Elliot Abrams must go! A challenge to bloggers from Juan Cole

[IndyOp]

A meaningful step to prevent the madness of war on Iran. Demand that Congress investigate WHY Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy in the Bush White House...

From Juan Cole's Informed Consent - Monday, December 18, 2006

Elliot Abrams and others at the National Security Council in Bush's White House have intervened to stop the publication of an op-ed in the New York Times by Flynt Leverett. Leverett himself served in the National Security Council until not so long ago. For Leverett's criticism of Bush administration Middle East policy and its mishandling of Iran since January of 2002, see this interview at Eurasia.net. He advocates US talks with Iran.

<snip>

That does it. Elliot Abrams must go. Elliot Abrams is a felon. He was involved in stealing Pentagon weapons from US stockpiles, selling them to the Ayatollah Khomeini, and then stealing the Iranian funds so garnered to give to far-right Central American death squads, and then lying about all this to Congress. The Congress in the Constitution controls the budget. The Congress had cut off money to the rightwing death squads supported by Reagan and henchmen like Abrams. This elaborate criminal conspiracy inside the White House was the Right's response. They shredded the Constitution (and ever since have been calling their critics "unpatriotic.")

In 1991, Abrams pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of lying to Congress under oath. Without the plea deal, he was facing felony charges, since what he did was in fact a felony.

Congress pledged that Abrams would never work at a high level in government again. But by the time the Neoconservative cabal in the Bush administration got Bush to appoint him to the National Security Council, there had been so much turn-over in Congress that, one member told me, "no one remembered who Abrams was."

I'm serious about this, everyone. The bloggers are touted as influential, but their influence is hard to measure or prove. Let's make this a test case.

<snip>

Enough of being ruled by criminals and liars and warmongers. Enough of censorship and attacks on our Constitution. Elliot Abrams must go.

More at http://www.juancole.com/

:( :( :( :( :( :( :(

[babylonsister]

1. Juan Cole is worth listening to; time for an activist action? nt

[IndyOp]

2. Activists - Yes! I am transfixed with horror to Iraq and the

possibility of surge and, yet, I believe that the *'ies are insane enough to drop bombs on Iran. Insane. Insane. Insane.

Going after Abrams sounds right. Even before * -- Abrams is driving policy and so preventing an attack on Iran and stopping Iraq depends on dumping Abrams.

:(

[everythingsxen]

4. Are we invading Iran?

When did that happen?

[No Exit]

15. We will do whatever The Decider decides, including invading Iran.

And it doesn't matter what we, the people want to do--nor does it matter what Daddy Bush's boys say.

And The Decider has very clearly taken to demonizing, and trying to marginalize, and refusing to negotiate with, Iran.

Your question seems to suggest that our invading Iran hasn't even been proposed by anyone. Where have you been?? I have heard numerous publications and "think tanks" continually urge us to "take out" parts of Iran. Just about every source I read, whether it be a wingnut source, or a progressive source, seems to think it's a given that Our Government is at least thinking about invading Iran. It is a very real possibility. So I think it's very disingenuous to ask "Are we invading Iran?"

Do you seriously think The Decider and his remaining neocon henchmen would consult us about invading Iran? If it happens, it will be in the process of happening before we are even told about it.

[everythingsxen]

17. Except of course...

we live in the real world where all of that hyperbole and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee. We aren't going to invade Iran, at least not anytime soon. In case you haven't noticed we are hopelessly bogged down in Iraq and if Bush were to order a strike on Iran, I think we would be looking at a full blown military coup here in the US.

[No Exit]

19. I fervently hope that you are right.

And if you are, no one will have more joy than I will if, a year or two years from now, you could come back and say, "I told you so! We didn't invade Iran--I was right!"

