War Without End

Alpha

Radical JINSA Zionists at Pentagon to Control US-Occupied Iraq:

Looks like the radical JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist Jews of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz will be calling the shots in US-occupied Iraq (they have been manipulating Bush like a puppet for their Zionist and oil driven war on Islam beginning with the invasion of Iraq):

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/03022206.htm

International

Bush signs secret directive on Iraq

Washington, Feb 2. (PTI): Confirmation that US war planning for Iraq has reached its final phase is contained in a secret National Security Presidential Directive recently signed by President George W. Bush putting Pentagon in charge not only of the military campaign but also the immediate political aftermath of post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, according to a leading American daily. This means emphasis on unified authority, said Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is expected to apply the recent lessons of Afghanistan to both phases. A senior civilian political adviser will report to General Tommy Franks, the theatre commander for the war and now Rumsfeld's designated person in charge in Iraq when the shooting stops. The President's intent in making this designation now, says Washington Post is to halt jockeying between the Pentagon and the State Department over Iraq's future. Hoagland also reports that some troops under Pentagon control are already undertaking preparatory operations inside Iraq from facilities in Jordan and Turkey. US commanders have in recent weeks also loosened rules of engagement for pilots enforcing the "no fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq, where US and British planes enforce a no-fly zone. American fliers are now destroying Iraq air defence units in and near those zones pretty much at will to clear the way for the war's opening hours.

Forwarded:

JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' before Bush Presidency:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php

PNAC Group: The List of Players:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/31/pnac-group-the-list-of-players.php

Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/28/too-many-smoking-guns-to-ignore-israel-us-jews-iraq.php

Oil Shouldn't Be the Only Reason for Opposing This War:

http://www.counterpunch.com/christison01212003.html:

Washington Post article: Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty (US Double Standard with Iraq):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uss-liberty/2003/02/01/the-attack-on-the-uss-liberty.php

The US (UN) double standard for Israel is completely unjust (especially when it comes to Israeli weapons of mass destruction):

Iraq Turns Spotlight on Israel at U.N. Arms Body:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/31/iraq-turns-spotlight-on-israel-at-u-n-arms-body.php

Bush is intent on painting allies and enemies in the Middle East as evil:

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011

By Robert Fisk

10 September 2002

Just as Americans are recovering from the harrowing television re-runs of the 11 September attacks, their President is going to launch the biggest reshaping of the Middle East since the British and French parcelled out the Arab lands after the 1914-18 war. When he addresses the United Nations on Thursday, George Bush will be threatening not only Iraq – which had absolutely nothing to do with the crimes against humanity in New York and Washington – but Syria, Iran and, by extension, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.The Syrian Accountability Act, which accuses Damascus of supporting "terrorism", will come into force as President Bush is speaking and will follow only days after the State Department branded the Lebanese Hizbollah as the "A-team of terrorism", more dangerous even than Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida. Like Iraq, the Hizbollah had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks – indeed, they were among the first to condemn them – but the White House now seems set on painting allies and enemies alike in the Middle East as a focus of evil.Only The Nation among all of America's newspapers and magazines has dared to point out that a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working within the American administration and the Bush plans for the Middle East – which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world – fit perfectly into Israel's own dreams for the region. The magazine listed Vice-President Dick Cheney – the arch-hawk in the US administration – and John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for Arms Control, with Douglas Feith, the third most senior executive at the Pentagon, as members of the advisory board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) before joining the Bush government. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is still an adviser on the institute, as is the former CIA director James Woolsey.Michael Ledeen, described by The Nation as "one of the most influential 'Jinsans' in Washington" has been calling for "total war" against "terror" – with "regime change" for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Mr Perle advises the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld – who refers to the West Bank and Gaza as "the so-called occupied territories" – and arranged the anti-Saudi "kernel of evil" briefing by Laurent Murawiec that so outraged the Saudi royal family last month. The Saudi regime may itself be in great danger as the princes of the House of Saud attempt to seize more power for themselves in advance of the depart-ure of the dying King Fahd. Jinsa's website says it exists to "inform the American defence and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East". Next month, Michael Rubin of the right-wing and pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute – who referred to the outgoing UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson as an abettor of "terrorism" – joins the US Defence Department as an Iran-Iraq "expert".According to The Nation, Irving Moskovitz, the California bingo magnate who has funded settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is a donor as well as a director of Jinsa. President Bush, of course, will not be talking about the influence of these pro-Israeli lobbyists when he presents his vision of the Middle East at the United Nations on Thursday. Nor will he give the slightest indication that the region is, in the words of its own kings and dictators, a powder keg of resentment and anger. The tectonic plates of the Arab world are now grinding with increasing violence. Into this political earthquake zone, Mr Bush now seems intent on leading his country, with his loyal British ally. Most of today's Arab nations were fashioned out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France in the aftermath of the First World War – and Palestinians still blame Britain today for supporting the formation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Both European nations stationed tens of thousands of troops across the region, suppressing Arab revolts in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon – itself created by the French at the request of its Christian Maronite community. The whole colonial framework led to the loss of tens of thousands of lives before both the British and French retreated from the Middle East.Now President Bush seems set on following the colonial powers into the region for another military and political adventure – ostensibly to spread "democracy" among those nations it most despises (Iraq, Palestine and Iran) but in fact more likely to increase American control of an increasingly anti-Western Arab world.The Arabs themselves warn that this will lead to massive instability and widespread violence. The Israelis – and their allies in the US administration – are hell bent on the whole shebang.

