I know I'm taking the flame-bait from QuadraPixel, but do people like him realize that one of Gore's main arguments is that essentially there are NO arguments remaining on the existence of man made climate change???? The issue has been put to bed and the few remaining holdouts are the ones who can't for the life of them divorce politics from the issue and admit that a "liberal" like Gore was right all along.

This issue, although championed by a politician, has been primarily driven by SCIENCE. Scientists have fought the good fight here and deserve just as much credit. They've had to clean up a lot of bullsh1t smoke screens that have been thrown over the issue by industrial interests and most recently the Bush administration.

As for Faux.....seeing their typical reactions made me smile. Times are tough there these days and they get more bitter by the moment. Here are their tactics -

1) Make the award look bad - a TERRORIST got it! Jimmy Carter got it!

2) Diminish Gore's accomplishments - he ONLY made a movie! Trust me, if he ONLY made a move he would not have received the award. It was his tireless crusade to raise the profile of this issue outside of the movie that got him the award.

3) Make Gore look like a hypocrite - OMG, he rides in PRIVATE JETS!!! So do you honestly think he could maintain the schedule he does by driving? Or riding on a train? Or hell, riding in a USAir jet? The extra fuel he uses in this plane is a minimal price to pay for cutting through all the bullsh1t Faux and the rest of the Bush boys have thrown over this issue.

Out of all those...Jimmy Carter. Why pick on Jimmy Carter?

Yes, excellent logic! I can see how someone would draw the parallel between Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter. Perfect sense. [rolls eyes]

"Iran and Jimmy Carter -- not a good mix. Do a little search on something called the "Iran Hostage Crisis", it's good to broaden our minds every now and then, right?"

Maybe Jimmy Carter should have shown some real class and scare America into a long, costly, and illegal war over WMDs, then after the invasion joke about not finding them during a black tie event for journalists.

Or maybe he could have been a stud like Al Gore and win a Nobel Peace Prize. Oh wait! He did.

Speaking of Iran hostages, let's not forget that nasty little rumor about the Reagan administration negotiating with Iran to keep the hostages until after the election in order to make Reagan look good. Negotiating with the enemy to use hostages as political pawns. Wasn't Reagan great?

"At least he didn't cajole Iraq into going to war with Iran, and start selling Iran weapons."


Iran and Jimmy Carter -- not a good mix. Do a little search on something called the "Iran Hostage Crisis", it's good to broaden our minds every now and then, right?

I was alive and voting when Jimmy Carter was president, and I objected to many of his specific acts, but he's the ex-president I revere the most. I'm proud of him. I am not proud of our current president, of whom my fondest hope is that his represents our nadir and that we have to do better next time.

By 1970 there were over 1600 CFR members and in 1972 the Trilateral Commission was formed by Rockefeller (Chairman of the CFR). The CFR and the Trilateral Commission are not US Government created entities. The Council's first recruitment of a future president occurred in 1950 with Eisenhower. Since then every president (except Reagan) has been a CFR/Trilateral commission member and these presidents have filled their staff with other CFR members.

One example of how a presidential elect that claims he doesn't want NWO personnel in his administration, however ends up appointing such people to their cabinet is Reagan.

He was neither a CFR or Trilateral Commission member. He was neither a Skull & Bonesman or Bilderberger, however he was a Bohemian Grovesman.

When Reagan was asked who really ran the United States, Reagan admitted: "I think there is an elite in this country and they are the ones who run an elitist government (shadow government). They want a government by a handful of people because they don't believe the people themselves can run their lives... Are we going to have an elitist government that makes decisions for people's lives or are we going to believe as we have for so many decades, that the people can make these decisions for themselves?".

It also seems that Reagan was thinking along similar lines to Jimmy Carter when he gave his pre-election promise to avoid "insiders" when selecting his cabinet. When Reagan was elected, he formed a transitional team that would act as kind of a recruitment agency for the major positions in the new administration. Of the 59 people Reagan appointed for the team, 29 were members of the CFR, ten were Bilderbergers, and astonishingly, ten were from the dreaded Trilateral Commission. With George H.W. Bush as his Vice Presidential running mate, Reagan was not about to make the CFR or the Trilateral Commission or any other secret group into a campaign issue.

