All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama bin Laden. But tell that to the CIA and all the other misconceptualizers of the War on Terror.
Seven years after Osama bin Laden’s last verifiable appearance among the living, there is more evidence for Elvis’s presence among us than for his. Hence there is reason to ask whether the paradigm of Osama bin Laden as terrorism’s deus ex machina and of al Qaeda as the prototype of terrorism may be an artifact of our Best and Brightest’s imagination, and whether investment in this paradigm has kept our national security establishment from thinking seriously about our troubles’ sources. So let us take a fresh look at the fundamentals.
Dead or Alive?
Negative evidence alone compels the conclusion that Osama is long since dead. Since October 2001, when Al Jazeera’s Tayseer Alouni interviewed him, no reputable person reports having seen him—not even after multiple-blind journeys through intermediaries. The audio and video tapes alleged to be Osama’s never convinced impartial observers. The guy just does not look like Osama. Some videos show him with a Semitic aquiline nose, while others show him with a shorter, broader one. Next to that, differences between colors and styles of beard are small stuff.
Nor does the tapes’ Osama sound like Osama. In 2007 Switzerland’s Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence, which does computer voice recognition for bank security, compared the voices on 15 undisputed recordings of Osama with the voices on 15 subsequent ones attributed to Osama, to which they added two by native Arab speakers who had trained to imitate him and were reading his writings. All of the purported Osama recordings (with one falling into a gray area) differed clearly from one another as well as from the genuine ones. By contrast, the CIA found all the recordings authentic. It is hard to imagine what methodology might support this conclusion.
Also in 2007, Professor Bruce Lawrence, who heads Duke University’s religious studies program, argued in a book on Osama’s messages that their increasingly secular language is inconsistent with Osama’s Wahhabism. Lawrence noted as well that the Osama figure in the December 2001 video, which many have taken as his assumption of responsibility for 9/11, wears golden rings—decidedly un-Wahhabi. He also writes with the wrong hand. Lawrence concluded that the messages are fakes, and not very good ones. The CIA has judged them all good.
Above all, whereas Elvis impersonators at least sing the King’s signature song, “You ain’t nutin’ but a hound dawg,” the words on the Osama tapes differ substantively from what the real Osama used to say—especially about the most important matter. On September 16, 2001, on Al Jazeera, Osama said of 9/11: “I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation.” Again, in the October interview with Tayseer Alouni, he limited his connection with 9/11 to ideology: “If they mean, or if you mean, that there is a link as a result of our incitement, then it is true. We incite…” But in the so-called “confession video” that the CIA found in December, the Osama figure acts like the chief conspirator. The fact that the video had been made for no self-evident purpose except perhaps to be found by the Americans should have raised suspicion. Its substance, the celebratory affirmation of a responsibility for 9/11 that Osama had denied, should also have weighed against the video’s authenticity. Why would he wait to indict himself until after U.S. forces and allies had secured Afghanistan? But the CIA acted as if it had caught Osama red-handed.
The CIA should also have taken seriously the accounts of Osama’s death. On December 26, 2001, Fox News interviewed a Taliban source who claimed that he had attended Osama’s funeral, along with some 30 associates. The cause of death, he said, had been pulmonary infection. The New York Times on July 11, 2002, reported the consensus of a story widespread in Pakistan that Osama had succumbed the previous year to his long-standing nephritis. Then, Benazir Bhutto—as well connected as anyone with sources of information on the Afghan-Pakistani border—mentioned casually in a BBC interview that Osama had been murdered by his associates. Murder is as likely as natural death. Osama’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is said to have murdered his own predecessor, Abdullah Azzam, Osama’s original mentor. Also, because Osama’s capture by the Americans would have endangered everyone with whom he had ever associated, any and all intelligence services who had ever worked with him had an interest in his death.
New Osama, Real Osama
We do not know what happened to Osama. But whatever happened, the original one, the guy who looked and sounded like a spoiled Saudi kid turned ideologue, is no more. The one who exists in the tapes is different: he is the world’s terror master, endowed with inexplicable influence. In short, whoever is making the post-November 2001 Osama tapes is pretending to far greater power than Osama ever claimed, much less exercised.
