did the israel lobby play a key role in the decision to invade iraq in 2003?

[maw]

pretty compelling article by stephen m. walt describing the isreali lobbyists' pro war influence prior to the invasion of iraq.
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/08/i_dont_mean_to_say_i_told_you_so_but

Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, DC in April 2002 and spoke in the U.S. Senate, telling his audience "the urgent need to topple Saddam is paramount," and that the campaign "deserves the unconditional support of all sane governments."

Shimon Peres said on CNN that "Saddam Hussein is as dangerous as bin Laden," and that the United States "cannot sit and wait."

Prime Minister Ehud Barak wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post recommending that the Bush administration "should, first of all, focus on Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein."

President Bill Clinton told an audience at an Aspen Institute meeting in 2006 that "every Israeli politician I knew" (and he knows a lot of them) believed that Saddam Hussein was so great a threat that he should be removed even if he did not have WMD.

AIPAC head Howard Kohr told the New York Sun in January 2003 that one of the organization's "success stories" over the previous year was "quietly lobbying Congress" to approve the resolution authorizing the use of force, a fact confirmed by journalists such as Nathan Guttman of the Forward, Michelle Goldberg of Salon.com, John B. Judis of the New Republic, and even Jeffrey Goldberg in The New Yorker

there are more citations in the article.

[Hollis]

I gather we need to hand out tin foil hats on this one:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently ****e to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[BlackWarder]

OMG does that means that the democratic party is the Israeli lobby????? than what is the Republican party?

[maw]

hollis - what was the purpose of your post? i included a quote from clinton, i don't understand the need for duplicity.

[Hollis]

hollis - what was the purpose of your post? i included a quote from clinton, i don't understand the need for duplicity.


I think BlackWarder responded to your question.

Are you one of those people who think the Juice controls the US?

[seraosha]

du·plic·i·ty
****unciation: \du̇-ˈpli-sə-tē also dyu̇-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural du·plic·i·ties
Etymology: Middle English duplicite, from Middle French, from Late Latin duplicitat-, duplicitas, from Latin duplex
Date: 15th century
1 : contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action
2 : the quality or state of being double or twofold
3 : the technically incorrect use of two or more distinct items (as claims, charges, or defenses) in a single legal action

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

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I am still waiting for conclusive proof that Saddam had a vast array of WMD's ready to go in jig time in the months preceding the invasion but like the Nazi UFO base in Antarctica I may be waiting for some time for the truth. I doubt Israel lobby can move the USA to war though they may be well enough placed to give a nudge here and there on foreign policy lets face it if one man William Randolph Hearst aka The Wizard of Ooze can swing public and politicians opinions on intervention overseas why not the collective might of AIPAC et al

[2495]

I gather we need to hand out tin foil hats on this one:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently ****e to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

In the words of my neice on HALO - "You been Pwned boy".

@Hollis - care for a beer after that massive serving of STFU you just dished out? makes me sweat all that typing you had to do.

[dracon49]

Israeli lobby or Oil lobby?

[Hollis]

@Hollis - care for a beer after that massive serving of STFU you just dished out? makes me sweat all that typing you had to do.



Beer would be real nice. I just cut and pasted it. I kept it a long time ago when Bush bashing was very popular that is was all of Bush's doing. It comes in handy now and then.

[Hollis]

I am still waiting for conclusive proof that Saddam had a vast array of WMD's ready to go in jig time in the months preceding the invasion but like the Nazi UFO base in Antarctica I may be waiting for some time for the truth. I doubt Israel lobby can move the USA to war though they may be well enough placed to give a nudge here and there on foreign policy lets face it if one man William Randolph Hearst aka The Wizard of Ooze can swing public and politicians opinions on intervention overseas why not the collective might of AIPAC et al


Do I need to post the UN resolution to take out Saddam. Hate to tell you this, there was more than ONE reason. Also there is more to the story, but then it would not go along with your bias.

[GB_FXST]

Unless Walt can document evidence of a violation of US law by the pro-Israel lobby, then the underlying intent and purpose of his inquiry is questionable. Considering that there is no evidence of a violation of US law by the pro-Israel lobby, I believe that Walt has a nefarious agenda.

[Snoshi]

But sometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan. Sharon’s words — revealed here for the first time — constituted a friendly but pointed warning to Bush. Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised Bush not to occupy Iraq. According to another source — Danny Ayalon, who was Israel’s ambassador to the United States at the time of the Iraq invasion, and who sat in on the Bush-Sharon meetings — Sharon told Bush that Israel would not “push one way or another” regarding the Iraq scheme.

According to both sources, Sharon warned Bush that if he insisted on occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy in this part of the world. “In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab world is not built for democratization,” Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.

