mortars and Air Force strafing their refugee camps, and driven out of the country, along with their families. In 2001, the Hamas leadership was ordered to leave, for security reasons, since HAMAS is an Israeli/MOSSAD creation. Jordan is a police state, and is very well suckered....so far by CIA/MI6, and
extreme tensions prevail in the country at all times and on all levels....

Ultimately, it is clear how this security change will affect the issue of civil liberties and reform in Jordan. There is little doubt that the new GID director is a professional CIA/OSP who will try to confront the PNAC/CIA2 challenge to the kingdom... It is less certain, however, whether Raqqad envisions how to confront the CIA2 personnel who work and operate freely and daily within the King's Royal Court and Palatial grounds....and ministries....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula: it's a New Lease on Life for the Israeli Jihad Connection Circa 1990s...Al-Qaeda in Yemen will team up with the swarming teams of covert Israeli Special Operations of Tsahal's Israeli Offensive Forces of KILLERS, in order to commence the MAGICAL operations of destabilizing the GCC countries, especially Saudi Arabia...and to fracture the whole area along hundreds of Tribal and ethnic lines?

The media wing of one of al Qaeda’s Yemeni franchises, al Qaeda in Yemen, released a statement on online jihadist forums Jan. 20 from the group’s leader Nasir al-Wuhayshi, announcing the formation of a single al Qaeda group for the Arabian Peninsula under his command. According to al-Wuhayshi, the new group, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, would consist of his former group (al Qaeda in Yemen) as well as members of the now-defunct Saudi al Qaeda franchise.

The press release noted that the Saudi militants have pledged allegiance to al-Wuhayshi, an indication that the reorganization was not a merger of equals. This is understandable, given that the jihadists in Yemen have been active recently while their Saudi counterparts have not conducted a meaningful attack in years. The announcement also related that a Saudi national (and former Guantanamo detainee) identified as Abu-Sayyaf al-Shihri has been appointed as al-Wuhayshi’s deputy. In some ways, this is similar to the way Ayman al-Zawahiri and his faction of Egyptian Islamic Jihad swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden and were integrated in to al Qaeda prime.

While not specifically mentioned, the announcement of a single al Qaeda entity for the entire Arabian Peninsula and the unanimous support by jihadist militants on the Arabian Peninsula for al-Wuhayshi suggests the new organization will incorporate elements of the other al Qaeda franchise in Yemen, the Yemen Soldiers Brigade.

The announcement also provided links to downloadable versions of the latest issue of the group’s online magazine, Sada al-Malahim, (Arabic for “The Echo of Battle”). The Web page links provided to download the magazine also featured trailers advertising the pending release of a new video from the group, now referred to by its new name, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

The translated name of this new organization sounds very similar to the old Saudi al Qaeda franchise, the al Qaeda Organization in the Arabian Peninsula (in Arabic, “Tandheem al Qaeda fi Jazeerat al-Arabiyah”). But the new group’s new Arabic name, Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Jazirat al-Arab, is slightly different. The addition of “al-Jihad” seems to have been influenced by the Iraqi al Qaeda franchise, Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn. The flag of the Islamic State of Iraq also appears in the Jan. 24 video, further illustrating the deep ties between the newly announced organization and al Qaeda in Iraq. Indeed, a number of Yemeni militants traveled to Iraq to fight, and these returning al Qaeda veterans have played a large part in the increased sophistication of militant attacks in Yemen over the past year.

Four days after the Jan. 20 announcement, links for a 19-minute video from the new group titled “We Start from Here and We Will Meet at al-Aqsa” began to appear in jihadist corners of cyberspace. Al-Aqsa refers to the al-Aqsa Mosque on what Jews know as Temple Mount and Muslims refer to as Al Haram Al Sharif. The video threatens Muslim leaders in the region (whom it refers to as criminal tyrants), including Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, the Saudi royal family, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. It also threatens so-called “crusader forces” supporting the regional Muslim leaders, and promises to carry the jihad from the Arabian Peninsula to Israel so as to liberate Muslim holy sites and brethren in Gaza.

An interview with al-Wuhayshi aired Jan. 27 on Al Jazeera echoed these sentiments. During the interview, al-Wuhayshi noted that the “crusades” against “Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia” have been launched from bases in the Arabian Peninsula, and that because of this, “all crusader interests” in the peninsula “should be struck.”

A Different CIA/MOSSAD disinformation machinations from Stratfor/CIA Take on Events

Most of the analysis in Western media regarding the preceding developments has focused on how two former detainees at the U.S. facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appear in the Jan. 24 video — one of whom was al-Shihri — and that both were graduates of Saudi Arabia’s ideological rehabilitation program, a government deprogramming course for jihadists. In addition to al-Shihri who, according to the video was Guantanamo detainee 372, the video also contains a statement from Abu-al-Harith Muhammad al-Awfi. Al-Awfi, who was identified as a field commander in the video, was allegedly former Guantanamo detainee 333. Prisoner lists from Guantanamo obtained by Stratfor appear to confirm that al-Shihri was in fact Guantanamo detainee No. 372. We did not find al-Awfi’s name on the list, however, another name appears as detainee No. 333. Given the proclivity of jihadists to use fraudulent identities, it is entirely possible that al-Awfi is an alias, or that he was held at Guantanamo under an assumed name. At any rate, we doubt al-Awfi would fabricate this claim and then broadcast it in such a public manner.

The media focus on the Guantanamo aspect is understandable in the wake of U.S. President Barack Obama’s Jan. 22 executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and all the complexities surrounding that decision. Clearly, some men released from Guantanamo, and even those graduated from the Saudi government’s rehabilitation program, can and have returned to the jihadist fold. Ideology is hard to extinguish, especially an ideology that teaches adherents that there is a war against Islam and that the “true believers” will be persecuted for their beliefs. Al Qaeda has even taken this one step further and has worked to prepare its members not only to face death, but also to endure imprisonment and harsh interrogation. A substantial number of al Qaeda cadres, such as al-Zawahiri and Abu Yahya al-Libi, have endured both, and have been instrumental in helping members withstand captivity and interrogation.

This physical and ideological preparation means that efforts to induce captured militants to abandon their ideology can wind up reinforcing that ideology when those efforts appear to prove important tenets of the ideology, such as that adherents will be persecuted and that the Muslim rulers are aligned with the West. It is also important to realize that radical Islamist extremists, ultraconservatives and traditionalists tend to have a far better grasp of Islamic religious texts than their moderate, liberal and modernist counterparts. Hence, they have an edge over them on the ideological battlefield. Those opposing radicals and extremists have a long way to go before they can produce a coherent legitimate, authoritative and authentic alternative Islamic discourse.

In any event, in practical terms there is no system of “re-education” that is 100 percent effective in eradicating an ideology in humans except execution. There will always be people who will figure out how to game the system and regurgitate whatever is necessary to placate their jailers so as to win release. Because of this, it is not surprising to see people like al-Shihri and al-Awfi released only to re-emerge in their former molds.