The real Osama bin Laden, like the real al Qaeda over which he presided, was never as important as reports from Arab (especially Saudi) intelligence services led the CIA to believe. Osama’s (late) role in Afghanistan’s anti-Soviet resistance was to bring in a little money. Arab fighters in general, and particularly the few Osama brought, fought rarely and badly. In war, one Afghan is worth many Arabs. In 1990 Osama told Saudi regent Abdullah that his mujahideen could stop Saddam’s invasion of the kingdom. When Abdullah waved him away in favor of a half-million U.S. troops, Osama turned dissident, enough to have to move to Sudan, where he stayed until 1996 hatching sterile anti-Saudi plots until forced to move his forlorn band to Afghanistan.
There is a good reason why neither Osama nor al Qaeda appeared on U.S. intelligence screens until 1998. They had done nothing noteworthy. Since the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, however, and especially after director of Central Intelligence George Tenet imputed responsibility for 9/11 to Osama “game, set, and match,” the CIA described him as terrorism’s prime mover. It refused to countenance the possibility that Osama’s associates might have been using him and his organization as a flag of convenience. As U.S. forces were taking over Afghanistan in 2001, the CIA was telling Time and Newsweek that it expected to find the high-tech headquarters from which Osama controlled terrorist activities in 50 countries. None existed. In November 2008, without factual basis and contrary to reason, the CIA continued to describe him and his organization as “the most clear and present danger to the United States.” It did not try to explain how this could be while, it said, Osama is “largely isolated from the day to day operations of the organization he nominally heads.” What organization?
Axiom and Opposite
Why such a focus on an organization that was never large, most of whose known associates have long since been killed or captured, and whose assets the CIA does not even try to catalogue? The CIA’s official explanation, that al Qaeda has “metastasized” by spreading its expertise, is an empty metaphor. But pursuant to it, the U.S. government accepted the self-designation as “al Qaeda” of persons fighting for Sunni-Baathist interests in Iraq, and has pinned the label gratuitously on sundry high-profile terrorists while acknowledging that their connection to Osama and Co. may be emotional at most. But why such gymnastics in the face of Osama’s incontrovertible irrelevance? Because focusing on Osama and al Qaeda affirms a CIA axiom dating from the Cold War, an axiom challenged during the Reagan years but that has been U.S. policy since 1993, namely: terrorism is the work of “rogue individuals and groups” that operate despite state authority. According to this axiom, the likes of Osama run rings around the intelligence services of Arab states—just like the Cold War terrorists who came through Eastern Europe to bomb in Germany and Italy and to shoot Pope John Paul II supposedly acted despite Bulgarian intelligence, despite East Germany’s Stasi, despite the KGB. This axiom is dear to many in the U.S. government because it leads logically to working with the countries whence terrorists come rather than to treating them as enemies.
But what if terrorism were (as Thomas Friedman put it) “what states want to happen or let happen”? What if, in the real world, infiltrators from intelligence services—the professionals—use the amateur terrorists rather than the other way around? What is the logical consequence of noting the fact that the terrorist groups that make a difference on planet Earth—such as Hamas and Hezbollah, the PLO, Colombia’s FARC—are extensions of, respectively, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and Venezuela? It is the negation of the U.S. government’s favorite axiom. It means that when George W. Bush spoke, and when Barack Obama speaks, of America being “at war” against “extremism” or “extremists” they are either being stupid or acting stupid to avoid dealing with the nasty fact that many governments wage indirect warfare.
In short, insisting on Osama’s supposed mastery of al Qaeda, and on equating terrorism with al Qaeda, is official U.S. policy because it forecloses questions about the role of states, and makes it possible to indict as warmongers whoever raises such questions. Osama’s de facto irrelevance for seven years, however, has undermined that policy’s intellectual legitimacy. How much longer can presidents or directors of the CIA wave the spectra of Osama and al Qaeda before people laugh at them?
An Intellectual House of Cards
Questioning osama’s relevance to today’s terrorism leads naturally to asking how relevant he ever was, and who might be more relevant. That in turn quickly shows how flimsy are the factual foundations on which rest the U.S. government’s axioms about the “war on terror.” Consider: We know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) planned and carried out 9/11. But there is no independent support for KSM’s claim that he acted at Osama’s direction and under his supervision. On the contrary, we know for sure that the expertise and the financing for 9/11 came from KSM’s own group (the U.S. government has accepted but to my knowledge not verified that the group’s core is a biological family of Baluchs). This group carried out the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa and every other act for which al Qaeda became known. The KSM group included the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings Abdul Rahman Yasin, who came from, returned to, and vanished in Iraq, as well as Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of that bombing, who came to the U.S. from Iraq on an Iraqi passport and was known to his New York collaborators as “Rashid the Iraqi.” This group had planned the bombing of U.S. airliners over the Pacific in 1995. The core members are non-Arabs. They had no history of religiosity (and the religiosity they now display is unconvincing). They were not creatures of Osama. Only in 1996 did the group come to Osama’s no-account band, and make it count.