Be sure, Sharon added, not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy. And ready a counter-insurgency strategy if you expect to rule Iraq, which will eventually have to be partitioned into its component parts. Finally, Sharon told Bush, please remember that you will conquer, occupy and leave, but we have to remain in this part of the world. Israel, he reminded the American president, does not wish to see its vital interests hurt by regional radicalization and the spillover of violence beyond Iraq’s borders.

Sharon’s advice — reflecting a wealth of experience with Middle East issues that Bush lacked — was prescient. The American occupation of Iraq has ended up strengthening Iran, Israel’s number-one enemy, and enfranchising militant Shi’ite Islamists. A large part of Iraq is slipping into the Iranian orbit. Iraq’s western Anbar Province is increasingly dominated by militant jihadi Sunnis who could eventually threaten Syria and Jordan, the latter a strategic partner and geographic buffer for Israel.

All these developments harm vital Israeli interests. This past summer, Israel fought a war against two militant Islamist movements supported by Iran — Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza — that were enfranchised and legitimized in their anarchic countries thanks to Bush’s insistence on hasty and ill-advised democratic elections “in this part of the world.”

Had Sharon made his criticism public, citing the dangers posed to vital Israeli interests, might he have made a difference in the prewar debate in the United States and the world? Certainly he would have poured cold water on the postwar assertions of critics, like professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, who have fingered Israel, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and pro-Israelis in the administration for instigating the war. Ayalon, incidentally, was directed by Sharon to warn all Israelis visiting Washington not to encourage the American scheme for war in Iraq, lest Israel be blamed for its failure.

There were, of course, neoconservative types in Israel who did encourage the United States to occupy Iraq and advocated democratic elections wherever possible in the Middle East. But there were also many Israelis, this writer included, who spoke out openly and publicly against the American scheme.

Even Aipac officials in Washington told visiting Arab intellectuals they would rather the United States deal militarily with Iran than with Iraq. And pro-Western Arab leaders like Egypt’s Husni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdallah were outspoken in their criticism of Bush’s war plans, even though they could fall back on far less credit and lobbying support in Washington than in Israel.
http://www.forward.com/articles/9839/

Wilkerson, then a member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff and later chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, recalled in an interview with IPS that the Israelis reacted immediately to indications that the Bush administration was thinking of war against Iraq. After the Israeli government picked up the first signs of that intention, Wilkerson says, "The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy - Iran is the enemy."

Wilkerson describes the Israeli message to the Bush administration in early 2002 as being, "If you are going to destabilise the balance of power, do it against the main enemy."
The warning against an invasion of Iraq was "pervasive" in Israeli communications with the administration, Wilkerson recalls. It was conveyed to the administration by a wide range of Israeli sources, including political figures, intelligence and private citizens.

Wilkerson notes that the main point of their communications was not that the United States should immediately attack Iran, but that "it should not be distracted by Iraq and Saddam Hussein" from a focus on the threat from Iran.

The Israeli advice against using military force against Iraq was apparently triggered by reports reaching Israeli officials in December 2001 that the Bush administration was beginning serious planning for an attack on Iraq. Journalist Bob Woodward revealed in "Plan of Attack" that on Dec. 1, 2001, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld had ordered the Central Command chief Gen. Tommy Franks to come up with the first formal briefing on a new war plan for Iraq on Dec. 4. That started a period of intense discussions of war planning between Rumsfeld and Franks.

Soon after Israeli officials got wind of that planning, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked for a meeting with Bush primarily to discuss U.S. intentions to invade Iraq. In the weeks preceding Sharon's meeting with Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, a procession of Israeli officials conveyed the message to the Bush administration that Iran represented a greater threat, according to a Washington Post report on the eve of the meeting.

Israeli Defence Minister Fouad Ben-Eliezer, who was visiting Washington with Sharon, revealed the essence of the strategic differences between Tel Aviv and Washington over military force. He was quoted by the Post as saying, "Today, everybody is busy with Iraq. Iraq is a problem...But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq."

Sharon never revealed publicly what he said to Bush in the Feb. 7 meeting. But Yossi Alpher, a former adviser to Prime Minister Ehud Barak, wrote in an article in the Forward last January that Sharon advised Bush not to occupy Iraq, according to a knowledgeable source. Alpher wrote that Sharon also assured Bush that Israel would not "push one way or another" regarding his plan to take down Saddam Hussein.

Alpher noted that Washington did not want public support by Israel and in fact requested that Israel refrain from openly supporting the invasion in order to avoid an automatic negative reaction from Iraq's Arab neighbours.

After that meeting, the Sharon government generally remained silent on the issue of an invasion of Iraq. A notable exception, however, was a statement on Aug. 16, 2002 by Ranaan Gissin, an aide to Sharon. Ranaan declared, "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose. It will only give [Hussein] more of an opportunity to accelerate his programme of weapons of mass destruction."