Another remarkable feature of the Jan. 27 video is that it showcased four different leaders of the regional group, something rarely seen. In addition to al-Wuhayshi, al-Shihri and al-Awfi, the video also included a statement from Qasim al-Rami, who is suspected of having been involved with the operational planning of the suicide attack on a group of Spanish tourists in Marib, Yemen, in July 2007.

In our estimation, however, perhaps the most remarkable feature about these recent statements from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is not the appearance of these two former Guantanamo detainees in the video, or the appearance of four distinct leaders of the group in a single video, but rather what the statements tell us about the state of the al Qaeda franchises in Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

CIA/MOSSAD Signposts are all over the GCC...

That the remnants of the Saudi al Qaeda franchise have been forced to flee their country and join up with the Yemeni group demonstrates that the Saudi government’s campaign to eradicate the jihadist organization has been very successful. The Saudi franchise was very active in 2003 and 2004, but has not attempted a significant attack since the February 2006 attack against the oil facility in Abqaiq. In spite of the large number of Saudi fighters who have traveled to militant training camps, and to fight in places such as Iraq, the Saudi franchise has had significant problems organizing operational cells inside the kingdom. Additionally, since the death of Abdel Aziz al-Muqrin, the Saudi franchise has struggled to find a charismatic and savvy leader. (The Saudis have killed several leaders who succeeded al-Muqrin.) In a militant organization conducting an insurgency or terrorist operations, leadership is critical not only to the operational success of the group but also to its ability to recruit new members, raise funding and acquire resources such as weapons.

Like the Saudi node, the fortunes of other al Qaeda regional franchises have risen or fallen based upon ability of the franchise’s leadership. For example, in August 2006 al Qaeda announced with great fanfare that the Egyptian militant group Gamaah al-Islamiyah (GAI) had joined forces with al Qaeda. Likewise, in November 2007 al Qaeda announced that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) had formally joined the al Qaeda network. But neither of these groups really ever got off the ground. While a large portion of the responsibility for the groups’ lack of success may be due to the oppressive natures of the Egyptian and Libyan governments and the aggressive efforts those governments undertook to control the new al Qaeda franchises, we believe the lack of success also stems from poor leadership. (There are certainly other significant factors contributing to the failure of al Qaeda nodes in various places, such as the alienation of the local population.)

Conversely, we believe that an important reason for the resurgence of the al Qaeda franchise in Yemen has been the leadership of al-Wuhayshi. As we have noted in the past, Yemen is a much easier environment for militants to operate in than either Egypt or Libya. There are many Salafists employed in the Yemeni security and intelligence apparatus who at the very least are sympathetic to the jihadist cause. These men are holdovers from the Yemeni civil war, when Saleh formed an alliance with Salafists and recruited jihadists to fight Marxist forces in South Yemen. This alliance continues today, with Saleh deriving significant political support from radical Islamists. Many of the state’s key institutions (including the military) employ Salafists, making any major crackdown on militant Islamists in the country politically difficult. This sentiment among the security forces also helps explain the many jihadists who have escaped from Yemeni prisons — such as al-Wuhayshi.

Yemen has also long been at the crossroads of a number of jihadist theaters, including Afghanistan/Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Levant, Egypt and Somalia. Yemen also is a country with a thriving arms market, a desert warrior tradition and a tribal culture that often bridles against government authority and that makes it difficult for the government to assert control over large swaths of the country. Yemeni tribesmen also tend to be religiously conservative and susceptible to the influence of jihadist theology.

In spite of this favorable environment, the Yemeni al Qaeda franchise has largely floundered since 9/11. Much of this is due to U.S. and Yemeni efforts to decapitate the group, such as the strike by a U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle on then-leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, Abu Ali al-Harithi, in late 2002 and the subsequent arrest of his replacement, Mohammed Hamdi al-Ahdal, in late 2003. The combination of these operations in such a short period helped cripple al Qaeda in Yemen’s operational capability.

As Stratfor noted in spring 2008, however, al Qaeda militants in Yemen have become more active and more effective under the leadership of al-Wuhayshi, an ethnic Yemeni who spent time in Afghanistan as a lieutenant under bin Laden. After his time with bin Laden, Iranian authorities arrested al-Wuhayshi, later returning him to Yemen in 2003 via an Iranian-Yemeni extradition deal. He subsequently escaped from a high-security prison outside the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, in February 2006 along with Jamal al-Badawi (the leader of the cell that carried out the suicide bombing of the USS Cole).

Al-Wuhayshi’s established ties with al Qaeda prime and bin Laden in particular not only provide him legitimacy in the eyes of other jihadists, in more practical terms, they may have provided him the opportunity to learn the tradecraft necessary to successfully lead a militant group and conduct operations. His close ties to influential veterans of al Qaeda in Yemen like al-Badawi also may have helped him infuse new energy into the struggle in Yemen in 2008.

While the group had been on a rising trajectory in 2008, things had been eerily quiet in Yemen since the Sept. 17, 2008, attack against the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa and the resulting campaign against the group. The recent flurry of statements has broken the quiet, followed by a Warden Message on Jan. 26 warning of a possible threat against the compound of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen and a firefight at a security checkpoint near the embassy hours later.

At this point, it appears the shooting incident may not be related to the threat warning and may instead have been the result of jumpy nerves. Reports suggest the police may have fired at a speeding car before the occupants, who were armed tribesmen, fired back. Although there have been efforts to crack down on the carrying of weapons in Sanaa, virtually every Yemeni male owns an AK-variant assault rifle of some sort; like the ceremonial jambiya dagger, such a rifle is considered a must-have accessory in most parts of the country. Not surprisingly, incidents involving gunfire are not uncommon in Yemen.

Either way, we will continue to keep a close eye on Yemen and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. As we have seen in the past, press statements are not necessarily indicative of future jihadist performance. It will be important to watch developments in Yemen for signs that will help determine whether this recent merger and announcement is a sign of desperation by a declining group, or whether the addition of fresh blood from Saudi Arabia will help breathe new life into al-Wuhayshi’s operations and provide his group the means to make good on its threats..........


All of you outside of Israel would not believe what the lead headline on the news was when I touched down in Ben Gurion Airport this morning. It seems that last week, Knesset member Aryeh Eldad (pictured) of the National Union party (which is not a member of the coalition) introduced a resolution declaring that the solution to the 'Palestinian problem' lies in Jordan.....and Jordan is utterly exposed now under the neo-PNAC KILLERS......

Historically, that is correct. Some 70% of Jordan's population is 'Palestinian,' and the land mass that is Jordan constitutes 78% of the original British Mandate for 'Palestine.' In 1921, the Brits cut off that 78% and gave it to the Hashemite family of King Abdullah II (the current King) as a consolation prize for the loss of the custodianship of Mecca and Medina to their cousins, the Saudi royal family, as part of the Treaty of San Remo in 1920. King Abdullah and his family are not 'Palestinians,' but most of their subjects are. More details on the history here.

Even Abdullah must recognize that a 'Palestinian state' is not in his interest, because by definition it would seek to undermine Jordan's sovereignty by reuniting the two banks of the Jordan River. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has suggested doing the same thing, which is why Abdullah opposes him.