In life, as in math, you must judge the function |of a factor in any equation by factoring it out and seeing if the equation still works. Factor out Osama. Chances are, 9/11 still happens. Factor out al Qaeda too. Maybe 9/11 still happens. The other bombing plots sure happened without it. But if you factor out the KSM group, surely there is no 9/11, and without the KSM group, there is no way al Qaeda would have become a household word.
Who, precisely, are KSM and his reputed nephews? That is an interesting question to which we do not know the answer, and are not about to find out. Ramzi Yousef was sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing after a trial that focused on his guilt and that abstracted from his associations. Were our military tribunal to accede to KSM’s plea of guilty, he would avoid any trial at all. Moreover, the sort of trial that would take place before the tribunal would focus on proving guilt rather than on getting at the whole truth. It would not feature the cross-examination of witnesses, the substantive proving and impeachment of evidence, and the exploration of alternative explanations of events. But real trials try all sides. Do we need such things given that KSM confessed? Yes. There is no excuse for confusing confessions with truth, especially confessions in which the prisoners confirm our agencies’ prejudices.
The excuse for limiting the public scrutiny of evidence is the alleged need to protect intelligence sources. But my experience, as well as that of others who have been in a position to probe such claims, is that almost invariably they protect our intelligence agencies’ incompetence and bureaucratic interests. Anyhow, the public’s interest in understanding what it’s up against should override all others.
Understanding the Past, Dealing With the Future
Focusing on Osama bin Elvis is dangerous to America’s security precisely because it continues to substitute in our collective mind the soft myth that terrorism is the work of romantic rogues for the hard reality that it can happen only because certain states want it to happen or let it happen. KSM and company may not have started their careers as agents of Iraqi intelligence, or they may have quit the Iraqis and worked for others, or maybe they just worked for themselves. But surely they were a body unto themselves. As such they fit Osama’s description of those responsible for 9/11 as “individuals with their own motivation” far better than they fit the CIA’s description of them as Osama’s tools.
More important, focusing on Osama and al Qaeda distorts our understanding of what is happening in Afghanistan. The latter-day Taliban are fielding forces better paid and armed than any in the region except America’s. Does anyone suggest seriously that Osama or al-Zawahiri are providing the equipment, the money, or the moral incentives? Such amounts of money can come only from the super wealthy of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. The equipment can come only through dealers who work at the sufferance of states, and can reach the front only through Pakistan by leave of Pakistani authorities. Moreover, the moral incentives for large-scale fighting in Pushtunistan can come only as part of the politics of Pushtun identity. Hence sending troops to Afghanistan to fight Pushtuns financed by Saudis, supported by Pakistanis, and disposing of equipment purchased throughout the world, with the objective of “building an Afghan nation” capable of preventing Osama and al Qaeda from messing up the world from their mountain caves, is an errand built on intellectual self-indulgence.
Intellectual Authority
The CIA had as much basis for deeming Osama the world’s terror master “game, set, and match” in 2001 as it had in 2003 for verifying as a “slam dunk” the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and as it had in 2007 for determining that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program. Mutatis mutandis, it was on such bases that the CIA determined in 1962 that the Soviets would not put missiles in Cuba; that the CIA was certain from 1963 to 1978 that the USSR would not build the first strike missile force that it was building before its very eyes; that the CIA convinced Bush 41 that the Soviet Union was not falling apart and that he should help hold it together; that the CIA assured the U.S. government in 1990 that Iraq would not invade Kuwait, and in 1996 that neither India nor Pakistan would test nuclear weapons. In these and countless other instances, the CIA has provided the US government and the media with authoritative bases for denying realities over which America was tripping.
The force of the CIA’s judgments, its authority, has always come from the congruence between its prejudices and those of America’s ruling class. When you tell people what they want to hear, you don’t have to be too careful about premises, facts, and conclusions. Our problem, in short, is not the CIA’s mentality so much as the unwillingness of persons in government and the “attentive public” to exercise intellectual due diligence about international affairs. Osama bin Laden’s role may be as good a place as any to start.