As late as October 2002, however, there were still signs of continuing Israeli grumbling about the Bush administration's obsession with taking over Iraq. Both the Israeli Defence Forces' chief of staff and its chief of military intelligence made public statements that month implicitly dismissing the Bush administration's position that Saddam Hussein's alleged quest for nuclear weapons made him the main threat. Both officials suggested that Israel's military advantage over Iraq had continued to increase over the decade since the Gulf War as Iraq had grown weaker.

The Israeli chief of military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aharon Farkash, said Iraq had not deployed any missiles that could strike Israel directly and challenged the Bush administration's argument that Iraq could obtain nuclear weapons within a relatively short time. He gave an interview to Israeli television in which he said army intelligence had concluded that Iraq could not have nuclear weapons in less than four years. He insisted that Iran was as much of a nuclear threat as Iraq.

Israeli strategists generally believed that taking down the Hussein regime could further upset an Iran-Iraq power balance that had already tilted in favour of Iran after the U.S. defeat of Hussein's army in the 1991 Gulf War. By 1996, however, neoconservatives with ties to the Likud Party were beginning to argue for a more aggressive joint U.S.-Israeli strategy aimed at a "rollback" of all of Israel's enemies in the region, including Iran, but beginning by taking down Hussein and putting a pro-Israeli regime in power there.

That was the thrust of the 1996 report of a task force led by Richard Perle for the right-wing Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies and aimed at the Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

But most strategists in the Israeli government and the Likud Party - including Sharon himself - did not share that viewpoint. Despite agreement between neoconservatives and Israeli officials on many issues, the dominant Israeli strategic judgment on the issue of invading Iraq diverged from that of U.S. neoconservatives because of differing political-military interests.

Israel was more concerned with the relative military threat posed by Iran and Iraq, whereas neoconservatives in the Bush administration were focused on regime change in Iraq as a low-cost way of leveraging more ambitious changes in the region. From the neoconservative perspective, the very military weakness of Hussein's Iraq made it the logical target for the use of U.S. military power.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39051

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Do I need to post the UN resolution to take out Saddam. Hate to tell you this, there was more than ONE reason. Also there is more to the story, but then it would not go along with your bias.No bias on my part I was neither up nor down when we invaded, I was a little embarrassed over our PM,s lack of self respect and spin but I got over that quickly and never at any point did I not support our troops in Iraq.

[2495]

Beer would be real nice. I just cut and pasted it. I kept it a long time ago when Bush bashing was very popular that is was all of Bush's doing. It comes in handy now and then.

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8182/beerd.jpg

The v ery least I can do - I am about to copy / paste that into file for future epic STFU situations against the hippies.

[FlintHillBilly]

I am still waiting for conclusive proof that Saddam had a vast array of WMD's ready to go in jig time in the months preceding the invasion but like the Nazi UFO base in Antarctica I may be waiting for some time for the truth. I doubt Israel lobby can move the USA to war though they may be well enough placed to give a nudge here and there on foreign policy lets face it if one man William Randolph Hearst aka The Wizard of Ooze can swing public and politicians opinions on intervention overseas why not the collective might of AIPAC et al

Im pretty sure they did find what 500 tons of yellow cake? Which is used to make bad bad bad stuff. It was secretly shipped out with very little media attention. It was just a matter of time before this stuff could have been used in something terrible.

[RoyB]

If Israel's lobby in the US is so strong why don't it use its influence now and make Obama turn all Jewish-puppy like?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Im pretty sure they did find what 500 tons of yellow cake? Which is used to make bad bad bad stuff. It was secretly shipped out with very little media attention. It was just a matter of time before this stuff could have been used in something terrible.The actually passed up the chance of displaying 500tonnes of yellow cake which would have been the big "heres why folks" moment that would have validated absolutely everything done and said. But no they kept that a secret because they don't have to justify their actions in any way or there was no 500tonnes of yellow cake.

[kamaz]

I would think the Israelis would love to have seen Saddam toppled after what they went through in '91, with Iraqi SCUDs and all. But to 'influence'? This is the Walt-Meiersheimer effect on rational people's thinking.

think about it, if a nation smaller than New Jersey can control and manipulate a nation the size of US, it says more about the idiocy and gullibility of US, than of the supposed super cunning and controlling powers of the Joos.

[HellToupee]

Yellow cake is not used to make bad stuff, its unenriched uranium. It was also known about, it was from the French reactor that was bombed back in 1980s.

[LineDoggie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxogl5C6ano&feature=related..........