But the only thing Abdullah fears more than a 'Palestinian state' to his west is an influx of 'Palestinians' to Jordan. And so, the Jordanian foreign minister summoned Israel's ambassador to his office on Tuesday to seek an explanation why the Knesset 'passed' Eldad's motion with 53 votes in favor of referring it to the Knesset Law Committee, where according to Labor party MK's I heard on the radio this morning, it is to be buried.
Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh summoned the Israeli ambassador in Amman, Yaakov Rosen, and handed him a protest that "categorically rejects the ongoing discussion at the Israeli Knesset on a proposal by one of its members entitled 'two states for two peoples on the two banks of River Jordan'," a statement carried by the official Petra news agency said.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Saudi Leadership Crisis: the Arab world's squabbling rulers have never looked more "collectively mediocre..."






















Michel Suleiman is CIA, he is the biggest skunk in Lebanon since 1998....he is lying to everyone...hoping to outsmart them all...by waiting out for the right moment to dangle the
White House Murder INC, again....and other covert operations in the making...together with SOCOM and JSOC etc., .....he has been in the know about all the covert murders....in Lebanon.
Michel Suleiman is no friend of the resistance....he is a Trojan horse for DIA and CIA....and in
cahoots with the Syrian Mafia of the alawite minority dictatorship of the Assad assassins....who
are kept in power by MOSSAD and AMAN....through the Siamese twins: CIA2/MOSSAD/MI6 and the French killers of DGSE.... Meanwhile, the KSA Saudi intelligence and Bandar Bin Sultan are still funding salafist groups in North lebanon....and the Son of Riffat Al-ASSAD in Tripoli and Jabal Mohsen.....





Saudi Leadership Crisis, the Arab world's squabbling rulers have never looked more "collectively mediocre."

After months of speculation about the health of the designated successor to King Abdullah, Crown Prince Sultan, Saudi officials are now openly talking about Sultan's ill health. The kingdom -- a close U.S. ally, the self-professed leader of the Islamic world, the world's largest oil exporter, and most recently the much-needed source of financial capital for the world's struggling economy -- is heading for a period of changing leadership. The identities of the future kings, however, are so far unknown and largely unpredictable.

Prince Sultan Undergoing Treatment for colon cancer

Crown Prince Sultan, who is also the kingdom's long-serving defense minister, is currently in Morocco after six weeks of treatment in New York City. Last week, his son Khaled, the assistant defense minister, said in a briefing of Saudi armed forces commanders that his father would be returning to the United States in a month for more tests and treatment. Although Khaled said his father was "getting better and his health condition is progressing," analysts have recalled that in 2005 Sultan was operated on for colon cancer and in April 2008 flew to Geneva for what were claimed to be routine medical tests.

If Sultan (who turns 85 this year) dies before King Abdullah (86), a new crown prince will be appointed. The selection of the crown prince was formerly the sole prerogative of the king, but in 2006 Abdullah established a new body, the Allegiance Council. The council, which is made up of senior sons and grandsons of the kingdom's founder Abdul-Aziz (also known as Ibn Saud), is a wider group than has been consulted in the past and will now share responsibility for the choice.

Unlike most other monarchies, Saudi succession is fratrilineal, passing from brother to brother, rather than from father to son, for nearly fifty years. Since the death of Abdul-Aziz in 1953, the throne has passed between the first of his thirty-five sons in descending order of age. This mechanism -- with an occasional jump when a son has been unwilling, unable, or otherwise deemed unqualified to reign -- has allowed a nominated crown prince to serve alongside the king in a leadership partnership that has usually resulted in smooth successions.

Five Kings in Five Years?

An unintended consequence of this system is that Saudi kings are becoming older when taking the throne: Abdullah's predecessor, Fahd, was sixty-one, and Abdullah was eighty-two (although he was de facto ruler from 1996 to 2005 after Fahd was crippled by a series of strokes). Unless the Allegiance Council makes an imaginative choice of a much younger monarch, the current system of respecting (old) age, government experience, and the brother-to-brother line could result in a rapid succession of kings in the next several years.

Abdullah is clearly preparing the ground for the council's work. The council's chairman, the king's half-brother Mishal, is regularly seen at Abdullah's side during important kingdom meetings. Although Mishal was defense minister in the 1950s and governor of Mecca in the 1960s, he has otherwise eschewed government service in favor of developing his business interests. Mishal's role is likely to be crucial in developing the workings of the council. Perceived as an ally of Abdullah, his own claim to the throne is weak. He will likely face great challenges within the council from the most powerful faction -- the Sudairi seven -- the largest group of full brothers, which now numbers six since the death of Fahd. This faction includes Sultan, Interior Minister Prince Nayef (also reported to be unwell), and the governor of Riyadh province Prince Salman.

Several scenarios could occur over the next few months, including a palatial coup d'état by the Bandar Bin Sultan gangs and their neocon cohorts:

Death of Prince Sultan. The Sudairi princes are likely to press for the next crown prince to be selected from among them. Prince Nayef has a claim but is not considered sufficiently popular. His younger brother Prince Salman is a possible choice.

Death of King Abdullah. Despite his many public appearances, the monarch, now the oldest surviving son of Abdul-Aziz, is said to be increasingly limited in his abilities. If Sultan is still alive when Abdullah dies, the crown prince will almost certainly become king. Theoretically, the Allegiance Council law allows for the possibility of either the king or the crown prince being declared medically unfit by a committee of medical experts. This step, however, is unlikely against a powerful royal. As king, Sultan could abolish the council and appoint his own crown prince.

Succession follows existing lines. Some of the other eighteen surviving sons of Abdul-Aziz are considered ineligible to be king because several of them have non-Saudi mothers or are considered eccentric. Excluding these, the next possible candidates are Abdurrahman (78), Nayef (76), Abdulillah (74), and Salman (73). All except Abdulillah, who was made an advisor to the king in 2008, are Sudairis.

Succession pattern changes. The simplest way of avoiding a rapid turnover of increasingly old and infirm kings is to skip over older candidates and choose a younger man, either from within the younger ranks of the sons of Abdul-Aziz or from among his grandsons. Of the sons, Salman qualifies as a younger option, as does the 66-year-old Muqren, who heads the kingdom's foreign intelligence service. And although many of the grandsons already have decades of government experience, the Sudairis predominate and are likely to resist being bypassed.

U.S. Policy, divide and conquer and much more tribes with more and more flags....

Not knowing who will be king matters less if the process is known. But the deliberations of the untested Allegiance Council system, whose procedures are known only in outline, will be secret. In addition, when Sultan and other senior royals die, Washington will lose familiar interlocutors. Sultan's son Khaled effectively runs his father's defense ministry, as does Nayef's son Muhammad at the interior ministry. Will these fiefdoms be acknowledged? Will these sons be elevated to replace their fathers, or will a new king replace them by other, less well-known princes?

None of the Saudis best known to the U.S. public are in the running to be king: foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal is chronically ill with Parkinson's disease; his brother, former intelligence chief and ambassador to the United States Prince Turki al-Faisal, was sacked from the former job and sidelined in the latter; former ambassador to the United States and now Saudi security council chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan is excluded because his mother was an African servant; and businessman Prince al-Walid's father Talal has a record of publicly criticizing the royal family. In the end, only military, political and covert power can provide the answer to Saudi Arabia's possible fragmentation... and the closely linked violence in neighboring Israel/Jordan/GAZA....and beyond...