[everythingsxen]

3. It's really funny how all of Juan Cole's crusading seems to revolve around...

Jewish people. While I am not endorsing Abrahms, I just think it's "funny" how much time Mr. Cole spends on Jewish people and issues.. and of course fighting "Zionism" that controls US policy... :eyes:

Lest not forget, Mr. Cole is one of the advocates of the theory that Iran's president does not threaten Israel when saying things like "we will wipe them off the pages of history" (although Iran's website says "wipe them off the map") what he actually means is a peaceful one-state solution. :eyes:

[IndyOp]

8. Cole isn't the only one who says that President Ahmadinejad is less

than a weak, despised figure-head. Cole notes that Ahmadinejad stole the presidential elections in summer of 2005 and that former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani appears to have trounced Ahmadinejad's own favorite cleric, Mohammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi, an authoritarian anti-democrat in the recent election.

Ahmadinejad has demonstrated his stellar lunacy by attending the holocaust deniers meeting this past week - if any observer had been left unsure of his mental state by his comment about Israel disappearing from the face of the earth.

We have to work to make sure that Ahmadinejad has no power -- his diarrhea of the mouth won't harm people so long as he has no real power.

[No Exit]

13. So is there no such thing as Zionism?

You seem to imply that its existence is in doubt--you put the word in quotes.

And Israel is not involved in our current foreign policy? Just asking.

Fuck Iran. I don't care about Iran. IRAN IS NOT A THREAT TO THE U.S. TO THE EXTENT THAT WE MUST INVADE IT. Period. So why the HELL are we being repeatedly told to invade it?

Israel, whether we like it or not, is involved in the direction which our foreign policy has taken in recent years. Therefore, Israel is a legitimate subject of discussion. Therefore, it is legitimate for Juan Cole to discuss it. And surely Juan Cole is the best one to decide what how much or how little he will discuss Israel.

Whether we like it or not, Israel has continually been treated as a sacred cow in the majority of political discussions held among Americans.

I don't approve of sacred cows.

As a postscript, I don't think the views of the current Israeli politicians--especially the Likudniks, and ESPECIALLY the outrageous Avigdor Lieberman--are representative of the views of most Israeli citizens. But they are hushed up, just as the majority of OUR citizens are hushed up.

Avigdor Lieberman:
Quotes by Avigdor Lieberman:
“It would be better to drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea if possible, since that’s the lowest point in the world.” ( Avigdor Lieberman as Israel’s Transport Minister offered to bus Palestinian political prisoners to the Dead Sea to be drowned) (Source: Israel Radio, July 7, 2003)
“I don’t negate the option of transfer .” (Source: Yediot Ahronot, December 28, 2001)
“I don’t believe at the moment in any compromise with the Palestinians” (Source: New York Times, New Voice on Right in Israeli Cabinet is Likely to be Loud, October 25, 2006. Statement made in March 2006)
“The vision I would like to see here is the entrenching of the Jewish and the Zionist state...I very much favor democracy, but when there is a contradiction between democratic and Jewish values, the Jewish and Zionist values are more important.” (Source: The Scotsman, Extreme Right-Winger to Join Israeli Government, October 23, 2006)

[peacetalksforall]

16. I agree with much of what you say - as I was typing, I thought

about Abrams, I was about to add some words about the parallel role of operatives pushing the Israel agenda and the way-too-close involvement of Israeli operatives in this group of people. I didn't write it.

By Isreal operatives I mean American citizens (dual citizenship or not) operatives whose job it is to relentlessly pursue and push the Israel agenda.

Also, in response to remembering - I distinctly remember times in our last couple of decades where I read about Israel and Iran getting along. They were stand outs in their trading partnerships. I'm sure that was not just during the reign of the Shah.

Purposes have shifted. But, there is no doubt about needs of Israel, the U.S., and the U.K. intermingling to the point where it seems as one entity.

I see more of what's going on since learning about the crimes of Reagan and Bush, Sr. and how they pulled one over on us, cheated Carter, abused the hostages, and, most of all, ran a secret sub-government in opposition to everything we are supposed to be about. I will never accept what they did. They flaunted ther contempt for us and waved that Constitution in our face then through it in dung.

I am now beginning to resent (by education) the collaboration of Israel (citizen or not) operatives in the highest ranks of our government and the way our policies are orchestrated. It's gone too far.