[Stormz_STA]

Damn, I would vote for Black Bush

[IDF_TANKER]

http://www.forward.com/articles/9839/

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39051

Thanks, Snoshi, I was looking for this link.
Every time I hear these allegations about the tail wagging the dog, it really flatters me (like in that joke about a Jew which enjoys reading Der Stürmer). It also always makes me chuckle, because in Israel everybody believes that Israel is just another US state, and we do nothing without asking permission from Americans. How about the simpler explanation - the dog is actually wagging the tail. Can anyone imagine that Israel (in UN or wherever) would ever state publicly something which even remotely goes against American official position? With all the vital dependency of Israel on US support, political or other? Seriously? Can you actually imagine Israeli PM state publicly something against invasion in Iraq, when US was saving our arses by vetoing UN decisions against Israel during the Intifada? How frigging ridiculous.

This specific allegation about involvement in the Iraq war also puts me in a uncomfortable position, because I get tempted to start reminding who really profited from war in Iraq ... someone in the Bush administration ... who was involved in the defense and oil industry... all those powerful people in Washington lobbying for the said industries... But I won't, instead I will just quote a couple of my own posts:

There is the simple truth about Iraqi state:


It was strong enough to ensure its inner stability.
Weak enough not to fvck with anybody else(let alone Israel).
Secular, which mean that Saddam could play from time to time with Jihadists, but in the long run they where his enemies by definition.
Sunni ruled state, it was automatically confining the Iranian influence in the region (probably the most important thing).

Breaking the Saddam's regime automatically removes all of the above, at least in the short run (which proved to be not so short) - NOT good for Israel. Not to mention that during the war we were given the gas masks again, cause there was a chance Saddam would pull out some surprise from his dusty arsenal.

@Trace
Now I know you have a "thing" with Israel (probably has something to do with this other piece of US-Israeli history). I can also imagine that it could be very tempting in blaming somebody else in your problems (not necessarily Israel), but try to focus on the logic and proved facts. You have to realize that there are interests and influences affecting your government, compared to which AIPAC is a little naive child begging daddy to by him a toy. I'm not going to go further off topic, I can only recommend to you to read this book (http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil-Washington-Saudi-Crude/dp/1400050219).

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?142028-George-Bush-has-made-the-US-and-the-world-more-safe&p=3548314&viewfull=1#post3548314
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?142028-George-Bush-has-made-the-US-and-the-world-more-safe&p=3553061&viewfull=1#post3553061
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?142028-George-Bush-has-made-the-US-and-the-world-more-safe&p=3554444&viewfull=1#post3554444

I'm still waiting that someone will explain me how Israel benefited from this war in any way.

Here, BTW, a thread we already had about this topic:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?134116-Doug-Feith-Israel-didn-t-push-for-Iraq-War

The article from this thread:

Former US undersecretary of defense tells Ynet he never saw evidence of Israeli pressure on America to launch Iraq War. In private conversations, Israelis warned that Iraq failure could undermine effort against Iran, he says


WASHINGTON - As opposed to frequently cited claims, Israeli officials did not push their American counterparts into launching a war in Iraq, Former United Stated Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith told Ynet in a special interview.

Addressing claims that Israel pushed the US Administration into the war, Feith said "I never saw that."

"What you heard from Israeli officials in private discussions was that they were not really focused on Iraq," Feith said. "They were much more focused on Iran."

When asked why Israel did not publically object to military action in Iraq, he said this was a result of the strong relationship between Israeli officials and the Bush Administration.

"The relationship between Bush and Israel was so strong and so friendly that the Israeli government was not going to join Germany and French in opposing the US," Feith said, and added that "what you heard from the Israelis was not any kind of advocacy of war with Iraq."

Feith said that he heard "constant (Israeli) emphasis on the importance of the Iran danger" and added that Israel was worried about a scenario that ended up materializing, namely that "if the US got into a military conflict in Iraq and it didn’t go well, it could make our diplomacy with Iran less credible."


'People were looking for ways short of war'

Feith, whose new book War and Decision aims to present his take on the Iraq War, also dismissed claims that the Bush Administration had its mind set on war in Iraq even before the September 11 attacks.

"A lot of the decisions came after September 11th," he told Ynet. "I think one of the things the book explains is that Iraq was a major issue before September 11th - it was a major issue since 1990 for the US, and there was a debate within the US government on what to do about Iraq."

"After all, you had the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, which said the US policy is regime change, the Senate passed that law unanimously, and President Clinton signed it," he added.

"I review the debates inside the administration on what to do about Iraq and what I point out is that no decisions were made," Feith said, referring to his book. "There were debates about the no-fly zone enforcement, strengthening economic sanctions, and the CIA had been talking about the possibility of a coup. There were debates about whether we can create an autonomous enclave in the south… people were looking for ways short of war to deal with the problem."

Feith also rejected suggestions that the Bush Administration chose to target Iraq because it was the easiest move at the time.

"I don't think it was the easiest," he said. "We looked at each of the states supporting terror, and we said we need a policy appropriate to that country. In the case of Iran and North Korea, it was clear that before anyone could even consider any military action there was important diplomacy that had to be tried."