And what is even worse, is that It's well documented and learned that the Saudi Royal Family is proud of its Jewish heritage, and in the past has made statements that it will not allow any Arab or Muslim authority to stand up against the Jewish state. "Saudi Arabia, Jewish Bloodline, Jewish State" was printed in the ISLAM DAILY, on 1/6/09, and is posted, with commentary, at www.jewishcrimenetwork.com, Would seem that fanatical Wahhabism was deliberately fostered to make Moslems look bad, to be a target for utter destruction and to make way for the Rothschild's, and the trilateral commission et al... New World Order dream...

After The soaring rhetoric comes the cold reality... America whose global reputation has sunk lower than at any time since the dismal era of Watergate and Vietnam. Worse, this precipitous decline has taken place at exactly the moment when appealing to the hearts and minds of millions in USA and abroad is the indispensable condition for defeating the Neo-Hegemonic conundrum of the trilateral commission, the CFR and the power behind the power in USA makes so much harder for an ailing group of dictators, who are not privy to the extent of the covert operations surrounding the ever increasing militarization of Energy Security for the USA and Israel....

U.S.-Saudi relations have had their ups and downs in recent years. Although counterterrorism and covert cooperation has solidified further, the Saudis were not particularly helpful against Osama bin Laden before the September 11 terrorist attacks, in which fifteen of the nineteen CIA/MOSSAD stooges were Saudis, and Riyadh was unsympathetic when oil prices rose over $100 per barrel last year. But working relationships have persisted and seem likely to improve . The Obama administration's likely new Iran envoy, Dennis Ross, wrote in Newsweek last month that Washington "needs" the kingdom for its covert policies of forcing choices on Tehran.

Washington hopes to exacerbate internal Saudi royal disputes like the one that occurred between Abdul-Aziz's eldest son King Saud and his eventual successor Faisal, which crippled the kingdom's government between 1958 and 1964. Riyadh will be allergic to external interference or advice on such matters, but the outcomes of the probable transitions in the next few months will be of intense interest to the United States and much of the world.

Monday, January 19, 2009

The U.S. Navy had its revenge in 1968 for the Israeli attack on the Liberty...




This is the "Israeli" Version of events, re: Dakar.....they say it was wholly accidental...???

http://submarines.dotan.net/dakar/search/index.htm

http://www.jhu.edu/jhumag/0602web/amelia.html


January , 2009 -- SPECIAL REPORT. The U.S. Navy had its revenge in 1968 for the Israeli attack on the Liberty...?

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/spingola/100604#fn18

Two incidents in the eastern Mediterranean only a little over six months apart involving Israeli and U.S. military forces may lie at the heart of two major cover-ups. According to U.S. intelligence sources, the willful Israeli attack on the National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence collection ship, the USS Liberty, on June 8, 1967, during the Israeli-Arab "Six Day War," was followed by the U.S. Navy sinking the Israeli submarine, the INS Dakar, in January 1968...

There are also indications that U.S. Navy distrust of the Israeli military and intelligence services continued long after the Israeli attack on the Liberty, an attack that killed 34 US. naval personnel, including NSA signals intelligence analysts, and wounded over 170 other crewmen on board.

The Israeli attack on the Liberty has been mired in controversy ever since the day it occurred. Israel continues to stand by the story that it attacked the clearly-identifiable U.S. ship in international waters north of Sinai because it had been mistaken for an Egyptian vessel. However, many top American naval and government personnel, including the then-Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Thomas Moorer, CIA director Richard Helms, NSA deputy director Louis Tordella, Undersecretary of State George Ball, Undersecretary of the Navy Paul Warnke, Clark Clifford, and Secretary of State Dean Rusk, rejected the Israeli contention. U.S. military officials, as well as diplomats and journalists, have concluded over the years that Israel's attack on the Liberty was purposeful and designed to destroy the vessel and kill its crew. Illinois Senator Adlai Stevenson III (D-IL) was defeated in the 1982 Illinois gubernatorial election largely by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) money after he questioned Israel's version of events about its attack on the Liberty. Stevenson lost by 1/7 of 1 percent of the vote in a recount after the first count showed him winning.

In June 1967, President Lyndon Johnson was planning on running for re-election. Knowing that making an issue of the Israeli attack on the Liberty would hurt his standing among deep-pocketed Jewish contributors to the Democratic Party, Johnson buried the incident.

Just five days after the Israel attack, on June 13, 1967, Johnson was asked about the Liberty at a White House press conference. "Q: Mr. President, do you have any more facts that you can release on the attack on the USS Liberty?" Johnson incredulously answered "No. I think you know about as much about it as we do." Certainly, if Johnson included the NSA in "we," the NSA certainly knew that its vessel had been purposely attacked by the Israelis. But Johnson remained silent. Moreover, there have been several credible reports over the years that Johnson ordered a major cover-up of the incident not only to curry favor with Jewish Democrats in return for their tamping down their criticism of the Vietnam War but also to preserve America's close relationship with Israel, a relationship to which Johnson was fully committed.

Johnson continued to cover up the Liberty attack in his memoirs, "The Vantage Point: Perspectives on the Presidency 1963-1969," published in 1971. Johnson wrote: "June 8 began on a note of tragedy. A morning news bulletin [emphasis added] reported that a U.S. Navy communications ship, the Liberty, had been torpedoed in international waters off the Sinai coast. For 70 tense minutes we had no idea who was responsible, but at 11 o'clock we learned that the ship had been attacked in error [emphasis added] by Israeli gunboats and planes. Ten men of the Liberty crew were killed and a hundred were wounded [emphasis added, Johnson was in error on both counts, 34 men were killed and 173 were wounded]. This heartbreaking grieved the Israelis deeply, as it did us. There was a possibility that the incident might lead to even greater misfortune, and it was precisely to avoid further confusion and tragedy that I sent a message to Chairman Kosygin on the hot line. I told him exactly what had happened and advised him that carrier aircraft were on their way to the scene to investigate. I wanted him to know, I said, that investigation was the sole purpose of these flights, and I hoped he would inform the proper parties. Kosygin replied that our message had been received and the information had been relayed immediately to the Egyptians."

The fact that Johnson used the hot line to contact the Soviets was an indication that they were aware of the Israeli attack on the Liberty and that what Johnson said "exactly what happened" was a lie and the Soviets, who had a massive naval and intelligence presence in the eastern Mediterranean saw through Johnson's big lie.

That Johnson was willing to cover up a major naval incident would also be of use to the Soviets in May 1968 when another incident involving a Soviet submarine and the nuclear submarine USS Scorpion would require a mutual cover-up by the White House and Kremlin.

On December 19, 1980, the United States and Israel formally closed the chapter on the Liberty attack. The agreement came a little over a month that the U.S. ship, the SS Poet, which had delivered arms from Philadelphia to Iran as part of a secret "October Surprise" deal worked out by the Reagan-Bush campaign and the Iranians to ensure that Iran did not agree to a U.S. embassy hostage release before the November election, was sunk with the help of Israeli forces after delivering its cargo to Iran. Thirty-four American seamen died on board the Poet, ironically the same number that died on board the Liberty. The Israelis agreed to pay the United States $6 million in addition to the $7 million it previously paid to the families of the 34 dead U.S. servicemen and the wounded crewmen.