Angelo M. Codevilla, a professor of international relations at Boston University, a fellow of the Claremont Institute, and a senior editor of The American Spectator, was a Foreign Service officer and served on the staff of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee between 1977 and 1985.He was the principal author of the 1980 presidential transition report on intelligence. He is the author of The Character of Nations: How Politics Makes and Breaks Prosperity, Family, and Civility.
By Mel Frykberg RAMALLAH, Mar 16 (IPS) – As reconciliation talks between the various Palestinian factions continue to falter, and peace between Israelis and Palestinians seems even more remote, the chance of Syria and Israel reaching an agreement remains a real possibility.
Several weeks ago Israel’s chief patron, the U.S., sent two top envoys to Damascus to discuss strengthening ties, in a significant sign that relations between the two countries could be thawing.
The U.S. withdrew its ambassador to Syria in 2005 following the assassination of former pro-U.S. Lebanese president Rafiq Hariri. Syria was said to be behind the murder – a charge it denies.
Now indirect peace negotiations between Syria and Israel under the mediation of Turkey have been taking place on a regular basis following Israel’s 2006 Lebanese war. Syria suspended talks several months ago in protest against Israel’s bloody military offensive on Gaza.
However, hitherto the U.S. actively discouraged Israel from negotiating with the Syrians. Former U.S. president George Bush said Syria was too close to what he described as the “Axis of Evil” which included Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
There has long been a political divide between the two chief protagonists in the Middle East and their support of regional proxies as they sought to enforce a policy of divide and conquer in pursuit of their geopolitical interests.
The U.S. and Iran have not only been involved in a war of words but have been fuelling tensions in the area by supplying their regional clients military and political aid.
The U.S. has repeatedly expressed concern about the strengthening Shia crescent headed by a regionally ambitious Iran.
Iran is Syria’s main political ally. Furthermore, both countries finance, arm, train and give political succour to a number of local resistance groups including Lebanese Hizbullah and Palestinian Hamas.
Although Syria is a Sunni country, the leadership under President Bashar Assad is predominantly Allawite, a breakaway sect of Shia Islam. Hamas too is Sunni, but its militant ideology finds common ground with Iran’s theocracy.
The U.S. in turn has been the prominent backer of Israel with enormous financial and military support over the decades. But the U.S. has also provided military and financial support to Arab regimes in the region hostile to and afraid of Iran, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Countries.
However, the new administration in Washington, in accordance with U.S. President Barack Obama’s policy of détente, has been putting out feelers towards the Syrian leadership in a bid to try and resolve issues in a non- confrontational manner.
Assad welcomed Washington’s decision to send the two top Mideast envoys to Damascus to meet with Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem for discussion on improving ties between the two countries.
Syrian ambassador to the U.S., Imad Mustapha, commenting on Washington’s more conciliatory stance, told the media that, “they’ve given up on the idea that Syria has to do this and that.”
The U.S. needs Syria. Threats and bullying have not only failed to reconcile Israel and Syria but driven Syria further into the arms of Iran, thereby strengthening the Shia crescent.
Besides Syria wielding influence with Hamas and Hizbullah, any peace agreement between Israel and Syria would also put pressure on Lebanon to reach an agreement with Israel. This would free the Jewish state from being hemmed in by hostile neighbours.
The U.S. also needs Syria to prevent anti-U.S. Islamic militants from crossing its border into Iraq – something the U.S. has accused Syria of failing to do in the past.
Syria for its part wants U.S. sanctions against its Baathist regime removed. The sanctions have stifled bank transfers, technology imports and grounded some jets for lack of spare parts.
But Syria’s biggest priority is for Israel to return the Golan Heights, which were captured during the 1967 six-Day Arab-Israeli war, and it sees U.S. involvement as crucial for their return.
Israel regards their possession as strategically important and will only consider returning them on condition that Syria first ceases support of Hamas and Hizbullah.
There are also more than 15,000 Israeli settlers living and farming on the Golan and more than 70 percent of the Israeli public rejects a territorial compromise. Israel is also dependent on the Golan’s water resources.
However, the Israeli elite recognises the value of an accord with Syria which would not only weaken Iran’s regional influence but also deprive local resistance groups of their military and economic support.
A deal could also open the region to Israel economically, diplomatically and for tourism. Syria in turn would get the return of its territory, long-term regional stability, economic support and in turn a stable and prosperous domestic status-quo.
It would also join the regional Sunni club and gain new political prestige from like-minded neighbours if it chose to leave the Shia crescent. This is feasible as Syria is secular in nature and not a natural bed-fellow of Islamic fundamentalism.