When Reagan entered the White House, he appointed 12 members of the Trilateral Commission, six of whom were also CFR members. As a sign of the true state of secret group influence, there were another 64 appointees who were also members of the CFR.

This from a man that stated he would take control and keep the government from being controlled by a shadow government. He appointed the exact people he vowed not to have in his office.

Today in the Bush administration, every single appointee is a CFR member. The CFR prohibits its members from disclosing anything that has been said within it's closed meetings to outsiders. A recent breakdown of the 4200+ members today reveals that 31% come from the corporate sector, 25% come from academia, 15% from charities, 13% from government, 8% from law, 6% from the media and 2% from other professions. CFR members are on the boards of the following sample of corporations: Citicorp, J.P.Morgan Chase, Boeing, Conoco, Disney, IBM, Exxon Mobil, Dow Jones, Viacom/CBS, Time Warner, Carlyle Group, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse First Boston, Chevron Texaco, Lockheed Martin, Hailliburton, Washington Post/Newsweek.

The CFR has been the breeding grounds for future presidents and their administrations for several decades now. Whether Republican or Democrat, the men and women in power will have been schooled in foreign relations by the council. If there is a shadow government at work then you can guarantee the puppet strings pass through the Pratt House (CFR).

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

If you want to read up on the CFR (and not from the CFR itself), one good source of an examination of the CFR from it's initial creation up to today is a book written by 2 authors.

One is Thom Burnett (One of Britain's leading experts on security and military affairs. He served with UK Special Forces in the 90's and has been undertaking postgraduate research in Conspiracy Theory and Military Intelligence. The other author is Alex Games - Author and journalist for the London Evening Standard, UK's Financial Times, Sunday Times, Daily Telegraph, Guardian and Independent on Sunday).

The book is called: "Who Really Runs the World?: The war between globalization and democracy". Pages 100-120 descibe many details about the CFR's history from inception to today.

whoa, whoa, whoa... i never said that YOU said that the us aided the taliban - read more carefully -- i also was not the first to bring it up... jon did with his graphic innuendo at 3:25 in the vid - when my correction of this misinformation was subsequently challenged by nebosuke, i reiterated the mistakes in the initial premise - then you came in chiding me for not providing references

but if you check carefully, you'll see that what i said to you in regards to the taliban was prefaced with:

'your cites also continue to claim...'

and

'basically what your skewed sources are claiming...'

so, am i offbase? not at all - your cites did indeed misrepresent...

'Backed by Pakistan’s military intelligence, which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State was largely serving American geopolitical interests.'

'These organizations or movements, such as the Taliban, often foment “opposition to Uncle Sam” in a way which does not constitute any real threat to America’s broader geopolitical and economic interests. Meanwhile, Washington has supported their development as a means of disarming social movements, which it fears may threaten US economic and political hegemony.'

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/americawarterrorism/americawarterrorism02.htm

so either you don't read your own sources, or you don't believe them -- nice

a. your cites, my cites - yeah, who cares? i at least carefully read both mine and yours -- what follows in this post should satisfy your need for a higher (both in number and quality) degree of sourcing than you've provided - speaking of which, bergen doesn't provide his sources because HE is the primary source -- your cites' quotings from the likes of abdel monem said ali and ahmed rashid are what are called secondary and tertiary sources -- finally, i think when you fully peruse the citations i'll provide, you'll see that the sourcing of the state dept webpage belies your opinion of it

b. lol - if you think i agree with you, then you are pretty dense -- you probably blame hurricanes on butterfly wings

c. 'And prior history notwithstanding, without the ISI's, and through them the US, insistance on bringing in Arabs to fight with the mujahideen there would LIKELY be no Al Qaeda.'

lol, again - what makes you think that the us and isi insisted on bringing in arabs to fight? you're very misinformed -- first of all, if they did insist, then why the hell didn't the arabs fight? heh --- what both the us and isi DID want was SUPPORT, re. cash and logistics

unfortunately, along with the cash, the arab states sent us their fundamentalist troublemakers and criminals given early parole to fight for islam in afghanistan, e.g. the folks who assassinated anwar sadat, etc -- the trouble came about after the afghans won and the arab states didn't want their 'jihadists' back - lol

but anyway, here are the cites and sources for you...