Originally, the State Department wanted $17 million to cover repairs to the Liberty plus accrued interest. Shortly after President Jimmy Carter's defeat by Ronald Reagan, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ephraim Evron, quietly asked Vice President Walter Mondale to forgive the $10 million in accrued interest and whittle the $7.5 million in damages to $6 million. Of course, the Israelis had the trump card: that the Reagan-Bush team told them that the Carter White House was working on its own "October Surprise" to ship arms to Iran in return for a pre-election release of the U.S. hostages. The blackmailed worked. The Liberty and Poet, and the combined 68 crewmen who lost their lives from Israeli military action, would remain forgotten.

The cover-up would even extend to Arlington National Cemetery. The grave markers of six Liberty crewmen who died from the Israeli attack were simply notated: "died in the Eastern Mediterranean, June 8, 1967." Nothing indicated they died from hostile military action. In June 1982, just prior to the anniversary of the Liberty attack, the markers were revised by the Department of the Army to read: "Killed, USS Liberty, June 8, 1967."

There is reason to believe that two major branches of the U.S. military -- the U. S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force -- began to part company over relations with Israel as early as June 1967. In a 1984 book titled "Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel," author Stephen Green reveals that the Liberty was attacked by the Israelis because the ship detected a secret U.S. Air Force operation in the Negev Desert during the Six Day War. The secret Israeli nuclear weapons plant at Dimona is located in the Negev. Any collaboration between the Air Force and Israelis as early as 1967 would go a long way in explaining Israel's links to the recent breakdown in the nuclear security at U.S. Air Force bases in Minot, North Dakota; Barksdale, Louisiana; and F. E Warren in Wyoming and the mercurial rise in influence of former Israeli Air Force major Dr. Lani Kass in U.S. Air Force strategic planning operations.

On May 6, 1992, the columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak responded in a letter to the New York Times to an attack on their column by long-time Israel apologist Abe Rosenthal, the former executive editor of the New York Times. In November 1991, Evans and Novak reported that the Israelis knew the Liberty was an American ship when they attacked it. Rosenthal tried to insinuate that one of the columnists' sources, former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter, would not confirm Evans' and Novak's earlier report. The columnists wrote about Rosenthal's sloppy journalism: ". . . Mr. Rosenthal insinuated in his column that Mr. Porter would not confirm what we wrote because he 'did not return my call.' Three days later, after reading the column, Mr. Porter wrote Mr. Rosenthal that he had in now way intended to 'evade' him but was not home when the 'one and only call came.' 'I stand by the essential facts set forth in the Evans-Novak column with respect to the attack on the Liberty," Mr. Porter wrote. Neither Mr. Rosenthal or The Times chose to let readers in on that confirming fact, ignoring the damage to our reputation by Mr. Rosenthal's accusation. In his letter to Mr. Rosenthal, a copy of which was sent to us, the former Ambassador wrote: "I brought a piece of history into the public domain, which should have been done much earlier by others. This was not done, as you suggest, because I was an 'opponent of Israel." Nor are we, no matter what Mr. Rosenthal may think."

Novak once told this reporter in answer to a question about his late partner Evans, "Rowlie was known for his excellent contacts at the CIA."

In a July 18, 1967, report to Johnson by Clark Clifford, the chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), Clifford wrote, "the unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved should be punished."

Captain William McGonagle, the commanding officer of the Liberty, who was also severely wounded in the Israeli attack, died in March 1999. McGonagle received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1968 for his actions in saving his ship but, in keeping with Johnson's cover-up, the award ceremony was not held at the White House but at a quiet affair at the Washington Navy Yard. In 1997, McGonagle broke his long silence and said the Israeli attack on the Liberty was willful and not an error. In 1998, while taking a shower, McGonagle discovered a piece of shrapnel from the Israeli attack had been dislodged and was sticking out through his ribs. He pulled the shrapnel out from his body and collapsed in pain in the shower.

Although the crew of the Liberty have long felt that they were forgotten, I have learned of a tantalizing U.S. Navy retaliation for the Israeli attack on the Liberty from U.S. intelligence sources. In September 1967, Johnson had decided that he would not run for re-election. It was a mere three months after he covered-up the Israeli attack on the Navy ship to preserve his standing with Jewish voters and contributors. Johnson's decision changed the picture dramatically and the top echelon of the Navy and CIA, which knew of Israel's premeditated attack knew that the time was ripe for a counter-attack.

In November 1967, a two-sentence Reuters item appeared in the newspapers: "Portsmouth, England, Nov. 10 -- Israel commissioned her [emphasis added, the use of the feminine descriptor for Israel has long been a puzzle] fourth submarine here today, a craft bought second hand from the British Navy, after a two-year refitting operation. Israel bought the 1,280-ton vessel, renamed the Dakar, with a sister ship, the Leviathan, in November, 1964." Dakar, Hebrew for "shark," was a World War II-vintage submarine before its three year retrofit began in Portsmouth in 1964.

Little did the 69-member commissioning crew of the Dakar realize, but their submarine was a marked target the minute they departed Portsmouth.

On January 26, 1968, it was the British Admiralty, not the Israeli Naval headquarters in Haifa, the destination of the Dakar, that first reported the submarine was missing. The British reported the Dakar's last known position was some 100 miles west of Cyprus. The Israelis, for the most part, treated the submarine's disappearance as a state secret. Even after Haifa Navy radio began broadcasting SOS distress calls to commercial vessels to be on the look out for the Dakar, Israeli officials in Jerusalem would not even admit the submarine was missing. The Israelis later admitted the last signal it received from Dakar was at mid-day on January 26, at a position southwest of Cyprus. The last message from Dakar's deputy commander, Major Avraham Barkai, was "The Dakar is in the depths at full strength."

Significantly, the British destroyer Diana and the U.S. destroyer Turner deployed to the area around the last datum of the Dakar with decompression equipment for any survivors.

The Israelis adamantly denied that the Dakar sank as the result of hostile action. However, a retaliatory strike by the U.S. Navy, aided by its close ally Britain, would not be "hostile action" but revenge for a deliberate Israeli attack on the Liberty known not only to the top echelons of the U.S. Navy, CIA, NSA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and State Department, but also to senior British military and intelligence officials through NSA's British counterpart and partner, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), which maintained a number of listening stations in Cyprus.

There was a report that searchers in Cyprus intercepted a signal on the same radio frequency used by the Dakar's radio buoy and that it may have been a distress call. At first, the buoy could not be found by search vessels and planes. There were also reports that U.S., British, Israeli, Greek, and Turkish vessels and planes had spotted oil slicks, oil drums, and floating wreckage but these reports soon ceased. In 1969, Israeli officials revealed that an emergency buoy from the Dakar had washed ashore 90 miles south of Tel Aviv.

