Make no mistake: Lieberman's AIPAC neo-con allies joined the "Swift Boat" brown-shirt smear-mob against John Kerry in 2004....

<< Fox, 77, is national chairman of the Jewish Republican Coalition and was deemed a "ranger" by Bush's 2004 campaign for raising at least $200,000. He is founder and chairman of the Clayton, Mo.-based Harbour Group, which specializes in the takeover of manufacturing companies.
Fox has donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates and causes since the 1990s
During a confirmation hearing last month, Kerry grilled Fox about why he had given $50,000 to a group that was "smearing and spreading lies" about him. Kerry seemed to be seeking an apology but Fox didn't budge, saying he simply gave when asked.
Big-money contributors are often rewarded with ambassador posts. Contributions to political groups are rarely considered grounds for protest for fear there would be a tit-for-tat when the White House changes parties.

But the chorus of opposition to Fox grew louder a day before the vote was set, when Kerry's Vietnam crew mates sent a letter Tuesday urging committee members to oppose Fox's nomination.

"In our judgment, those who finance smears and lies of combat veterans don't deserve to represent America on the world stage," said the letter signed by 11 Vietnam Swift Boat veterans who served WITH Kerry. >>
______________________________________

Make no mistake: it has taken only 50 or so years for the right-wing elements of the Israel-American (Jewish) lobby to embrace some of the BROWN-SHIRT intimidation and bully tactics that drove Adolf Hitler to power in the 1930s.

It turns out that St. Louis businessman SAM FOX was not only a donor to the SWIFT BOAT VETERANS AGAINST JOHN KERRY in election 2004, but that he was also the Chairman of the Jewish Republican coalition. And while "some may say" that comparing the Swift-boat veterans against Kerry with the para-military Brown-shirts of the early days of the Nazi Party in Germany is a hyperbolic exaggeration, the fact is that the Swiftboat vets against Kerry misled American TV viewers and voters into thinking that their veterans had served WITH John Kerry in combat, on small "Swift-boat" gunboats in the 'brown-water' US Navy efforts up and down South Vietnam rivers during the Vietnam war, when in fact not one of the Swift-boat Vets Against Kerry had ACTUALLY BEEN IN THE SAME UNIT, AT THE SAME TIME,in combat, as then Navy Lt. Kerry. The Swift-boat Vets Against Kerry were more opposed to Kerry's anti-war testimony before the US Senate, when Kerry returned to America from the war, than they were with his actual combat record.

The point being that the Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry came perilously close in arguing, during election 2004, that the ONLY reason the United States "lost" the Vietnam War is because our military had been "STABBED IN THE BACK by cowards and traitors" such as (they claimed) Lt. Kerry had been in his anti-war testimony before Congress.

The SAME DAMN ARGUMENT that the Nazis made in the 1930s, that the ONLY reason Germany lost WWI was because she was "stabbed in the back" by traitors and cowards from within Germany. (In fact, Germany lost that war because she didn't sue for peace when she had a winning hand; almost all combat on the 'Western Front' was on French or Belgian soil; which allowed France, the British empire, and American anglophiles to portray Germany as a ruthless war-mad dictatorship bent on world conquest. Had Germany sued for peace while they were ahead, it would have been difficult for English and French leaders to continue the war. Germany's failure to sue for peace led to eventual American involvement in the war, which economic, military, and industrial efforts added to the Anglo-French alliance finally defeated the German army in late 1918.)

That is, the SWIFT BOAT VETERANS AGAINST KERRY, in 2004, repeated both the tactics of the vicious, deceptive politics of personal destruction ("smearing" a targetted victim); as well as the overall meme "America (Germany) ONLY lost the war, because she was stabbed in the back by traitors within!"

And it is ONLY because Mr. Sam Fox was looking for his reward for helping to FUND that SMEAR MOB - his ambassadorial nominanation to Belgium hitting the news this March 2007 - that we can connect-the-dots on the Jewish Republican Coalition and the Swift-boat Brown-shirt SMEAR MOB.