'Assess for me the role of Osama bin Laden and his fellow Afghan Arabs in the victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
The Arab element of the ten year engagement in Afghanistan was fundamental to its success, but within the context of fund-raiser.'

'The Saudi Arabian government, and rich, wealthy princes ... contributed and matched dollar for dollar the US government's money in the Afghan war?

That was within the context of the program that CIA was managing. And that's the way it was funded. And that is known. Beyond that, you had Saudi Red Crescent and all forms of Gulf Arab organizations who were drawn to the only operative jihad at the time, a very major event within the world of Islam. And they were fund-raisers. And they brought additional moneys into the Afghan program, into the resistance from their own sources, and did good works.

They built orphanages, they built homes for widows of martyrs, and brought in, after the war turned to the advantage of the mujahedeen, some ... 20 to 25 million dollars a month. ... So in that regard, they played a very major role. Now, part of your question is what about the combat role. Minimal. There were some Arabs that fought with some mujahedeen groups, but not many. At any given time, inside Afghanistan, [there were] maybe 2,000 Arabs. ... But the people of Afghanistan fought that war, they bled, they died, they were driven out of their country. To suggest that others were engaged in the combat activity to any extent is just simply wrong.'

'Who were the Afghan Arabs?

Muslims from all over the world: North Africa, Persian Gulf, but from all over the world. Other than that, you had a rag tag bunch of Muslims that were taken from one jail or another, whether it's in Cairo or in Algiers or any other country in the Gulf, and put on an airplane and flown to go do the jihad with the fondest hope that they not come back. They didn't die in great numbers. They died in tiny numbers, and they did come back. And my bet is that even the Saudis were terribly happy to see the son Osama bin Laden go off to war. And some might have thought wouldn't it be nice if he didn't return.'

'Because so much of what we hear about Osama bin Laden comes out of his Afghanistan experience, I'm trying to get this straight, he was mostly a philanthropist and a financial contributor, and a minor combat figure, who happened to dabble in combat?

... I can possibly give him credit for having been present and accounted for at one major battle in ... Baktia Province in 1987. Beyond that, I simply cannot say that there is any war record at all. What I can say is that the hype that surrounds Osama bin Laden--most of it generated by the US media and backed up by statements that verge on hyperbole from the United States government--that this man was literally swinging through the valleys of the Hindu Kush with a dagger in his teeth and single-handedly driving out the Soviet army, this did not happen. The Afghan people did that. The Arab role in the combat situation on the ground was minimal to nonexistent, period. And to suggest otherwise is simply to either gloss over history or to create history for your own reasons.

I can imagine someone out there watching saying. "This is the CIA talking." You're not going to admit that you created the most dangerous public enemy in the world.

You bet I would. If I could look you in the eye and say, "Trust me, Osama bin Laden was my guy. If it wasn't for the CIA he wouldn't be anything then, he wouldn't be anything today," if I could say that with a straight face, I think that would speed up the process of removing Mr. bin Laden as a source of great, great concern for the United States. I can't say that because it's simply not true. You can find nobody who is familiar with the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan in those years that would say bin Laden played any role other than the fund-raiser.'

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/bearden.html

'MILTON BEARDEN, AUTHOR; FORMER STATION CHIEF, CIA: That's what it was. It was a jihad, and it was a jihad for ten years. There were a million Afghans killed, a million-and-a-half wounded or maimed, and five million driven into exile. That's -- it's awfully close to 50 percent of the population of the country. So it was in fact a jihad, and our role was pretty much tandential to what everybody else was doing. The Afghans were doing the dying and the fighting. The Saudis and the Americans were paying the freight. The Chinese were ordinance. They provided an awful lot of weaponry. The Egyptians provided a lot of weaponry. And bin Laden and a lot of young Gulf Arabs and other Arabs came to do the jihad.

ADAMS: It was quite a cause for them.

BEARDEN: Of course, it was.

ADAMS: Did you meet bin Laden then?

BEARDEN: No, no. Bin Laden was one of many. Bin Laden is becoming a myth that I'm a little uncomfortable with. When bin Laden was in Peshawar in Pakistan where he spent almost all of the war, but he was a fundraiser. We are talking about money that came from Gulf Arabs in a given month could have been $20, 25 million in a given month.