Suddenly, and without further comment, Israel called off its search on February 4, 1968. The Israelis stated that the Dakar was involved in crash diving exercises on its return voyage and probably as a result of a mechanical failure. On April 25, 1968, Vice Admiral Abraham Botzer, the commander of the Israeli Navy, stated that the Dakar sank from "technical or human malfunctioning." He ruled out "foul play," a change in terminology from previous denials that "hostile action" sank the Dakar. The Dakar was reported to have gone down on January 24, 1968, two days before the British Admiralty's first announcement.

The Israeli admiral's statement was far from the end of the story about the Dakar. On January 1, 1970, the Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reported that the Dakar had been sunk by an Egyptian naval vessel with depth charges. The Israeli government merely responded by stating there was no evidence to substantiate the Egyptian charges. Later, an Israeli army spokesman called the Egyptian report "absolute nonsense," iterating that an Israeli court of inquiry could never determine the cause of the sinking. However, the Israeli army spokesman changed the date of the Dakar's sinking to January 25, 1968, the third date change by the Israelis. Later reports said radio contact was lost with the Dakar on January 24, south of Crete.

Oddly, on August 25, 1986, the New York Times, in an article by John Cushman, Jr., reported that the U.S. Navy was going to conduct a search for the Dakar, not in waters west of Cyprus, but in Egyptian waters, ironically, in waters close to where the Liberty was attacked in 1967. The Navy committed P-3 Orion marine reconnaissance and USS Forrestal-based S-3 anti-submarine warfare aircraft for the search. Private contractors were hired by the Navy to examine the submarine's hull in the event it was located. During the 1980s, the Israelis used a salvage vessel with Egyptian liaison officers on board to look for the Dakar in waters north of Sinai. There were three such missions that turned up empty handed. The U.S. Navy had originally offered Israel to help locate the Dakar and an agreement was hammered out that the Egyptians would cooperate in the search. The search in Egyptian waters was unsuccessful as was one conducted off of the Greek island of Rhodes.

In 1997, there was another strange twist to the tale of the Dakar. A book titled "Dakar," written by former Israeli Navy Captain Michael Eldar, was yanked off bookshelves in Israel on national security grounds. Police confiscated copies of the book and other documents from Eldar's home. Oddly, the book had already been cleared for publication by Israel's military censorship authority. Eldar's book contained an astonishing revelation: that the search for the Dakar had never been serious. The question remains, if the Israelis and others conducted a half-hearted search for the Israeli submarine, what was the reason?

Then, there was another strange turn. In October 1998, Israel began running advertisements in newspapers in a number of countries offering rewards of between $5,000 and $300,000 for any information on the fate of the Dakar. Ads were placed in newspapers in Turkey, Egypt, France, Greece, and Russia. Strangely, France lost one of its submarines, the Minerve, in the western Mediterranean as the search for the Dakar was underway in the eastern Mediterranean at the end of January 1968.

The Minerve disappeared 25 miles southeast of the French naval base of Toulon with 52 men on board. The Minerve's commander, up to a week before its deployment from Toulon, said he had never had any problems with the vessel. The U.S. Navy submarine rescue ship, the USS Petrel, which was en route from Gibraltar to assist in the search for the Dakar, was diverted to help find the Minerve. On January 31, the French Navy declared the Minerve lost at sea. On March 4, 1970, the French suffered an eerie replay. The submarine Eurydice,with a crew of 57, was lost 35 miles east of Toulon, in the same general area where the Minerve was lost two years earlier. A large explosion was detected by the French Navy and some papers from the Eurydice were found floating on the ocean surface. Two years earlier, President Charles de Gaulle had attended a memorial service for the Minerve on board the Eurydice.

The Israeli ads on information about the Dakar were placed in Russian papers in an attempt to attract a retired Russian naval officer who might have information.

Interestingly, the planes used by the Israelis to attack the Liberty were French-made Dassault Mirage III fighters.

At the end of May 1999, a U.S.-Israeli search team, with the U.S. firm Nauticos as prime contractor, finally located the Dakar in 9500-feet of water between Cyprus and Crete. The Nauticos underwater robotic equipment used to find the Titanic was used to locate the Dakar. The Dakar was found on its original course, not off of Egypt as thought earlier by some searchers.

The Dakar was found on the bottom with its bow section intact. According to an eyewitness account by Brigadier General Gideon Raz, who was a former deputy commander of the Israeli Navy, the middle part of the submarine was heavily damaged with amidships debris scattered on the sea floor. The aft section was completely separated from the rest of the submarine. The Dakar's reported debris field coincides with the information received from U.S. intelligence sources. The submarine was broken in two aft of the conning tower. The actual story related to us is that the Dakar was hit by a lightweight acoustic homing air-dropped torpedo. The mission was highly compartmented and classified. Yet it proved to the Israelis that some sectors in the U.S. military and intelligence community had no problem in killing 69 Israeli sailors in retaliation for Israel's attack on the Liberty and the loss of 34 U.S. sailors.

There would be yet one more strange postscript to the story of the Dakar. Mere hours after hearing that the Dakar had been located, retired Israeli Navy Commander, Admiral Michael Barkai, committed suicide. Barkai's brother, Avraham, had been the deputy commander of the Dakar who was lost with the other 68 crewmen....

--

Extreme Makeover - History in the Making

The final chapter in President Bush's staged aircraft carrier publicity events

Bill White

Senior White House correspondent Helen Thomas penned a sad commentary in the waning days of the failed presidency of George W. Bush. She titled her article, "History Cannot Save Him." In her article Thomas makes a prediction regarding the 43rd president's legacy: "They say that journalism is the first draft of history. So I am going to predict that those future historians will not deal kindly with the Bush presidency." But the President begged to differ: "Not to worry, Bush says he isn't concerned about how history will view his militant eight years in the White House."[i]

Not to Worry. This makes one wonder what Dubya and his political handlers have up their sleeves. For his final act, does Bush believe that he is going to rewrite history by using the same "perception management" sleight of hand that got him into the White House in the first place? Does he actually have a plan in the works at this time to salvage the Bush family name?

When presiding over the commissioning ceremony of America's newest aircraft carrier, CNN-77, President George W. Bush characterized the ship as a gift to its namesake, his father and 41st President of the United States of America George H.W. Bush. "What do you give a guy who has been blessed and has just about everything he has ever needed?" asked President Bush from aboard the Navy's newest ship. "Well, an aircraft carrier... It's the perfect gift for an old Navy flier - 1,092 feet of flattop."[ii]