"At the time the UN was dealing with Iraq for 12 years," Feith said, and added that "the risks of leaving Saddam Hussein in power were very serious."

Link. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3542925,00.html)

[maw]

I think BlackWarder responded to your question.
no i don't think he did.


Are you one of those people who think the Juice controls the US?
where did that come from? did you even read the article?

[maw]

du·plic·i·ty
****unciation: \du̇-ˈpli-sə-tē also dyu̇-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural du·plic·i·ties
Etymology: Middle English duplicite, from Middle French, from Late Latin duplicitat-, duplicitas, from Latin duplex
Date: 15th century
1 : contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action
2 : the quality or state of being double or twofold
3 : the technically incorrect use of two or more distinct items (as claims, charges, or defenses) in a single legal action

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

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

i don't think you do. i'll take definition number two thank you.

[maw]

it's apparent that some of you didn't read the article. the third paragraph states:
"Notice that Blair is not saying that Israel dreamed up the idea of attacking Iraq or that Bush was bent on war solely to benefit Israel or even to appease the Israel lobby here at home. But Blair is acknowledging that concerns about Israel were part of the equation, and that the Israeli government was being actively consulted in the planning for the war."

nowhere in the article does it say that the evil juice dreamed up the iraq war. to address the crackpot conspiracy theme, walt is a professor at harvard's jfk school of government. he wrote a controversial book with john mearsheimer about the undue influence carried by aipac.

[GB_FXST]

it's apparent that some of you didn't read the article. the third paragraph states:
"Notice that Blair is not saying that Israel dreamed up the idea of attacking Iraq or that Bush was bent on war solely to benefit Israel or even to appease the Israel lobby here at home. But Blair is acknowledging that concerns about Israel were part of the equation, and that the Israeli government was being actively consulted in the planning for the war."

nowhere in the article does it say that the evil juice dreamed up the iraq war. to address the crackpot conspiracy theme, walt is a professor at harvard's jfk school of government. he wrote a controversial book with john mearsheimer about the undue influence carried by aipac.

Please define or elaborate on what is "undue influence carried by AIPAC"?

Did AIPAC ever break any US laws in regard to its pro-Israel agenda?

And, if not, how is it possible that its influence is inappropriate considering that lobbying by private interest groups is an accepted practice in US politics?

[Hollis]

no i don't think he did.


where did that come from? did you even read the article?

Let me see, how should I proceed. I did read the article on the complicity of the Israeli lobby also some of your posting history and I am at a conundrum here. I would suggest that you read the forum rules. I happen to agree with taking Saddam out, So does the Iranians (but probably would not admit it right now), so does the Kuwaitis, and list of other people. Those that supported Saddam, well say people have your interest at heart when you owe them a lot of money and making a lot of money off of the UN Embargo.

The forum rule you should think about is:


4. Remember this is a pro US, pro GWOT board by it's nature and thus some opinions may not be too welcome particularly if the dissenter is hyperbolic or baiting about their beliefs

At least your not saying, it was about the oil. And the article was better written than something from stormfront.

Israel has a population slightly larger than the San Francisco bay area, the land mass a little larger too and the GNP of less than .25% of SF Bay Area and they have all that influence over the US government.

Bush did not make a mistake, you are making the mistake. Saddam could have easily prevented the war, but chose another route. He lost.

[dracon49]

Saddam killed his own ppl and it's very good that he was hanged, but about the WMD issue-no one found those weapons...

[Hollis]

Rather than getting into long discussion here, this is a pretty comical read on the reasons for the 2003 not some crafty Illuminati controlled AIPAC complicity.

[quote]The reasons for invading Iraq are many. Here is my list:

1. Saddam was a madman. He was butchering his own people, he was out of control. Name another Islamic regime headed by a butchering madman.

2. Iraq was not cooperating in the war against terrorism.

3. Saddam hated the US for spoiling his takeover of Kuwait and embarrassing him in the Gulf War. He had tried to build nuclear arms in the past, after 9/11 we could not risk that he would feel emboldened by that event and try again.

4. Saddam had contacts with Al Queida. At what levels, we could not know, but we could not risk their collaboration. We could not risk letting another sanctuary for Al Queida exist.

5. Iraq is geographically in the ideal position to confront Islamic terrorists. Situated between our “friends” in Saudi Arabia and the true evil force of Islam – Iran. If we could control Iraq, the Middle East would have a hard time exploding in war. Make no mistake, Iran is the real enemy and has been since 1979. And make no mistake, Islamic terrorists desire the end to Saudi Arabia’s monarchy over all else. Their holiest city, Mecca, is in Saudi Arabia.

6. But, the number one reason for invading Iraq was that Saddam would not permit UN arms inspections. Although we may never know if he was building WMDs, he absolutely wanted the world (his enemies) to THINK he might me. At best, Saddam was playing a dangerous game of poker and bluffing. At worst, he had WMDs. Either way, we could not just sit and play poker with him after 9/11 (just as I don’t think we can play poker with Iran now), he either had to allow inspections or be invaded.

