Sunday, March 08, 2009

Setting it straight for "Prof." Murray Kahl

( A little dust up at the Contra Costa Times)

Let me set this right now "Professor" Murray Kahl.  You sat there in your West Palm Beach apartment with Rush Limbaugh on the radio feeding you Bush warmongering headline rants regarding the inevititability of Saddam Hussein attacking Israel prior to the rape of Iraq by the US and you decided to do your part to kill Arabs by writing this war-mongering nonsense to bring about the war in Iraq in the waning months of 2002.  Directly quoting you now from your website:

"The possibility of an Iraqi preemptive strike against Israel in order to forestall a U.S. strike is not an abstract notion, because - as revealed in Yossef Bodansky's new and deeply insightful book "The High Cost of Peace" - Iraq has already demonstrated its penchant for such dangerous provocations. Indeed, from its very first days in office, the Bush Administration has been tested by Saddam Hussein with risky brinkmanship. Significantly, these Iraqi upsurges were not only in the context of the long standing Saddam-Arafat treaty according to which Iraq will launch a major war against Israel in order to save the Palestinians - with Saddam assuming in the process the long-coveted position of Leader of the Arab World - but as an Iraqi demonstration of defiance and hostility to the new Administration. In mid February 2001, Baghdad put the Bush Administration to its first major test - bringing the Middle East to the verge of a major and potentially nuclear war, while setting the stage for the still escalating U.S. crisis with Iraq." --Murray Kahl, "Israel Prepared for Preemption with Neutron Weapons: Almost went to nuclear war in late February."http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/neutron/neutron.html

Talk about striking out swinging with devastating impotence! None of your visions of Iraqi strength was/is worth a crumb of attention. Those of us who were actually paying attention and watching the news every night saw nothing but a pitiful leader Saddam Hussein who was armed with only a shotgun and surrounded with a 4 1/2 foot stack of documents detailing what had been done in his disarmament of the country.  No airforce.  No weapons of mass destruction.  Hans Blick did a great job in searching along with Scott Ritter for any signs of a military ability to threaten anyone in the region and found absolutely nothing.  

And with a million dead thanks to your contracted warmongering and 7 years of searching for weapons --nothing.  You got the only person who was able to control Iraq hanged by a mob and you can personally account for the daily buckets of body parts which you lobbied for in American and Iraqi blood.  The Israelis are still killing Palestinians with 150-1 kill ratios and the Nakba is still going full bore and you prattle on about your "historical skills".  Let me tell you something Mr Kahl, your "history" is at best a craven interpretive diversion made up of wholesale lies for the benefit of those in apartments in Tel Aviv and the cozy Madoff family of American Jewish Congress and AIPAC reactionaries  like yourself who keep the Nakba alive and deadly.  

One thing you said in a Freudian slip at the end of your screed which reveals the alpha and omega of your take of the situation: "Theforthcoming war with Iraq is therefore a timely culmination of a strategic dynamics virtually as old as the Bush Administration."  October 23, 2002 -Murray Kahl on his website http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/neutron/neutron.html

Well Murray Kahl got his gun...well, well,well, do you feel any better now?  

response by Murray Kahl

I did expect an objective, analytical response, along with specific answers to the historical data I provided that is easily verifiable; however, all I see is politically inspired revisionism, along with old clich├ęs, without foundation in truth. The responses can easily be directed to the dust bin of fictional history.

For example, the term "Old Testament" is part of Christian replacement theology and for the most part not acceptable in any scholarly discussion, yet it is gratuitously tossed out as a response.

I wrote that leaving was the writer's decision and it was. She clearly states that the reason for her leaving were her fears and nothing else. If her fears are justifiable is another discussion and one that must be recognized and not disguised by rambling hyperbole, without any foundation in truth.

Leave the Khazars and the anti-Semitic rants to history and not prove your inability to answer specifics, as all you accomplish is to prove the writers  inability of answering clear and specific charges.

Clarity is a virtue not to be despoiled and to be admired and used whenever possible; this type of response can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog that must be avoided.

response written by Murray Kahl