This bothered me. As a concerned former Naval aviator, I had written to the Armed Services Committees of both the House and the Senate before the event encouraging Congress to change the name of the vessel to something other than "Bush," out of concern for the well being of the pilots and crew who will be stationed on the carrier. What I found peculiar was Dubya's use of the word "gift." Since Navy ships are paid for by taxpayer dollars and owned by the country as a whole, how could a warship be considered a "gift" to any one individual? It was only after reflecting on investigative journalist Russ Baker's work in his new book Family of Secrets, The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America that it dawned on me what the President was referring to. In his book, Baker persuasively documents Karl Rove's construct of a "legend" for Dubya Bush[iii]. Although the religious conversion ploy worked well enough to get him into office, Dubya's subsequent missteps created the need for a second round of damage control - one that would manufacture a more flattering legacy for the country's 43rd President. Bush's handlers had obviously taken in the movie "Top Gun" and realized the unprecedented opportunity the aircraft carrier afforded image makers. In the film Tom Cruise, after wasting the "bad guys" in an aerial dogfight, is greeted to a hero's welcome by his shipmates upon landing on the flight deck of his aircraft carrier. The impact of this film on the Country cannot be over emphasized. In the aftermath of the film's release applications to attend my alma mater, the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, increased more than ten fold. According to The Celluloid President: Images of Presidential Leadership in Hollywood Movies "The image Bush conveyed [by impersonating a Navy pilot] was carefully designed to both bolster and capitalize on his newly-assumed role as a wartime president... This...Bush-as-fighter-pilot display" represents...a phenomenon that Bruce Miroff has termed ‘the presidential spectacle'".[iv] But according to the New York Times the spectacle was backfiring on the Navy Carrier Pilot Impersonator as "...criticism (was forthcoming) from Democrats on Capitol Hill who said Mr. Bush had indulged in a political stunt that demeaned the military. Some said Mr. Bush could have arrived by helicopter or small cargo plane without the flight suit (incorporating the rolled up sock bulge so admired by G. Gordon Liddy) and helmet, and that his decision to make a ''Top Gun''-style entrance had turned the carrier into a campaign prop." "I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I saw," Senator Byrd commented on the Senate floor.[v] Although the contrived "Mission Accomplished" fiasco backfired on him, Dubya's handlers never lost sight of the power of the aircraft carrier to bestow hero image status on an undeserving politician. They were in fact determined to "get it right" the next time they employed this technique.

After reading Russ Baker's conclusions it occurred to me that "next time" opportunity to employ an aircraft carrier in a PR stunt might be for the purpose of salvaging Dubya's father's reputation. Remember that Poppy Bush had reason for concern about his own legacy as well as Dubya. During his political heyday George H.W. Bush was not known by the "handle" or "call sign" typically assigned to a hero aviator. "Have Half George" was nowhere referred to deferentially as "Maverick," "Iceman," "Flack," or "Ace." This raised the specter of Dubya's "gift" of an aircraft carrier being part and parcel of an effort to reinvent his father George H.W. Bush, "the Wimp," as George H.W. Bush, the "hero Fighter Pilot"? About this time right wing talk radio show hosts began "mistakenly" referring to Poppy Bush as having been a carrier "fighter pilot" in World War II. The timing of the aircraft carrier commissioning event also seems to suggest such a ploy, since it had to be done before W. loses his grip on the reigns of power. It is telling that the commissioning ceremony was held prematurely, just days before Dubya leaves office, even though the ship will not be completed or deployed for several more months. Staging another aircraft carrier PR stunt of this nature seems to indicate that the gift Dubya was giving his father was not the ship itself--it was the gift of a counterfeit legacy, a makeover of his father's less than stellar image.

Contesting the Wimp Factor:

According to George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin:

George H.W. Bush detractor William Loeb (the outspoken publisher of the Manchester Union Leader in New Hampshire), hated Bush and worked doggedly for his defeat in 1980. Loeb had said about him: "hypocrite...double-standard morality, involved up to his neck in Watergate...unfit to be the Republican nominee...incompetent; liberal masquerading as a conservative; a hypocrite...a spoon-fed little rich kid who has been wet-nursed to success," In 1988 Mrs. Loeb called presidential candidate H.W. Bush "a preppy wimp, part of the self-appointed elite," and wrote: "George Bush has been Bush for 63 years. He has been Ronald Reagan's errand boy for just the last seven. Without Ronald Reagan he will surely revert to the original George Bush. Republicans should flee the presidential candidacy of George Bush as if it were the Black Plague itself." A Doonesbury comic strip follow-up asserted that Bush "had placed his manhood in a blind trust."

"Displays of this type began to inspire a more general public contempt for Bush during 1987. Bush was coming across as "deferential almost to the point of obsequiousness," "too weak, too namby-pamby." George Will, anxious to pick a winner, began to ridicule Bush as a "lapdog." The "wimp factor" was beginning to torment Bush. Old Bill Loeb was still making Bush squirm. Two veteran observers pointed out: "Reagan's own physical presence and self-confidence made Bush in contrast seem even weaker, and Bush's penchant for the prissy remark at times cast him as the Little Lord Fauntleroy of the campaign trail..." Bush said he was running a negative campaign so as not to leave the Democrats a monopoly on "the naughty stuff."

All of this culminated in the devastating Newsweek cover story of October 19, 1987, "Fighting the 'Wimp Factor." The article was more analytical than hostile, but did describe the "crippling handicap" of being seen as a "wimp." Bush had been a "vassal to Kissinger" at the United Nations and in Beijing, the article found, and now even Bush's second term Chief of Staff said of Bush, "He's emasculated by the office of vice president." To avoid appearing as a television wimp, Bush had "tried for the past 10 years to master the medium, studying it as if it were a foreign language. He has consulted voice and television coaches. He tried changing his glasses and even wearing contact lenses. [...] Bush's tight, twangy voice is a common problem. Under stress, experts explain, the vocal cords tighten and the voice is higher than normal and lacks power." According to Newsweek, 51% of Americans found that "wimp" was a "serious problem" for Bush. The magazine offered various sophomoric psychological explanations of how Bush got that way, mainly concentrating on his family upbringing. Here Bush was allegedly taught to conceal his sociopathic drives beneath a veneer of propitiation and sharing, as in his childhood nickname of "Have Half" George.

The Newsweek "wimp" cover soon had Bush chewing the carpet at the Naval Observatory. Bush's knuckle-dragging son George W. Bush called the story "a cheap shot" and added menacingly, "...I'd like to take the guy who wrote that headline out on that boat,"( i.e., the Aronow-built Fidelity in which Bush was depicted on the Newsweek cover), which sounded very much like a threat. George W. Bush also called Newsweek Washington bureau chief Evan Thomas to inform him that the Bush campaign had officially cut off all contact with Newsweek and its reporters. The decision to put Newsweek out of business was made by candidate Bush personally, and aborted a plan by Newsweek to publish a book on the 1988 campaign. The press got the message: portray Bush in a favorable light or face vindictive and discriminatory countermeasures."

George H.W. Bush - a fitting namesake?


The party line justification for the naming of our newest carrier is that George H.W. Bush deserves naming rights because he was a popular "War" President who had served as a courageous Navy torpedo bomber pilot during World War II.