ADAMS: Had you heard about this man, though, that had $250 million of his father's money from Saudi Arabia to bring to the cause?

BEARDEN: Had I heard of him? I knew bin Laden was out there. I knew that the Saudi Red Crescent was out there. I knew that all of the Red Crescent organizations of the Gulf Arab states were out there. But did I take a look and say that this tall thin ascetic-looking Saudi was special? No. To be perfectly frank, the money that they brought in relieved the United States and Saudi Arabia of going deeper into their own national treasuries for more money.'

'ADAMS: When the Gulf War starts and bin Laden says never has Islam suffered a greater disaster than this invasion, meaning the presence of U.S. forces there to defend Kuwait and to support Saudi Arabia, and you hear this, and you know these are the guys that you helped -- the CIA helped fight against the Soviet Union -- what do you think? What's your reaction at that time?

BEARDEN: Well, a couple of reactions. One, CIA, CIA as the executive instrument of the United States government, you know, three presidents beginning with Jimmy Carter were helping the Afghan people resist the Soviet invasion. It's a real stretch in my opinion to say we helped bin Laden or even cared about him. That he participated in it most certainly -- it was OK with us. It was his business and all that.

Now on the one hand, it was fundamentalist Islam that defeated the Soviet Union, and it set in play or set in motion the history that played out through 1989. November 9th, the Berlin Wall is breached, and it's all over.

Now that some of the Arabs that went to that jihad have remained problematic, sure. Am I shocked? Not really. You know, war brings strange allies together, doesn't it? I mean, if you had to worry about unintended consequences, then would we have ever helped Joseph Stalin deal with that other great acute evil, Adolph Hitler? Sure we would, even though 200 million people get subjugated for 50 years; and we spend our nation's treasure for half a century dealing with the Soviet Union.'

http://www.asms.net/facultymanaged/srou/osamabinladen/real%20Articles/Interview%20with%20CIA%20agaent.htm

'Most of the leadership and the whole ideology of Al Qaeda derives from Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb (1906–66) and his progeny, who killed Anwar Sadat and were arrested in October 1981. President Mubarak generously allowed them to be released in 1984.

Many of the released men, harassed by the Egyptian police, migrated to Afghanistan. With the end of the Soviet-Afghan War, they continued on to jihad. These Arab outsiders actually did not fight in the Soviet-Afghan War except for one small battle at Jaji/Ali Kheyl, which was really defensive: the Arabs had put their camp on the main logistic supply line, and in the spring of 1987 the Soviets tried to destroy it. So they were really more the recipient of a Soviet offensive, but they really did not fight in that war and thus the U.S. had absolutely no contact with them. I heard about the battle of Jaji at the time, and it never dawned on me to ask the Afghans I debriefed who the Arabs were. They turned out to be bin Laden and his men at the Al-Masada (Lion’s Den) camp.

After the war, a lot of these foreigners returned to their countries. Those who could not return because they were terrorists remained in Afghanistan.'

http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/Understanding-Terror-Networks-Sageman.asp

'REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, tell us about your experience during the Afghan war and what did you do during that jihad?

BIN LADIN: Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds, that He made it possible for us to aid the Mujahidin in Afghanistan without any declaration for jihad. It was rather the news that was broadcast by radio stations that the Soviet Union invaded a Muslim country. This was a sufficient motivation for me to start to aid our brothers in Afghanistan. I have benefited so greatly from the jihad in Afghanistan that it would have been impossible for me to gain such a benefit from any other chance and this cannot be measured by tens of years but rather more than that, Praise and Gratitude be to God. In spite of the Soviet power, we used to move with confidence and God conferred favors on us so that we transported heavy equipment from the country of the Two Holy Places (Arabia) estimated at hundreds of tons altogether that included bulldozers, loaders, dump trucks and equipment for digging trenches. When we saw the brutality of the Russians bombing Mujahidins' positions, by the grace of God, we dug a good number of huge tunnels and built in them some storage places and in some others we built a hospital.'

http://www.anusha.com/osamaint.htm

'Was this the origin of al Qaeda?