Before this would happen, however, Syria would have to fundamentally realign its relationship with Iran. In order to do so it would have to be persuaded that its interests would be best served by making this choice.
This is where Turkey could once again step in as a mediator, which it has already offered to do.
Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country, has very good political, economic, and security relations with Iran but is not locked into a political or military alliance.
The fundamentals of the conflict between Israel and Syria have largely been resolved on paper during previous negotiations. But the finalisation and implementation of any deal, particularly Israel’s withdrawal from Syrian territory, could take years, and would probably have to be done in several stages. This is where the new U.S. support for rapprochement would come into play.
Ultimately any successful peace agreement between Israel and Syria would be dependent on full and impartial U.S. involvement. This would mean, amongst other things, leaning on Israel to make the necessary concessions. (END/2009)
Israel thinks about buying water from Turkey once again as an option to overcome water shortage, the worst in the country over the past ten years.
Officials of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), established to help alleviate the national water shortage, discussed whether or not water import from Turkey could be feasible.
Turkey and Israel once agreed on water trade to ship fresh water from Turkey to Israel –via either a pipeline or tankers– but the project was put on ice as it was considered too costly and non-operable.
The Fund is in talks with Turkish and Israeli governments, as well as Israeli companies, to revive the idea of carrying Turkish water to Israel, said Russel Robinson, an official from the JNF.
Israeli officials believe that it is almost impossible to find investors for projects to desalinate sea water amid global financial downturn. JNF officials said water import would be a feasible alternative.
Before recent rainfall since the beginning of March, analyst had said the country could face the worst water crisis in 80 years due to dry winter.
March 11, 2009 Turkish President Abdullah Gul said Turkey opposes Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, Today’s Zaman reported March 11. Also, Gul said the new U.S. administration under President Barack Obama signals that “a new era has begun.” He added, “It is important for world peace and stability that everyone is prepared for a new era like this to emerge.” Gul said Iran and Pakistani-Aghan relations were important challenges in the “new era.”
The Turkish Forum (TF) is the GLOBAL organization with branches and working groups COVERING 5 CONTINENTS, working with many regional Organizations in the America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and Turkey. TF’s mission is to represent the Turkish Community in in the best way possible, to empower the people of Turkish origin and friends of Turkey to be active and assertive in the political and civic arenas, to educate the political establishments, media and the public on issues important to Turks, and cultivate the relations between the working groups located an five continents, serving the Turkish Communities needs.
In order to achieve these goals we have performed many activities and completed many projects, THEY ARE ALL LISTED IN THE WEB PAGES OF TF, . You have been informed about these activities and projects, many of you participated voluntarily and contributed heavily and still contributing to these activates and projects. As the events happen and the major steps taken the information always reaches to you by the TF Grassroots DAILY NEWS Distribution Service. Needless to say, each activity and project requires a large amount of human and financial resources. TF has a completely volunteer board, none of the board members receives any compensation or salary or even a small reimbursement. TF also has many volunteer committee members, WELL ESTABLISHED ADVISORY BOARD and project leaders. In addition to our large volunteer pool, please see them an https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/turkish-forum/TF sustains Permanent Offices in New England, Germany and in Turkey and has a number of professional staff to upgrade its systems, and to solve the technical problems. Please check our website at https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/turkish-forum/
As the 2009 did begin we kindly ask you to support TF by becoming a member, if you are not already one. You can also contribute a donation if you wish to upgrade your regular membership to a higher level. Your financial support is critical to TF in order to pursue its mission in a professional manner. Needless to say, it is the financial support that we receive from our members and Friends of Turkey is the backbone of our organization. As long as this support is continuous we can achieve our objectives and work for the communities across the globe. Your contribution is tax-exempt under the full extent of the law allowed under Internal Revenue Code 501(c) (3).
Becoming a member and making an additional contribution are easy: You may become a member online athttp://www.turkishnews.com/dagitim/lists/?p=subscribe&id=3
I thank you for your belief in TF, and look forward to another successful year with your uninterrupted support.
Sincerely, Kayaalp Büyükataman
Dr. Kayaalp Büyükataman, President CEO
Turkish Forum- World Turkish Coalition
Retired Amb. Chas Freeman, who said today that he no longer accepts an offer to chair the National Intelligence Council, has just sent this message:
You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.
I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.
As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.
I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.
The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.
There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.
The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.
In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.
Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.
I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.