WHILE Mr. Fox's nomination by President Bush, in reward for helping Mr. Bush 'win' reelection in 2004 may not have anything to do with Senator Lieberman beyond the alliance of the AIPAC neo-cons with the smear-tactics of the Bush administration (which indeed is a strong bond that is seriously under-reported in the AIPAC dominated US press-media); we will point out that perhaps the Bush administration's most outspoken ally in the Senate, SENATOR JAMES INHOFE of Oklahoma, was PROUD to wear the title "HOLOCAUST DENIER" among his many labels:

<< "I have been called -- my kids are aware of this -- dumb, crazy man, science abuser, HOLOCAUST DENIER, villain of the month, hate-filled, warmonger, Neanderthal, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun. And I can just tell you that I wear some of those titles proudly." >>

THANK YOU, Mr. Fox and Senator Lieberman, for making it necessary for us to write this blog, documenting your own support for the radical-right agenda (Senator Inhofe's comment and link, above, a text-book exposition of the radical right-wing agenda in America) that is only 1/2 step away from being as blatantly anti-semitic as it is anti-voter's rights and anti-civil rights. Indeed, the neo-con wet-dream "P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act" is almost indentical, in many respects, with the ENABLING ACTS passed by the German parliament to allow Chancellor Hitler to bypass parliament and due process when confronting "Germany's enemies." But that is another story we will have to continue the next time Senator Lieberman and his AIPAC allies make it necessary for us to document the parrallels between America's "war on terror" in 2007 and Germany's war against "enemies" foreign and domestic in the 1930s.
_______________________________________

White House withdraws ambassador nominee
By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer
Wed Mar 28, 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/ap_on_go_pr_wh/kerry_swift_boat;_ylt=ApKLk_dJrKYG3jfoRsmtcrfMWM0F


WASHINGTON - More than two years after losing his bid for the White House, Democratic Sen. John Kerry exacted a measure of revenge against his political foes Wednesday by helping derail the diplomatic nomination of a Republican fundraiser.

President Bush withdrew the nomination of St. Louis businessman Sam Fox to be ambassador to Belgium after Democrats denounced Fox for his 2004 donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

The group's TV ads, which claimed that Kerry, D-Mass., exaggerated his military record in Vietnam, were viewed as a major factor in Kerry losing the election.

Bush's action was announced quietly minutes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was to have voted on the nomination.

"His nomination would not have passed today if the vote had been called up," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

During a confirmation hearing last month, Kerry grilled Fox about why he had given $50,000 to a group that was "smearing and spreading lies" about him. Kerry seemed to be seeking an apology but Fox didn't budge, saying he simply gave when asked.

"Sam Fox had every opportunity to disavow the politics of personal destruction and to embrace the truth," Kerry said Wednesday. "He chose not to. The White House made the right decision to withdraw the nomination. I hope this signals a new day in political discourse."

Fox, 77, is national chairman of the Jewish Republican Coalition and was deemed a "ranger" by Bush's 2004 campaign for raising at least $200,000. He is founder and chairman of the Clayton, Mo.-based Harbour Group, which specializes in the takeover of manufacturing companies.

Fox has donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates and causes since the 1990s.

Big-money contributors are often rewarded with ambassador posts. Contributions to political groups are rarely considered grounds for protest for fear there would be a tit-for-tat when the White House changes parties.

But the chorus of opposition to Fox grew louder a day before the vote was set, when Kerry's Vietnam crew mates sent a letter Tuesday urging committee members to oppose Fox's nomination.

"In our judgment, those who finance smears and lies of combat veterans don't deserve to represent America on the world stage," said the letter signed by 11 Vietnam Swift Boat veterans who served with Kerry.

Fueling the political undertones was the presence of three Democratic presidential hopefuls on the committee — the chairman, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.; and Sens. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

"I had serious concerns about Mr. Fox's candor, judgment and qualifications for this important post, and I am pleased that the Bush administration acknowledged that it would not be able to muster the votes to confirm his nomination," Obama said.

Even after the Feb. 27 confirmation hearing, Kerry gave Fox an opportunity to show contrition in responses to several written follow-up questions. Fox insisted he did not know how his money would be spent or exactly what message the Swift Boats were pushing.

