http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=George+W.+Bush Sat, 25 May 2013 05:01:36 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=George+W.+Bush Fri, 24 May 2013 14:22:39 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c57_1369419664 omniradar From Iraq to Syria: US Political Impotence in the Middle East by Ramzy Baroud , May 24, 2013 Print This Share This In an article published May 15, 2013, American historical social scientist Immanuel Wallerstein wrote, "Nothing illustrates more the limitations of Western power than the internal controversy its elites are having in public about what the United States in particular and western European states should be doing about the civil war in Syria." Those limitations are palpable in both language and action. A political and military vacuum created by past US failures and forced retreats after the Iraq war made it possible for countries like Russia to reemerge on the scene as an effective player. It is most telling that over two years after the Syrian uprising-turned bloody civil war, the US continues to curb its involvement by indirectly assisting anti-Bashar al-Assad regime opposition forces, through its Arab allies and Turkey. Even its political discourse is indecisive and often times inconsistent. Concurrently, Russia's position remains unswerving and constantly advancing while the US is pushed into a corner, demonstrating incapacity to react except for condemnations and mere statements. This is to the displeasure of its Arab allies. Russia's recent delivery of sophisticated anti-ship missiles and its own buildup of warships in the eastern Mediterranean is a case in point. The move was condemned by the Obama administration as one that is "ill-timed and very unfortunate," according to a statement by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as reported in the LA Times on May 17. But this American attitude in the region is fairly new. Behind it stands a history so bloody and filled with imprudent foreign policy. Regardless of how the US decides to move on Syria, the chances are that a return to its old dominant approach is no longer an option. Indeed, the current American political impotence in the Middle East is unprecedented, at least since the rapid disintegration of the Soviet bloc in the early 1990's. The dissolution of the Soviet Union had ushered in the rise of a unipolar world, wholly managed by the United States. The rise of the uncontested American hegemony represented a shift in historical dialectics, where great powers found their match and the rest of the world, more or less, accommodated the ensuing competition. Then, the US acted quickly to assert its dominance starting with hasty military adventures such as the invasion of Panama in 1989. A much more calculated move followed with a devastating war against Iraq in 1990-91. In Panama the objective was to remind the US's southern neighbors that the region's cop was still on duty and was capable of intervening at a moment's notice to rearrange the entire political paradigm in any way that Washington deemed necessary - As this has been the case since the CIA-orchestrated coup and war in Guatemala in 1954 and even earlier. The US's massive military involvement in Iraq, however, was that of a conqueror who arrived with an entourage of many countries - regional and western allies - to claim the spoils resulting from the end of the protracted Cold War. It was an arrogant show of force since the target was a single Arab country with humble military and economic means vs. major military powers from near and far. The war devastated Iraq, as its initial aerial bombing campaign alone involved the dropping of 88,500 tons of bombs. Many new weapons were used and tested, while the US media and public celebrated the prowess of their military. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died or were wounded as a result of one of the most asymmetrical wars in history. Trying to capitalize on its military triumph, Washington quickly pushed for a political settlement between its closest ally, Israel, and Arab countries. The logic behind the Madrid Conference in 1991 was achieving pseudo peace that catered to Israel's interests, while opening up the gate of normalization between Israel and its neighbors. Moreover, the US hoped to achieve some sort of 'stability' that would allow it to manage the Middle East region and its ample resources in a less hostile environment. Eventually, Israel managed to negotiate its own political deal with the Palestinians, thus dividing Arab ranks and ensuring that the 'peace talks' outcome was entirely consistent with Israel's colonial ambitions. As years passed, the US and Israeli political visions moved even closer, but with Washington eventually becoming a mere conduit to Israeli colonial objectives. This fact was underscored repeatedly under the George W. Bush administration, which compounded US failure in the region with even more disastrous and dangerous wars. A major fault in US foreign policy is that it is almost entirely reliant on military power - as in the ability to blow things up. The US war on Iraq which, in various forms, extended from 1990 to 2011, included a devastating blockade and ended with a brutal invasion. This long war was as unscrupulous as it was very violent. Aside from its overwhelming human toll, it was placed within a horrid political strategy aimed at exploiting the country's existing sectarian and