Yes. al Qaeda wasn't an outgrowth of Adbullah Azaam's "Office of Services," as has been suggested elsewhere. al Qaeda grew in opposition to Azzam's organization, not out of it. Azzam's organization had been becoming something like an NGO, which provided education and the like. Bin Laden didn't want to do that. He wanted to fight the Soviets by forming his own group. But this is also an early example of an interesting trait of bin Laden's: He acts on impulse and doesn't follow good advice. Azzam didn't think the Arab jihadists in Afghanistan were all that important to the anti-Soviet effort. So Azzam wanted to pepper them among different Afghan units and use them as morale-boosters. Bin Laden didn't listen. And at the end of the day Azzam was right: It was the blood of Afghans that won the war against the Soviets, along with lots of money from the United States and Saudi Arabia.'

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/31205/

'Peter, what is the--you talk a little bit in the book about this notion of blowback, the fact that the CIA really created al-Qaeda or the entire--this sort of Muslim fundamentalism network that we're now facing and more or less put lie to that, or at least minimized the impact of the CIA and say that Osama bin Laden had a bigger part in that.

Mr. BERGEN: Well, I mean, I--just for clarity's purposes, the CIA, you know, obviously had a big role in the Afghan resistance, $3 billion they supplied, but they were basically signing checks. And it's interesting--it's a widely held view on the left that somehow CIA was involved in the founding of al-Qaeda or helped bin Laden, and conspiracy theorists around the world believe this, but there's just no evidence for it. Surprisingly, there are very few things that the US government and bin Laden agree upon, but Ayman al-Zawahiri has released statements that there was no backing from the United States. Other people within al-Qaeda--there really is just simply no evidence for that. The real story is not that the CIA knew who--you know, was helping out bin Laden 'cause they had no idea who he was until about 1995 when they first set up a unit in--specially looking at him directly in January of 1996. So really the story is not one of CIA complicity in the rise of bin Laden; it's actually ignoring the problem before it was too late.'

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=5151657

d. i have a very open mind, but it's also quite critical - i try to check the facts that i choose to believe very carefully, and if i ever see a source that intentionally tries to deceive, well, they lose all credibility with me - that's why all these CT nuts with their tongue-in-cheek logical fallacies and faulty syllogisms hold no truck with me -- if that means i have a closed mind, in your opinion, so be it - i'm more than fine with that

Woah Woah Woah! I NEVER said the US aided the Taliban. As far as I can tell you are the one that brought that gem in to the conversation. It is you that are jumping to conclusions.

A) My credibility, your credibility, what does it matter. You brought two sources to the table, I brought four. You don't like my sources, I don't like yours. And yes in my view the us state department's public affairs is nothing more than a creation for suck puppetry propaganda.

B) I see you agree with me that's good.

"a greater us support for the afghan mujahideen meant more military successes, which in turn meant that osama and the rest of the arab mujahideen didn't necessarily need to risk their necks in battle, as we have seen was the case during the soviet invasion - this could certainly be seen as a benefit for the latter"

C) Look closely at my first citation from an interview given by Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. He said, "It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would." And prior history notwithstanding, without the ISI's, and through them the US, insistance on bringing in Arabs to fight with the mujahideen there would LIKELY be no Al Qaeda. Not a forgone conclusion, but definitely well within the realm of possibility. Like it of not blowback exists. And as long as we continue to meddle within the internal affairs of other countries we have to know what we are risking and then act preemptively to mitigate the potential for blowback. Instead we get politicians, both Democrat and Republican, willy nilly trying to satisfy some itch.

D) LOL at your ability to open your mind

LOL!! Please put this in the Truthiness Collective..

Excerpt from above:

The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Give the modern liberal the choice between Saddam Hussein and the United States, he will not only side with Saddam Hussein, he will slander America and Americans in order to do so. Given the choice between the vicious, mass-murdering, corrupt terrorist dictator Yasser Arafat, and the tiny and wonderful democracy of Israel, he will plagiarize maps, forge documents, engage in blood libels, as did our former President, Jimmy Carter, to side with a terrorist organization, and to attack the tiny state.

First of all Saddam is about American as any foreign ruler gets. Trained, supported, funded, armed, put into power by.... ???