"I did it because politically it's necessary if the other side's doing it," Fox told Kerry

Surprise Surprise! Joe "treachery" Lieberman votes against Democrats... for Abu Ghraib, torture, corruption, and blank check for Bush-Cheney war...

<< After weeks of setbacks on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid said the moment was at hand to "send a message to President Bush that the time has come to find a new way forward in this intractable war."

But Republicans - and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent Democrat - argued otherwise. >>


Senate Signals Support for Iraq Timeline
DAVID ESPO AP
March 27, 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070327/us-iraq


WASHINGTON — The Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March, triggering an instant veto threat from the White House in a deepening dispute between Congress and commander in chief.

Republican attempts to scuttle the nonbinding timeline failed, 50-48, largely along party lines.

The vote marked the Senate's most forceful challenge to date of the administration's handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops. It came days after the House approved a binding withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, and increased the likelihood of a veto confrontation this spring.

After weeks of setbacks on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid said the moment was at hand to "send a message to President Bush that the time has come to find a new way forward in this intractable war."

"It is a choice between staying the course in Iraq or changing the course in Iraq," he said.

But Republicans _ and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent Democrat _ argued otherwise.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a presidential hopeful, said "we are starting to turn things around" in the Iraq war, and added that critics "conceive no failure as worse than remaining in Iraq and no success worthy of additional sacrifice. They are wrong."

Bush had previously said he would veto any bill that he deemed an attempt to micromanage the war, and the White House freshened the threat a few hours before the vote _ and again afterward. "The president is disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law," it said.

Similar legislation drew only 48 votes in the Senate earlier this month, but Democratic leaders made a change that persuaded Nebraska's Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson to swing behind the measure.

Additionally, GOP Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon sided with the Democrats, assuring them of the majority they needed to turn back a challenge led by Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. "The president's strategy is taking America deeper and deeper into this quagmire with no exit strategy," said Hagel, the most vocal Republican critic of the war in Congress.

Vice President Dick Cheney traveled to the Capitol in case his vote was needed to break a tie, a measure of the importance the administration places on the issue.

The debate came on legislation that provides $122 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as domestic priorities such relief to hurricane victims and payments to farmers. Final passage is expected Wednesday or Thursday.

Separately, a minimum wage increase was attached to the spending bill without controversy, along with companion tax cuts that the Republicans have demanded as the price for their support of the increase in the federal wage floor. The House and Senate have passed different versions of the minimum wage-tax package, but they have yet to reach a compromise.

The House has already passed legislation requiring troops to be withdrawn by Sept. 1, 2008. The Senate vote assured that the Democratic-controlled Congress would send Bush legislation later this spring that calls for a change in war policy. A veto appears to be a certainty.

That would put the onus back on the Democrats, who would have to decide how long they wanted to extend the test of wills in the face of what are likely to be increasingly urgent statements from the administration that the money is needed for troops in the war zone.

"I hope he will work with us so we can come up with something agreeable for both" sides, Reid said at a post-vote news conference. "But I'm not anxious to strip anything out of the bill."

As drafted, the legislation requires a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with a nonbinding goal that calls for the combat troops to be gone within a year.

The measure also includes a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly _ provisions designed to attract support from Nelson and Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Despite the change, Pryor voted with Republicans, saying he would only support a timeline if the date were secret.

The vote was a critical test for Reid and the new Democratic majority in the Senate nearly three months after they took power. Despite several attempts, they had yet to win approval for any legislation challenging Bush's policies.

Republicans prevented debate over the winter on nonbinding measures critical of Bush's decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops. That led to the 50-48 vote derailing of a bill that called for a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days but set only a nonbinding target of March 31, 2008, for the departure of the final combat forces.

Some Democrats said they would support the nonbinding timetable even though they wanted more. "I want a deadline not only for commencing the withdrawal of our forces but also completing it rather than a target date," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

"This provision represents a 90-degree change of course from the president's policy of escalation in the middle of a civil war," he said. "I'm confident once the withdrawal of our troops begins there will be no turning back."

Lieberman, who won a new term last fall in a three-way race after losing the Democratic nomination to an anti-war insurgent, depicted the vote as a turning point. He said the effect of the timeline would be to "snatch defeat from the jaws of progress in Iraq."