other fault lines, therefore triggering a civil war and sectarian hatred from which Iraq is unlikely to cover for many years. But limitations of US military power became quite obvious in later years. The empire was no longer able to bridge the divide between translating its dominance on the ground - itself increasingly challenged by local resistance groups - into a level of political progress required to achieve the minimum amount of 'stability'. Moreover, an economic recession, coupled with the Iraqi retreat and an equally costly debacle in Afghanistan - forced the new administration in Washington, under the leadership of President Barack Obama to rethink Bush's earlier quest for global hegemony. Massive military cuts were soon to follow. Concurrently, the imbalance of global power was slowly, quietly but surely being equalized with the rise of China as a new possible contender. In the midst of the US transition and policy rethink, an upheaval struck the Middle East. Its manifestations - revolutions, civil wars, regional mayhem and conflicts of all sorts - reverberated beyond the Middle East. Shrinking and rising empires alike took notice. Fault lines were quickly determined and exploited. Players changed positions or jockeyed for advanced ones, as a new Great Game was about to begin. The so-called 'Arab Spring' was rapidly becoming a game-changer in a region that seemed resistant to transformations of any kind. The transformation of the Middle East - promising at times, very gory and bloody at others - arrived at a time when the US was making forced adjustments in its military priorities. Putting greater focus on the Pacific region and the South China Sea are such examples. Without much notice, it was forced to reengage with the Middle East, as a whole - not a country at a time. Only then, its weaknesses were seriously exposed and its lack of influence became palpable. Bankrupt is maybe an appropriate term to use in describing the current US policy in the Middle East. Imprudent military adventures devastated the region but achieved no long term objectives. Reckless policies that are predicated on trying to exploit, as opposed to understand the Middle East and its complex political and historical formation and the insistence on keeping Israel a main priority in its approach to the vastly shifting political lines, will unlikely to bode well for US interests. However, unlike the early 1990's, when the US moved to reshape the entire region and established permanent military presence, new dynamics are forcing US hands to change tactics. In this new reality, the US is incapable of reshaping reality but merely trying to offset or control its unfavorable outcomes. "What the United States (and western Europe) want to do is 'control' the situation,' Immanuel Wallerstein argued. "They will not be able to do it. Hence the screams of the 'interventionists' and the foot-dragging of the 'prudent.' It is a lose-lose for the west, while not being at the same time a 'win' for people in the Middle East." This 'lose-lose' scenario might not necessarily translate to a complete American foreign policy meltdown in the near future, but will certainly open the possibility for new/old players to main serious gains, Russia being a lead example. This will likely compel the US to change tactics, despite the incessant objections of neoconservative forces and the Israeli lobby.Read more by Ramzy Baroud Hungry For Freedom In Guantanamo - April 26th, 2013 Deir Yassin, Beit Daras and the Buried History of Massacres - April 17th, 2013 Iraq Back at the Brink - February 15th, 2013 The Imagined, 'Sinister' Iranian Threat in Latin America - January 3rd, 2013 Iraq War's Lessons Lost on US - October 28th, 2011 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c57_1369419664 omniradar US Political Impotence in the Middle East USA, Middle East Fri, 24 May 2013 07:59:27 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a7b_1369396543 Detroit Iron May 24, 2013 Andrew Bostom Wednesday, May 22, 2013, in broad daylight, a murderous act of jihad butchery was committed on a busy London street. The Daily Mail published a pictorial chronology of the gruesome attack, noting, prominently: At 2:20 PM (London time) a British soldier (25-year-old Drummer Lee Rigby of the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers), wearing a " Help for Heroes T-Shirt " (a charity for wounded British soldiers) was deliberately rammed by a car and crushed against a road sign. The Muslim assailants emerged from the car, dragged the victim to a wall, slashing and stabbing him to death with cleavers and knives, while bellowing "Allahu Akbar" ("Allah is great"). Nearly decapitated, the soldier's corpse was then dragged back into the road. For some 20 minutes afterward, the murderers paraded up and down the street, permitting their pictures to be taken, and one trumpeted his rationale for the grisly murder. The two attackers were both of Nigerian descent and apparently " known " to British security services. One assailant, whose explanatory statements were recorded on video, was later identified as Michael Adebolajo, nom de jihadist " Mujahid ," "holy warrior." Adebolajo was an acquaintance of Anjem Choudary, the prominent London jihadist ideologue, who characterized the Nigerian Christian's conversion to Islam (some 10 years ago) in mainstream Islamic parlance as a "reversion" to the "primordial" monotheistic faith -- i.e., the Muslim creed. Choudary