Secondly, Israel is "tiny and wonderful". You know everything has two sides of a story. I'm sure a few Palestinians have a different view on Israel and their human rights abuses, but hey, they must be sub-human so they don't count. They are not one our side, so children in Iraq or Gaza really don't matter. Helpless Iraqi children living in depleted uranium soil and millions of rounds containing lead and other heavy metals, but who really cares, cause you are "helping" them and their country, right? You know what is best. To not continue helping them would be "bad".

Truth, beauty, honesty... that's his principals. So the Heritage Folks are pro-war, pro-unitary executive. They are pro-torture. They believe in Bush's policies.

QM:

Please tell me which of these fall into which category (good or evil) and then ask yourself if this is a 'liberal' ideal or conservative ideal (At least the modern conservative that approves of Bush's reaches of power).

- [torture (MCA)] or [Geneva Convention]
- [domestic spying] or [FISA and following existing laws]
- [secret military tribunals] or [habeas corpus]
- [unjustified war for oil] or [balanced budget, money for education, health care, economy, or tax cuts]


Ask yourself WHO IS THE ONE THAT IS INDOCTRINATED? Someone that is a critical thinker and believes (based on facts and evidence) that the US invaded Iraq primarily in the name of oil or at least indefinite control of the region to ensure future access to oil. Or someone that believes anything about "bringing democracy to Iraqis". Who is the one eliminating rational thought?

Is Democracy worth bringing to people if they have to live as refuges, kicked out of their ancestral homes, living with 1 hour of electricity, no water, and constant killings and bombings in their formerly peaceful village. What did we bring to Iraqis? Can you honestly really believe it is all their fault? Are the Iraqis so sub-human in your mind that you cannot imagine all humans are pretty close to similar and their lives or probably of equal value.

Sayer: There is no standard to them, because a standard would require them to say that something is better than something else, which goes against this entire philosophy.

I'm sorry that you need to believe that you are better than others. That your ideas are superior and need to be imposed on other by gov't. That your religion is the correct one. That your nation is always correct and proper and the good guys. And everything is us vs. them. And you "know" which is better and right. You are correct that I'm not as naive and such a small thinker as you are. This guy really is your ideological hero.

JOEDIRT,
Impeachment for high crimes? Yeah your examples of high crimes, are no better than the Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy days. In fact lets not even discuss Truman and or Roosevelt for World War II. Or Clinton's administration with information on Al-Qaeda. Or let's not even dive into the world of probably the worst president Jimmy Carter. We might as well impeach all the presidents of the 20th century for high crimes as well. Especially Kennedy and that darn Bay of Pigs.

Great post!

On this topic also see: What is AIPAC ;
Illegal Israeli Settlements - British press v American media ; Jimmy Carter on Israel's apartheid policy and the power of the Israel lobby ; If Americans Knew

Great post!

On this topic also see: What is AIPAC ;
Illegal Israeli Settlements - British press v American media ; Jimmy Carter on Israel's apartheid policy and the power of the Israel lobby ; If Americans Knew

And you see the exact same kind of taboo against discussing the American relationship with Saudi Arabia, even beyond the financial ties of the Bush family. Only in the last 2-3 years have I seen a growth of pro-Palestinian media, but mostly on the web and notably still lacking in the academy. Jimmy Carter certainly helps to move the discussion (following in the steps of Edward Said) and the untenable and inhumane conditions in Palestine since the collapse of talks in 2000 requires foreign intervention.

The interesting thing about the Harvard article is that the pro-Israel groups seem more disturbed by the fact that it is a Harvard publication than the actual content of the article itself. I believe that they are seeking a control of media and academic outlets that can no longer realistically exist. You are correct that I don't think much of the Harvard article because there do seem to be large gaps in the substantiation of its sources and I believe that it fatally falls sway to the simplistic "Jewish Lobby is the root of evil" mentality.

At the same time, I am extremely happy that Harvard published it because it does shed light on some of the evils of AIPAC and it fosters discussion about both the article and the inevitable reaction. It also keeps Palestine in the public eye and provides political traction to relief organizations within Gaza and the West Bank.

One could argue that Brzezinski is responsible in some measure for our foreign policy woes -- it was he who twisted Jimmy Carter's arm into arming and training what would become al Qaeda against the Soviets in Afghanistan.