Why do liberals seem to forget that Saddam refused to allow inspections and that was why we invaded? The answer is that liberals are simply clutching at straws, looking for any reason to oppose the President.

Mr. Jones, I’ve answered your questions – no, I have not seen proof that any of the terrorists that perpetrated the long list of attacks on America I’ve noted was Iraqi. So What? And yes, the second largest US terrorist attack was perpetrated by an American. So What?

Now, will you please answer my questions. How do we stop Islamic terrorists when they act in the name of their skewed religion and not for any country? And I mean absolutely stop them – after 9/11, we cannot risk that same old policy of slapping their hands or appeasement.

And why do liberals disregard the fact that the war in Iraq was absolutely based on Saddam’s refusal to allow UN weapon inspection? WMDs were media-centric political gibberish that liberals have latched onto from lack of any other rationale for attacking the President.

If you attempt an argument that says UN inspections were not the basis, then, you sir, are an idiot as well. (at this point, I just think you are one of the many who naïvely believe whatever the Dan Rathers, Michael Moores, and Whoopi Goldbergs of the world tell you) WMDs were only the basis used to explain a complex subject to those 70% of Americans who are know-nothings. Are you a know-nothing?[\quote]

site is: http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/jan/article275.html

There is a lot more on Saddam's poker game that was uncovered with the interviews/interrogation of Iraqi Generals captured after the invasion of Iraq.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I would think the Israelis would love to have seen Saddam toppled after what they went through in '91, with Iraqi SCUDs and all. But to 'influence'? This is the Walt-Meiersheimer effect on rational people's thinking.

think about it, if a nation smaller than New Jersey can control and manipulate a nation the size of US, it says more about the idiocy and gullibility of US, than of the supposed super cunning and controlling powers of the Joos.I think its possible for a smaller nation, individuals and lobby groups to influence a large state maybe not puppet like but a little gentle nudge in the right direction on occasion. Whether Israel and its surrogates actually wanted Saddam removed is going to be one of those questions in history that has no clear answer like the British influence on the US entry to WW1
IDF_TANKER makes a good point about the negatives of removing Saddam and the sucking void waiting to be filled with anarchy and the unknown but Saddam was not without his designs on Israel and his long range rocket and Super gun projects may have convinced some in the Israeli Govt that the sooner he was gone the better and to hell with the short term.

[LineDoggie]

GW1- Saddams immediate idea to break the coalition against him?

Launch Missiles at Israel in the hope of breaking the allies up. So when Blair says the Izzys were conferred with the Occams razor says likely about a repeat of 91 missile attacks.

[Hollis]

I think its possible for a smaller nation, individuals and lobby groups to influence a large state maybe not puppet like but a little gentle nudge in the right direction on occasion. Whether Israel and its surrogates actually wanted Saddam removed is going to be one of those questions in history that has no clear answer like the British influence on the US entry to WW1
IDF_TANKER makes a good point about the negatives of removing Saddam and the sucking void waiting to be filled with anarchy and the unknown but Saddam was not without his designs on Israel and his long range rocket and Super gun projects may have convinced some in the Israeli Govt that the sooner he was gone the better and to hell with the short term.

It was going to be dicey what ever way it went. As I mentioned Saddam could have played his cards better and stayed in power. Would Saddam staying in power be worse than having that power void? I don't know.

Smaller nudge, well take a car coming to rapid stop from a high speed, Yes the air resistance does help it to slow down, but the brakes are what really does it. So how much did that nudge account for the decision to go to war? There were probably much bigger factors in causing the invasion. Some how a nudge is looked at. Much like making mountains out of mole hills.

[Podman]

Martin Kramer has spent the time demolishing Walt's (and Mearsheimer's) theories so other people don't have to. Here's his most recent, but please read the articles linked in the first paragraph if you want in depth analysis as to how dishonest Walt is:

http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/tag/israel-lobby/

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

It was going to be dicey what ever way it went. As I mentioned Saddam could have played his cards better and stayed in power. Would Saddam staying in power be worse than having that power void? I don't know.Containment though an inelegant solution would have worked out better for fiscally for the US as on cost alone it was a dumb move for all involved.


Smaller nudge, well take a car coming to rapid stop from a high speed, Yes the air resistance does help it to slow down, but the brakes are what really does it. So how much did that nudge account for the decision to go to war? There were probably much bigger factors in causing the invasion. Some how a nudge is looked at. Much like making mountains out of mole hills.I believe that many nudges tipped us into war; we have Bush and Blair's religious and moral convictions, the military industrial complex seeking new avenues for profit, the possibility that Israel and other surrounding states exerting gentle but constant pressure on the West to do something definitive with Saddam. Lets face it he was the regions "dog in the manger".