also emphasized Adebolajo's devotion to Koranic memorization, along with his restrained, pleasant, "normal" demeanor. He was a pleasant, quiet guy. He reverted to Islam in about 2003. He was just a completely normal guy. He was interested in Islam, in memorizing the Koran . Indeed, Adebolajo's false grievance-laden diatribe, recorded while his bloodstained hands clutched a cleaver and a knife, featured this devout Koranic justification for the butchery he had just committed: ... e are forced by the Qur'an, in Sura At-Tawba through many ayah in the Qu'ran, we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Sura or chapter 9 of the Koran is believed by Muslims to be one of the final "revelations" (if not the final one) of Islam's holiest guiding text, thus assuming doctrinal precedence over others, even abrogating them outright. Unfortunately, sura 9 consists of an almost continuous series of timeless jihad war injunctions directed at all non-Muslims, and even at Muslims deemed "hypocritical" for their inadequate piety. With depressing predictability, and notwithstanding Adebolajo's mainstream Koranic justification for his act of jihad butchery -- designed to sow terror -- British Prime Minister David Cameron negated the Islamic roots of this brutal public assassination. Cameron pontificated : It was an attack on Britain and it was also a betrayal of Islam. There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act . Cameron's cultural relativist dogma on Islam mirrored equally misleading and corrosive statements made by then-U.S. President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the mass 9/11/2001 jihad terrorist attacks. The appropriate Muslim commentary on such remarks by feckless Western leaders, which resonates even more loudly (and shamefully) today, was provided by Omar Uthman Abu Omar, an alleged "al-Qaeda" ideologue and resident British Muslim cleric of Jordanian origin. The loquacious Abu Omar, better known as "Abu Qatada," observed (in October 2001): I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad or violence in the name of Islam. Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Koran? Two decades ago, the late respected British scholar of Islam, Dr. Mervyn Hiskett (d. 1994), in Some to Mecca Turn to Pray , warned presciently about the immoderate mindset -- by Western standards -- of Britain's Muslim elites. Hiskett noted then (i.e., in 1993) the prevailing opinion among leaders of the British Muslim community that unless Muslim immigrants to Britain were allowed unrestrained access to Islamic law, sharia, in all aspects, Britain was to be regarded Dar-al-Harb, or the House of War -- that is, the target of jihadism. Citing what he characterized as "a more urbane but some may consider ominous statement of the Muslim intention to brook no opposition," Hiskett quoted Zaki Badawi (d. 2006), a Muslim scholar and former director of the Islamic Cultural Center, London, who was made an honorary Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE) in 2004, and also appointed by the Duke of Castro as a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Order of Francis I. (Incidentally, Badawi, an Egyptian Muslim, never became a British subject, although he had lived in the country for more than thirty years and had received all manner of honors there.) Badawi, as Hiskett documented , had opined: A proselytizing religion cannot stand still. It can either expand or contract. Islam endeavors to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims at bringing its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole humanity will be one Muslimcommunity, the "Umma." Hiskett's foreboding concerns have proven justified, as evidenced by disturbing survey results from British Muslims polled in January 2005 and again shortly after the July 7, 2005 London bombings. These data revealed that 60 percent of British Muslims surveyed prior to the 7/7/05 bombings felt that those who engaged in mere criti-cism of Islam should face criminal prosecution, while one third were brazen enough to admit after July 7, 2005 that "Western society is decadent and immoral and ... Muslims should seek to bring it to an end." Expressing their desire to replace Britain's current liberal democracy with a bellicose, liberty-crushing, sharia-based theocratic model, these 2005 polling data from British Muslims were consistent with a worldview made plain in a statement published August 16, 2005 in the Guardian and signed by 38 prominent British Muslim organizations and individuals: To equate "extremism" with the aspirations of Muslims for Sharia laws in the Muslim world or the desire to see unification towards a Caliphate in the Muslim lands, as seemed to be misrepresented by the prime minister, is inaccurate and disingenuous. It indicates ignorance of what the Sharia is and what a Caliphate is and will alienate and victimize the Muslim community unnecessarily. Additional polling data published in 2007 by the British think-tank Policy Exchange indicated that 43% of British Muslims agreed with the proposition that "Muslim conversion is forbidden and punishable by death," while 52% concurred that "a Muslim male may have up to 4 wives and a Muslim female is allowed only 1 husband." Subsequently, a late 2008 poll of six hundred British Muslim college students (John Thorne and Hannah Stuart, "Islam on Campus: A survey of UK student opinions," Centre for Social Cohesion, 2008) revealed that one third supported killing in the name of Islam, while 40 percent wanted sharia to replace British law. And sharia indoctrination of British Muslim youth begins well before college entry. A BBC Panorama investigation has exposed the presence in Britain of forty "weekend schools" attended by some five thousand Muslim children aged 6-18. These schools teach the British Muslim youth who attend them, for example, traditional Islamic motifs of Jew-hatred and mutilating sharia punishments -- as per the Saudi National Curriculum -- under the rubric of "Saudi Students Clubs and Schools in the UK and Ireland." Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani sat for twenty years as a sharia judge in Pakistan's Supreme Court (his father was the grand mufti of Pakistan). Currently Usmani is deputy of the Islamic Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Council of the Organization of the Islamic Conference -- the major international body of Islamic nations in the world -- and serves as an adviser to several global sharia-based Islamic financial institutions. Thus he is a leading contemporary figure in the world of mainstream Islamic jurisprudence. Mr. Usmani, who mentored Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari, Director of the Leicester, U.K., Institute of Islamic Jurisprudence (Darul Iftaa, http://www.daruliftaa.com ), is also a regular visitor to Britain. During a 2007 visit there, Usmani was interviewed by the Times of London , which published extracts from Usmani's writings on jihad (from "Islam and Modernism"), Saturday, September 8, 2007. He refuted the suggestion that jihad is unlawful against a non-Muslim state that freely permits the preaching of Islam (which, not surprisingly, was of some concern to The Times !). Usmani argued that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practice Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle. Given this toxic British Muslim milieu, and its outward manifestations, the results of a 2010 YouGov poll of 2,152 ordinary non-Muslim adult Britons appear quite rational. The online YouGov survey found that 58% of those questioned linked Islam with extremism, and 69% believed that it encourages the repression of women, while a mere 13% thought the creed was based upon peace, and only 6% associated Islam with justice. Despite the continued Big Islamic Lie being enunciated by Britain's political elites -- most notably Prime Minister Cameron himself -- the savage jihadist murder of Lee Rigby validates the legitimate concerns most ordinary Britons already had about normative Islam. Ultimately, to preserve their liberties, the British people must force chronically capitulating political leaders to act decisively against sharia encroachment -- violent and nonviolent alike. Mervyn Hiskett identified the crux of the problem already in 1993: As is so often the case when considering Islam, one has to concede the power of certain of its ideas. But when it comes to having these ideas advocated within our own shores, and as alternatives to our own insti-tutions, one must then ask oneself: Which does one prefer? Western secular, pluralist institutions, imperfect as these are? Or the Islamic theo-cratic alternative? And if one decides in favor of one's own institutions, warts and all, one then has to ask again: How far may the advocacy of Islamic alternatives go, before this becomes downright subversive? And at that point, what should be done about it? Finally, do liberal, demo-cratic politicians have the political and moral guts to do what is needed, or will they simply give way, bit by bit and point by point, to insistent and sustained pressure from the Muslim "Parliament" and other Muslim special-interest lobbies like it?" Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/jihad_butchery_in_london_and_the_big_islamic_lie.html#ixzz2UD7U7HGF Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter AmericanThinker on Facebook http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a7b_1369396543 Detroit Iron Jihad Butchery in London and the Big Islamic Lie islam Fri, 24 May 2013 07:54:36 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b17_1369396297 Detroit Iron America's perpetual war against terrorism since September 11th must come to an end, President Barack Obama said today as he announced new restrictions on drone strikes and a fresh effort to close the Guant'anamo Bay prison camp.By Raf Sanchez, Washington 8:09PM BST 23 May 2013 In a major speech to military and political leaders, Mr Obama said the US could not wage "a boundless global war on terror" but must face a new reality where threats come from regional jihadists and home-grown extremists. "Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organisations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end," Mr Obama said. "That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands." As he announced the most significant shift in US counter-terrorism since the fall of the World Trade Centre, Mr Obama said he would restrict his own signature policy of ordering drone strikes around the world. Although insisting that the targeted killing programme was legal and effective, the President said the US must also exercise "the discipline to constrain that power - or risk abusing it". Under a new directive signed this week drone strikes would be limited only to those cases where the target represented a "continuing and imminent threat" to the US. He also insisted on "near