But neither of these false premises holds water. Bush was not highly regarded as president - he was turned out of office after only a single term. His reasons for making war against Iraq remain controversial, as the primary beneficiaries were his political sponsors, the Saudi Royal Family and Kuwait's billionaire emir Sheik Jaber al-Ahmed al-Sabah. His stint as a Navy pilot is also clouded by controversy, particularly as pertains to the event about which he's often referred to as a hero, the downing of his three man crew Avenger aircraft in 1944. Eyewitness Chester Mierzejewski, a crewmember in another squadron plane that was directly in front of and had a clear view of Bush's bailout from his plane, maintained that Bush abandoned his aircrew in order to save himself. Mierzejewski, who is a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross, is nonpolitical and only spoke out when he became upset that Bush was making himself out to be a hero during his presidential campaign in 1988. As documented in Russ Baker's book, Bush himself says on tape that he looked back and saw his gunner "slumped over", while on other occasions he claims not to know whether his crewmember got out of the plane or not. [vi] Bush's own contradictory claims only serve to deepen suspicions that he acted in a cowardly manner. Although the facts cannot be established for certain at this late date, it is undisputed that Bush saved himself and that both of his crewmembers perished. So whatever interpretation one chooses to accept, Bush's conduct can hardly be considered laudatory or commendable. He certainly did nothing "heroic" that would recommend him as namesake for a Navy aircraft carrier.

We do know for certain that there is a long tradition in the United States Navy. The Captain is in sole command of his ship and is personally responsible for the safety and wellbeing of its crew. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the old adage that usually comes to mind: "The Captain must go down with the ship." That is utter nonsense. What is expected and in fact required of a Captain is that he be the last living soul to depart the sinking ship. His first and foremost responsibility is to see to it that all crewmembers abandon ship--including the sailors trapped below deck, and the wounded and the infirm to the extent possible--before he even thinks about saving himself.

With the advent of the aircraft carrier, this concept of "command" responsibility carried over from ship captains to Naval pilots. The flyer in the airplane with the stick and throttle in his hands was designated "Pilot in Command" while others manning the guns, bombsights, navigation and communications gear were designated "aircrew"--they had no control over the flight of the plane and were in essence just along for the ride. As Pilot in Command, Naval Aviators are held to the same level of accountability as the Captain of a ship. In the event of damage or malfunction of the plane, the Pilot in Command's first and foremost responsibility is to see to it that his crewmembers evacuate the plane BEFORE he does. The reason for this is self evident: if the pilot bails out first, who will fly the plane during the time it takes the crewmembers to un-strap, open their hatches or canopies, and position themselves for bailout? A pilotless plane can exert g-forces making it impossible for the remaining aircrew members to escape. That is why it is absolutely imperative that the pilot bail out LAST.

When my own Navy fighter jet went out of control, the first thing that I did as Pilot in Command was to order my back-seat radar intercept officer to bail out. He ejected at over 10,000 feet in altitude, giving him ample cushion to allow for his chute deployment, seat separation, life vest and raft inflation, and leisurely descent to a controlled water landing. Struggling to regain control of the aircraft, I rode the fighter down to the very edge of the ejection envelope before bailing out myself. At about 1,200 feet, with the aircraft in a steep nose down dive, I was pushing the envelope. After ejecting I had only a half swing in my chute before hitting the water perilously close to the burning ring of fire that had only seconds before been my F-4 Phantom II fighter jet. Neither my life vest nor raft had been inflated prior to my entry into the choppy water. I relate this incident not to make myself out to be a heroic figure; rather, I am making the point that my conduct was simply SOP - Standard Operating Procedure. This is what honorable Pilots in Command are expected to do and did in fact do in every case that I know of--except that of George H.W. Bush.

A Navy pilot who panics in an emergency and saves himself at the expense of his crew would most likely have been court marshaled and dishonorably discharged from the Armed Services of the United States. But then again, your average Naval Aviator does not have a high profile advocate covering for him (nor a father who is close friends with individuals in the highest levels of government and the intelligence business). At the time of this incident, Bush's brother's father-in-law was Commander of the Pacific Fleet. As a result of this, Bush was given special treatment
[vii], notwithstanding the deaths of his aircrew.

Presidential pardon --Pardon me Son

It appears that the intent of plastering George H.W. Bush's name on one of the most awe inspiring, intimidating warships in this country's arsenal and rewriting the story of his Navy service in WW-II is to convert Poppy Bush's history as a run of the mill torpedo bomber pilot into the legend of a highly acclaimed "fighter pilot." Dubya and the right wing spin-meisters have constructed a counterfeit resume that makes Dubya's father look like a cross between John Wayne and Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was the same perception management technique used to describe Duby's "Mission Accomplished" performance in college study entitled The Celluloid President: Images of Presidential Leadership in Hollywood Movies. What was needed to complete this hat trick was to stage a high profile, public ceremony to publicize and create a public record of the coronation event. All that remains to be done now is to selectively steer grant funding to obsequious "historians" who agree to memorialize the contrived record by incorporating it in both text books and history books. As soon as these wheels are put in motion; voila - H.W.'s political fixers will have finally succeeded, once and for all, in torpedoing Bush's objectionable call sign - The Wimp. Although the makeover of his Father may be the final insult from a corrupt and inept Administration, it certainly explains Dubya's lack of concern over Helen Thomas' prediction that "History Cannot Save Him." Because the Decider-in-Chief has already put these legacy building subterfuges in motion, he is confident that the history of his Administration, and that of his Father, is being rewritten at this very moment in a manner that will portray the Bush Family in a favorable light.

Conclusion : No Guts, No Glory... where are today's courageous Leaders to call it like it is, in the Navy and DOD and outside ...???

My objection to the naming of our nation's newest aircraft carrier "Bush" is not intended to bring further disrepute upon George H.W. Bush's conduct as a pilot in WW-II, disparage his service record, or create another "Swift Boat Vets" smear campaign. The point of my letters to Congress is that it is unconscionable to endanger the lives of over 5,000 kids for the sake of a legacy-building exercise intended to embellish what by all available eyewitness accounts appears to have been the less than commendable conduct of Bush '41 when confronted with a pressure situation. The troubling facts make it clear that this is precisely what is at work here - Dubya is giving Daddy an image makeover as a going away present. Removing the wimp label from his Father's legacy is the real "gift" that President Bush is bestowing upon his Father -- a Presidential pardon of sorts.

True to form, the Bush family is using a position of public trust for self-aggrandizement at the expense of others. If George H.W. Bush had one iota of respect for the officers and sailors serving in the United States Navy, he would direct that his name be removed from association with

CVN-77. In fact, if he would do the right and honorable thing, instead of what is self-serving and politically expedient, people might actually stop thinking of him in terms of Wimp - even without the contrived PR schemes.

Bill White is a former Navy fighter pilot who went into business with Dubya's Air National Guard buddy Jim Bath. When White refused to participate in the cover-up of the Bush family's secret business dealings with the Saudi BinLaden family he was threatened with, and endured, personal attacks staged by Bush family lawyers, prosecutors and judges in Harris County, Texas. Concerned former military personnel, organizations and readers concerned about the preservation of our Constitutional Republic....


[i] Helen Thomas, History Cannot Save Him,The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 11Jan09

[ii] Deb Riechmann, Gift fit for an ex-president, The Associated Press, 11Jan09

[iii] Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, Dec08, P383

[iv] Voorhees, Matthew, PhD. The Celluloid President: Images of Presidential Leadership in Hollywood

Movies, Department of Politics, Whitman College, Mar06, P2

[v] Ken Guggenheim, Byrd Rips Bush's Aircraft Carrier Use, Associated Press, 6May03

[vi] Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, Dec08, P20

[vii] Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, Dec08, background research.