Too many people are afraid to speak. So is Cole a leader or the accused?

I honor the peacemakers in Israel. There was a great program on NPR this past weekend - Krista Tippitt - Speaking of Faith.

[No Exit]

18. That was a powerful post.

Thank you for saying it. We all need to exercise our right to free speech as much as possible--even on subjects which others might wish to stifle us on. I agree with what you said. And, yes, I too have found a sort of continuity linking the Reagan and Daddy Bush administrations, through some of the same people, with this foul maladministration.

[High Plains]

20. Yeah, Cole must be an anti-semite

Now, how do you make that darned sarcasm thingie?

[everythingsxen]

21. You...

type : sarcasm : remove the spaces between the : and sarcasm.

Like this:

Yeah, I must be really wrong about Juan Cole. People quoted on neo-Nazi websites, who defend Ahmanutjob and who refer to zionists controlling our education centers and government really actually mean zionists, because there is so much evidence that zionists control everything and he is not in any way trying to be like other modern anti-semites and use zionist/zionism as a code word for Jewish. :sarcasm:

[peacetalksforall]

5. That is really depressing. No one / few remembered who he was?

Why do I remember exactly who he is?

All the same people - they thread through all the crimes of the last 43 years from the JFK assassination to the monetary debacle to all the deaths to trashing the Constitution - AGAIN!. They must laugh with gusto when they talk about how stupid we are to let them destroy our kids and country.

[babylonsister]

7. Cole appeared recently with

Kucinich:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2897358

[IndyOp]

9. The Kucinich hearing with Cole is WELL worth the watch!

I saw it live - the testimony of the Lancet authors & Cole was really, really powerful.

:(

[babylonsister]

10. Yes! They were all powerful; it was a great day when CSPAN

FINALLY covered something important that a Dem sponsored, too! :toast:

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Elliot Abrams has no place in any upright organization

He fits right in to the Bush Regime.

[No Exit]

11. Hooray for Juan Cole! The scum Abrams always turns up in any

halfway in-depth article or discussion of the worst of the neocons. And he IS a felon and is a double-dealer and is a traitor and does NOT belong in OUR government.

[No Exit]

12. Correction: the criminal Elliott Abrams is a misdemeanant.

Two misdemeanors--that's what he was guilty of in Iran/Contra.

Why is this criminal in our government?

Firedoglake has an excellent, detailed article on Abrams. Among other things, it quotes this piece by David Corn:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010702/corn

Excerpt:

"How would you feel if your wife and children were brutally raped before being hacked to death by soldiers during a military massacre of 800 civilians, and then two governments tried to cover up the killings?" It's a question that won't be asked of Elliott Abrams at a Senate confirmation hearing–because George W. Bush, according to press reports, may appoint Abrams to a National Security Council staff position that (conveniently!) does not require Senate approval. Moreover, this query is one of a host of rude, but warranted, questions that could be lobbed at Abrams, the Iran/contra player who was an assistant secretary of state during the Reagan years and a shaper of that Administration's controversial–and deadly–policies on Latin America and human rights. His designated spot in the new regime: NSC's senior director for democracy, human rights and international operations. (At press time, the White House and Abrams were neither confirming nor denying his return to government.)

Bush the Second has tapped a number of Reagan/Bush alums who were involved in Iran/contra business for plum jobs: Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Otto Reich and John Negroponte. But Abrams's appointment–should it come to pass–would mark the most generous of rehabilitations. Not only did Abrams plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of lying to Congress about the Reagan Administration's contra program, he was also one of the fiercest ideological pugilists of the 1980s, a bad-boy diplomat wildly out of sync with Bush's gonna-change-the-tone rhetoric. Abrams, a Democrat turned Republican who married into the cranky Podhoretz neocon clan, billed himself as a "gladiator" for the Reagan Doctrine in Central America–which entailed assisting thuggish regimes and militaries in order to thwart leftist movements and dismissing the human rights violations of Washington's cold war partners."

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/12/18/youre-a-mean-one/#more-6173

[Ms. Clio]

14. k&r