certainty" that no civilians would be killed before authorising strikes, saying for him and his commanders the deaths of innocents would "haunt us as long as we live". While the rate of strikes has fallen sharply in Mr Obama's second term, he has already ordered more than 350 attacks compared to only around 50 under his predecessor George W Bush. Mr Obama declared himself open to the idea of a special court or independent body tasked with reviewing the legality of each strike, although he offered no specifics of how this would work. Under the directive, the US must show it has exhausted all option for capturing the terrorists before launching a strike but Mr Obama cautioned that special operations raids like the one against Osama bin Laden "cannot be the norm". The administration's tendency to kill rather than capture has led to criticism it is failing to extract valuable intelligence from targets. In a significant shift, the US military will now take the lead on drones rather than the more secretive CIA. The military would be the key authority in both the active theatre of war in Afghanistan and more legally complex areas like tribal Pakistan. Mr Obama once again called for Congress to allow him to fulfil his 2009 promise to close the controversial prison camp at Guant'anamo Bay, which he said had "become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law". He was repeatedly heckled by Medea Benjamin, an activist with the progressive group Code Pink, who called for the immediate closure of Guant'anamo and said "drones are making us less safe". "The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to," Mr Obama said. "These are tough issues and the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong." Of the 166 men still being detained at the facility in Cuba, 86 are currently slated for release, including more than 50 from Yemen. Mr Obama said he would restart transferring cleared detainees to Yemen, a process halted in early 2010, and that he would appoint two senior officials "whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries". He emphasised the enormous cost of running the prison site pointing out that the US spends nearly $800,000 per detainee - or 30 times more than it would cost to imprison them on the mainland. Pointing to the current hunger strike at Guant'anamo, where dozens of detainees are being force fed through tubes, Mr Obama asked: "Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children?" He also addressed the recent controversy of government investigators monitoring reporters' phone records saying he was "troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable". His speech came a day after the US confirmed for the first time it had killed four Americans in drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan, but said only one - Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born al-Qaeda cleric - had been deliberately targeted. Aides said Mr Obama, a former constitutional law professor who ran on a civil liberties platform in 2008, had been looking forward to giving the speech and had been working on the text for months. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10077243/War-against-terrorism-must-end-Barack-Obama-says.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b17_1369396297 Detroit Iron War against terrorism must end, Barack Obama says obama Thu, 23 May 2013 13:54:16 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=463_1369331416 CptSpaulding An X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) taxies and launches from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77). George H.W. Bush is the first aircraft carrier to successfully catapult launch an unmanned aircraft from its flight deck. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=463_1369331416 CptSpaulding X-47B Drone Launched From USS George H. W. Bush - Aerial Footage of Drone Launch X-47B Drone Launched From USS George H. W. Bush - Aerial Footage of Drone Launch Wed, 22 May 2013 14:32:50 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0d0_1369247074 smokey75 An X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator conducts a touch and go landing on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), marking the first time any unmanned aircraft has completed a touch and go landing at sea. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0d0_1369247074 smokey75 X-47B Stealth Touch-And-Go Landing USS George H.W. Bush. X47,Unmanned,Stealth. Thu, 23 May 2013 15:45:13 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1cb_1369334116 Catalytic By: Danny Danon President Obama can demonstrate his commitment to Israel by releasing the convicted spy.All of us here in Israel welcomed wholeheartedly the announcement by the White House that President Obama will visit Israel next month . Over the past two years, the president has made critical policy decisions that have enhanced Israel's security. Now, it is my hope that the president will use his upcoming trip not only to meet our political leaders, but to forge a bond with the people of Israel. The best way to do this is to finally pardon Jonathan Pollard , a U.S. citizen convicted of spying for Israel, and allow him to come home to Israel ahead of the presidential visit in March. This would not only right an historic wrong, but will also serve to remove an unfortunate stain from an otherwise close American-Israeli relationship.Earlier in his presidency, Obama made a