[LineDoggie]

Martin Kramer has spent the time demolishing Walt's (and Mearsheimer's) theories so other people don't have to. Here's his most recent, but please read the articles linked in the first paragraph if you want in depth analysis as to how dishonest Walt is:

http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/tag/israel-lobby/Impressive read, thanks.

[maw]

Please define or elaborate on what is "undue influence carried by AIPAC"?

Did AIPAC ever break any US laws in regard to its pro-Israel agenda?

And, if not, how is it possible that its influence is inappropriate considering that lobbying by private interest groups is an accepted practice in US politics?

the notion behind a political action committee was to provide organized labor and industry trade groups a conduit to facilitate communication with the government. the feca act of 1971 changed all of that and that's why washington is overrun with lobbyists. i don't feel that it's in any way appropriate for a foreign nation to actively participate in our electoral process. aipac wield a very large stick in washington the details of which are discussed in the walt/mersheimer book. if a foreign power wants to maintain a dialogue with our government they should use the various diplomatic channels our state department provides. they should absolutely not be influencing our policies by pressuring our electorate with the carrot of campaign contributions if they embrace the agenda or the threat of campaign contributions to an opponent if they don't tow the line.

have aipac broken the law in this process? i would refer you to the particularly messy jane harman case. i would also point you to the convictions of steve rosen and keith weissman, both senior aipac officials. i strongly suspect that if the justice department were motivated to dig deep enough charges of treason could be made.

but let's pretend that aipac had not broken any laws and none of it's senior staff had been convicted of spying. lobbying by private interests representing the interests of a foreign nation is completely inappropriate and should be outlawed. let's use the glorious example of us rep. arthur davis, d-birmingham who in 2002 received so much help from pro-israeli pacs that 76% of his campaign budget came from OUTSIDE the state of alabama, mostly from new york. to reiterate, a congressman aipac supported received more money from pro-israel groups outside of his state than from his own constituents inside his state.

our system of politics is fragile enough without this sort of activity.

[deagle]

maybe they did have a key role, but it was counter to extremist islamist decision to execute 9/11 and numerous other terrorist attacks.

[LineDoggie]

Was Harman ever charged with any crime?

[maw]

Let me see, how should I proceed. I did read the article on the complicity of the Israeli lobby also some of your posting history and I am at a conundrum here.
i don't believe that you read it the first time you posted. i believe that you flicked through it and made an ad hoc assumption, you then went back and read it only after i'd asked if you had. i say this based on your response time from the time i posted the link to the time you first replied. icould be wrong but you replied within a minute or so. as for my posting history causing you a conundrum i'm really not sure how to respond, so i won't.


I would suggest that you read the forum rules. I happen to agree with taking Saddam out, So does the Iranians (but probably would not admit it right now), so does the Kuwaitis, and list of other people. Those that supported Saddam, well say people have your interest at heart when you owe them a lot of money and making a lot of money off of the UN Embargo.
The forum rule you should think about is:
4. Remember this is a pro US, pro GWOT board by it's nature and thus some opinions may not be too welcome particularly if the dissenter is hyperbolic or baiting about their beliefs
firstly, i supported the retaliation against al qaida in afghanistan, so if that's the gwot i'm in.
regarding the rule you posted.
my posts have never been anti us, i have been critical of certain policies but there's a difference.
next, i have no idea what the iraq invasion had in common with the gwot, none of the terrorists came from iraq, the link between al qaida and saddam was so tenuous that the german's refused to stand behind it. even w admitted that saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
nothing in my post was hyperbolic, inflammatory or bait worthy. i merely posted a link to an article by a tenured harvard professor in the leading foreign policy journal; the content of which in no way claimed that isreal caused the iraq war. instead the article clarified earlier allegations that isreal and aipac were actively involved in planning and promoting the war. these allegations were at the time hotly denied but according to the article have subsequently come to light.


At least your not saying, it was about the oil. And the article was better written than something from stormfront.
i think you should step back and reassess the position you're taking. you're seriously abusing your position as a moderator. i posted a politically relevant and engaging article published by a peerless foreign policy journal and in your very first response you talk of tin foil hats and then cut and paste copious amounts of irrelevant text. i say irrelevant because the text you pasted had nothing in common with the premise of the article. and now in a subsequent response you reference conspiracies about oil and then stormfront, neither of which were in the article or mentioned by me. could you possibly be more disingenuous? if you don't want to conduct a dialogue on the topic then stay out of it. but bringing tin foil conspiracy nut cases and stormfront into the dialogue only ****s on a viable topic.


Israel has a population slightly larger than the San Francisco bay area, the land mass a little larger too and the GNP of less than .25% of SF Bay Area and they have all that influence over the US government.
irrelevant. i don't know where you're going with this one unless you're dropping another reference to some of that stormfront garbage you mentioned.