number of decisions that some of us felt were not helpful in terms of our geopolitical standing and strengthening our negotiating position with our neighbors. Thankfully, during the second half of his first term it seems that he began to chart a new course. The Obama administration stood resolutely by Israel's side at the United Nations as the Palestinians attempted to nullify our signed agreements by forcing a vote on unilateral statehood. Similarly he has joined the US congress in placing - and enforcing - biting sanctions that are aimed at curtailing the Iranian nuclear program. Nevertheless, the feeling persisted here that President Obama has not connected with Israelis on a visceral and emotional level. While the steps the president has taken over the past two years have helped reassure leaders in Israel about the president's intentions, a pardon for Jonathan Pollard would go a long way in showing the Israeli people where his heart lays.Many question the necessity of the president of the United States emotionally connecting with the Israeli electorate. After all, they do not elect the president and he does not report to them. On the other hand, Obama's predecessors -- from both American political parties -- understood that if they want Israel to trust them on matters of grave importance such as the very survival of the Jewish State, then a strong connection must be sustained with the people of Israel. By inviting Ilan Ramon to partake in a NASA mission Bill Clinton further solidified an already strong bond that he had built with the Israeli people and George W. Bush was well aware of the significance of his two visits to Israel while we were celebrating sixty years of our independence. These presidents understood that if they were going to ask Israel to trust the U.S. on the most important matters of national security then they must set the right tone through significant gestures to create good will.Jonathan Pollard has been imprisoned for almost twenty eight years. It is now clear that in passing information to an American ally about dangerous nations that threatened Israel's security, Pollard thought he was acting in the best interests of both nations. More importantly, experts including former senior cabinet ministers and a large number of senators and congressmen, now agree that the punishment of a life sentence that Pollard received was disproportionate to the charges for which he pleaded guilty. Even former CIA Director James Woolsey has said "There is absolutely no reason for Pollard to be imprisoned substantially longer than spies from other friendly, allied and neutral countries."I understand that a decision by President Obama to pardon Pollard and release him from prison will not be without controversy. But I urge Americans to consider the positive effects this act will achieve. Not only will this be an act of justice and compassion by the President, but I know for a fact that it will be universally applauded by regular Israelis. Not all Israelis understand fully what Pollard did and many criticize his actions, but there is wide agreement that the time has come to end this saga and relegate it to the past. O pinion polls in Israel show few issues of mass agreement stronger than the country's call for Jonathan Pollard to be freed now.I do not pretend that all disagreements between our two governments will vanish with Pollard's release. We sometimes differ with the Obama administration on a range of policies; from what is the best way to restart the peace process to how urgently the world must act to end Iran's march towards a nuclear bomb. I do know, however, that if President Obama plans on asking the Israeli people to trust him during what promises to be a tumultuous four years, bringing Jonathan home would be a just and noble way to do so. Member of the Knesset Danny Danon is chairman of the Word Likud and author of Israel: The Will to Prevail. In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/26/obama-visit-israel-column/1937301/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1cb_1369334116 Catalytic Free Jonathan Pollard: A Column by Israeli Deputy Minister Of Defence Danny Danon Israel, Jews, Convicted, spy, traitor, Jonathan, Pollard, Sat, 18 May 2013 09:47:56 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a9e_1368883530 SvenVonErick Love, or hate, Alex Jones does he have a point? If anyone actually cares, and see all that he sees all of his waking hours, there is no break from the anger and the real fear. In Louisiana, it is a law that you cannot sell a lawnmower, or any other item for cash at a tag sale. You can go to jail for that. Corporate Organized Crime and International Bankers want their cut of every transaction. So, who is really in charge? Are you represented for your taxation? International bankers and corporate organized crime finance and rig elections. They rig courts. Police protect international criminals, not US citizens complaining about being ripped off exercising Free Speech. Who was protected during Occupy Wall St in New York City, OWS? International bankers were protected. Citizens who organized were spied on police and arrested. So, are we under soft occupation, soon to go hard? Do you remember the Enron power scandal in California. Enron sold electricity outside the states so there would be blackouts in California. Rates went up 4x. Citizens who yelled and complained were arrested, some may have even got prison. The connected thieves, got rich, almost none went to prison. The Enron money put Arnold Schwarzenegger in as governor and George W. Bush in as President. Obama is a worse protector of the UN, bankers, and corporate organized crime. Connecticut US Senator Chris Dodd took bribes from international bankers and then sold all of American out as head of the Banking Committee. All Americans might owe criminal bankers $50,000 to $100,000 just because of the Dodd crimes. Dodd was never arrested. Steal a candy bar from a corner shop and you get arrested and some cases you get jail. Why should elite like Dodd who belong to secret societies be exempt from all the laws we the people have to obey. Do you know the Caesar crossing the Rubicon, about when the military is the government? Look it up. The enemies to the international take over are religion, independent minds, gun owners, families, the self-employed, small business owners, and especially family farmers. The military is now declared in charge. They now run US streets and anything and everything goes. Tanks and checkpoints are the new normal. Machine guns shooting Americans from open doors on military helicopters will go mainstream. Armed drones killing Americans in America is ready. What the CIA did to the continent of South America from the 1950's has now come home to roost in America. Have you heard of the United Fruit Company ]? This post breaks down their method ] of occupation. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a9e_1368883530 SvenVonErick CIA/Military/International Banker Final Stage Occupation US? UN, US, gun, confiscation, ban, OWS, NDAA, Connecticut, New York, City, police, State, brutality, Boston, bombing, Newtown, Sandyhook, Schoolyard, shooting, hoax Wed, 08 May 2013 11:04:43 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f95_1368025313 GrandTheftAuto tribute to old president George Bush http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f95_1368025313 GrandTheftAuto My tribute to George W Bush My tribute to George W Bush iraq wmd iran middle east invasion afghanistan al qaeda Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:27:28 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=40c_1367252619 star53 LIBERAL-Lanny Davis is an attorney who served as former President Clinton's special counsel from 1996-98 and as a member of former President Bush's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board from 2006-07 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=40c_1367252619 star53 Lanny Davis On The Legacy Of <span class="highlight">George W. Bush</span> Liberal, Lanny Davis,The Legacy Of George W. Bush Tue, 07 May 2013 17:52:04 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4fa_1367962759 snoktruix At a commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr., Jan 21st 2002. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4fa_1367962759 snoktruix <span class="highlight">George W. Bush</span> makes a witty comment George W. Bush, Martin Luther King Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:13:10 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=93e_1367143600 criminalkid http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=93e_1367143600 criminalkid <span class="highlight">GEORGE W. BUSH</span> Has A Slip-Of-The-Tongue And Almost SAYS THE BOSTON BOMBS WAS A CONSPIRACY george w. bush, boston, bombing, conspiracy, slip, tongue, lies Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:24:06 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=693_1367342477 dcmfox by Noah Rothman 12:44 pm, April 30th, 2013 Speaking on his Iranian television program, former London Mayor Ken Livingston placed the blame for the radicalization of the two brothers who carried out the attack on the Boston Marathon on April 15 squarely on the shoulders of former President George W. Bush . Livingston said that the Bush administration's policies of foreign interventionism as well as the extradition and rendition of terror suspects fueled the anger of the Tsarnaev brothers and led them to their murderous actions. A caller to his program asked Livingston how the bombers could "enjoy all these pleasures" in America as students and naturalized citizens and yet proceed with a terrorist attack. "Very often, people get incredibly angry about injustices that they see," Livingston replied. "They would have been reading about the torture that went on at Guantanamo Bay, at the Baghram airbase." "They would have read stuff about how, I think it's 54 different countries secretly collaborated with American for this rendition - people being snatched off streets, taken to be tortured - because the Bush regime believed they were all potential terrorists," Livingston continued. "There was such ignorance in the Bush White House about Islam and about the history of so many disputes that exist in the Middle East," he added. "People get angry - they lash out." Livingston said that the "intervention," presumably in Iraq and Afghanistan, "disfigured the record of the Western democracies" in the eyes of average Muslims. "I think this fuels the anger of the young men who, as we saw in Boston, went out and, out of anger and a demand for revenge, claimed lives in the West," Livingston concluded. Watch the clip below via MEMRI-TV : http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=693_1367342477 dcmfox Former London Mayor On Iranian TV: Bush Admin's Policies Responsible For The Boston Attacks George W. Bush, Ken Livingston