Bush did not make a mistake, you are making the mistake.
orly. well when both our kids and grand kids are paying off the $3 trillion that the war in iraq will cost them, they'll be able to sleep well at night knowing that hollis said that w was right.

[maw]

Was Harman ever charged with any crime?

based on some google-fu and what little i can recall, based on the transcripts the doj had concluded that harman had indeed committed a "completed crime," meaning they thought evidence existed that harman had tried to put the scheme into motion. soon after that: then-cia director porter goss reviews the transcript of the call and signs off on the justice department's fisa application. goss also decides he's required to notify then-house Speaker Dennis Hastert and Pelosi, of the impending probe, since it involves a sitting House member.
it appears that soon after that alberto gonzales gets involved and the case gets put on hold. i distinctly remember something about gonzalez getting some political leverage out of the dems for letting hte case go to sleep. an all round messy affair.
here's what i found:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=hsnews-000003098436
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/the_harman-aipac_story_a_timeline.php

[LineDoggie]

But she wasnt ever charged, ergo really you cant claim she committed a crime for AIPAC.

[GB_FXST]

the notion behind a political action committee was to provide organized labor and industry trade groups a conduit to facilitate communication with the government. the feca act of 1971 changed all of that and that's why washington is overrun with lobbyists.

... snip ...



Actually, the concept of lobbies dates back to the inception of the US. James Madison considered lobbies to be a remedy to the problem of factionalism.

I refer you to the Tenth Federalist paper.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm




... snip ...

i don't feel that it's in any way appropriate for a foreign nation to actively participate in our electoral process. aipac wield a very large stick in washington the details of which are discussed in the walt/mersheimer book. if a foreign power wants to maintain a dialogue with our government they should use the various diplomatic channels our state department provides. they should absolutely not be influencing our policies by pressuring our electorate with the carrot of campaign contributions if they embrace the agenda or the threat of campaign contributions to an opponent if they don't tow the line.

... snip ...



Fair enough.

But what about US citizens who are concerned about the welfare of Israel. Is it not their right under US law to organize a lobby group to advocate their interests? Is it any different than US citizens who happen to believe in the sanctity of their Second Amendment rights?

It should also be noted that supporters of Israel are not the only ones who have organized political action committes. There are PAC's for all sorts of countries. A little be of work on google revealed PAC's for Arab countries, Turkey, India, Australia, and the Congo. I suspect that every country on earth has a PAC in the US.

For the record, I am a proud card carrying member of both AIPAC and the NRA.





... snip ...

have aipac broken the law in this process? i would refer you to the particularly messy jane harman case. i would also point you to the convictions of steve rosen and keith weissman, both senior aipac officials. i strongly suspect that if the justice department were motivated to dig deep enough charges of treason could be made.

... snip ...



Neither Rosen or Weissman were convicted. That is, both men are innocent of the charge of espionage.




... snip ...

but let's pretend that aipac had not broken any laws and none of it's senior staff had been convicted of spying. lobbying by private interests representing the interests of a foreign nation is completely inappropriate and should be outlawed. let's use the glorious example of us rep. arthur davis, d-birmingham who in 2002 received so much help from pro-israeli pacs that 76% of his campaign budget came from OUTSIDE the state of alabama, mostly from new york. to reiterate, a congressman aipac supported received more money from pro-israel groups outside of his state than from his own constituents inside his state.

our system of politics is fragile enough without this sort of activity.

I believe that every single lobby in the US is guilty of similiar behavior as that is what lobbies and PAC's do. And if you seek to reform US lobbies, why start with AIPAC, why not start with the true giants, like the National Association of Realtors. AIPAC is small potatoes compared to them.

The emphasis on AIPAC is troubling consider the size and breadth of lobbies and PACs representing everything and everyone under the sun. But good luck if your intent is only PAC/Lobby reform. As with anything else, elimination of lobbies may have unintended adverse effects. So, be careful for what you wish. Do not forget, amongst the myriad of lobbies, there is likely an organization advocating your interests.

[Podman]

maw - After accusing fellow members (a Mod even!) of not reading posts:

"i don't believe that you read it the first time you posted. i believe that you flicked through it and made an ad hoc assumption, you then went back and read it only after i'd asked if you had. i say this based on your response time from the time i posted the link to the time you first replied. icould be wrong but you replied within a minute or so. as for my posting history causing you a conundrum i'm really not sure how to respond, so i won't."

I strongly suggest you read the links in my post above. Walt serially misrepresents and takes things out of context. Unless, as Hollis said, you simply blame the juice for for everything bad in the world. Which would make you a troll.

[sgt_G]

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8182/beerd.jpg

The v ery least I can do - I am about to copy / paste that into file for future epic STFU situations against the hippies.

2495 can I borrow that pic? I'll trade you my popcorn smileys