Included below is that "Men from JINSA and CSP" article from "The Nation" magazine which Mr. Fisk mentions in his article referenced above:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1

The Men From JINSA and CSP

by JASON VEST

[from the September 2, 2002 issue of "The Nation" magazine in the USA]

The Men From JINSA and CSP

by JASON VEST

[from the September 2, 2002 issue]

Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power. Just as the right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a shadow defense establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too, did the right during the Clinton years, in part through two organizations: the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP). And just as was the case two decades ago, dozens of their members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. Industrious and persistent, they've managed to weave a number of issues--support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general--into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core. On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war--not just with Iraq, but "total war," as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, "regime change" by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative. Anyone who dissents--be it Colin Powell's State Department, the CIA or career military officers--is committing heresy against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East--a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action. For example, the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board--chaired by JINSA/CSP adviser and former Reagan Administration Defense Department official Richard Perle, and stacked with advisers from both groups--recently made news by listening to a briefing that cast Saudi Arabia as an enemy to be brought to heel through a number of potential mechanisms, many of which mirror JINSA's recommendations, and which reflect the JINSA/CSP crowd's preoccupation with Egypt. (The final slide of the Defense Policy Board presentation proposed that "Grand Strategy for the Middle East" should concentrate on "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot [and] Egypt as the prize.") Ledeen has been leading the charge for regime change in Iran, while old comrades like Andrew Marshall and Harold Rhode in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment actively tinker with ways to re-engineer both the Iranian and Saudi governments. JINSA is also cheering the US military on as it tries to secure basing rights in the strategic Red Sea country of Eritrea, happily failing to mention that the once-promising secular regime of President Isaiais Afewerki continues to slide into the kind of repressive authoritarianism practiced by the "axis of evil" and its adjuncts. Indeed, there are some in military and intelligence circles who have taken to using "axis of evil" in reference to JINSA and CSP, along with venerable repositories of hawkish thinking like the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute, as well as defense contractors, conservative foundations and public relations entities underwritten by far-right American Zionists (all of which help to underwrite JINSA and CSP). It's a milieu where ideology and money seamlessly blend: "Whenever you see someone identified in print or on TV as being with the Center for Security Policy or JINSA championing a position on the grounds of ideology or principle--which they are unquestionably doing with conviction--you are, nonetheless, not informed that they're also providing a sort of cover for other ideologues who just happen to stand to profit from hewing to the Likudnik and Pax Americana lines," says a veteran intelligence officer. He notes that while the United States has begun a phaseout of civilian aid to Israel that will end by 2007, government policy is to increase military aid by half the amount of civilian aid that's cut each year--which is not only a boon to both the US and Israeli weapons industries but is also crucial to realizing the far right's vision for missile defense and the Middle East. Founded in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that the United States might not be able to provide Israel with adequate military supplies in the event of another Arab-Israeli war, over the past twenty-five years JINSA has gone from a loose-knit proto-group to a $1.4-million-a-year operation with a formidable array of Washington power players on its rolls. Until the beginning of the current Bush Administration, JINSA's board of advisers included such heavy hitters as Dick Cheney, John Bolton (now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control) and Douglas Feith, the third-highest-ranking executive in the Pentagon. Both Perle and former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, two of the loudest voices in the attack-Iraq chorus, are still on the board, as are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eugene Rostow and Ledeen--Oliver North's Iran/contra liaison with the Israelis. According to its website, JINSA exists to "educate the American public about the importance of an effective US defense capability so that our vital interests as Americans can be safeguarded" and to "inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East." In practice, this translates into its members producing a steady stream of op-eds and reports that have been good indicators of what the Pentagon's civilian leadership is thinking. JINSA relishes denouncing virtually any type of contact between the US government and Syria and finding new ways to demonize the Palestinians. To give but one example (and one that kills two birds with one stone): According to JINSA, not only is Yasir Arafat in control of all violence in the occupied territories, but he orchestrates the violence solely "to protect Saddam.... Saddam is at the moment Arafat's only real financial supporter.... [Arafat] has no incentive to stop the violence against Israel and allow the West to turn its attention to his mentor and paymaster." And if there's a way to advance other aspects of the far-right agenda by intertwining them with Israeli interests, JINSA doesn't hesitate there, either. A recent report contends that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge must be tapped because "the Arab oil-producing states" are countries "with interests inimical to ours," but Israel "stand[s] with us when we need [Israel]," and a US policy of tapping oil under ANWR will "limit [the Arabs'] ability to do damage to either of us." The bulk of JINSA's modest annual budget is spent on taking a bevy of retired US generals and admirals to Israel, where JINSA facilitates meetings between Israeli officials and the still-influential US flag officers, who, upon their return to the States, happily write op-eds and sign letters and advertisements championing the Likudnik line. (Sowing seeds for the future, JINSA also takes US service academy cadets to Israel each summer and sponsors a lecture series at the Army, Navy and Air Force academies.) In one such statement, issued soon after the outbreak of the latest intifada, twenty-six JINSAns of retired flag rank, including many from the advisory board, struck a moralizing tone, characterizing Palestinian violence as a "perversion of military ethics" and holding that "America's role as facilitator in this process should never yield to America's responsibility as a friend to Israel," as "friends don't leave friends on the battlefield." However high-minded this might sound, the postservice associations of the letter's signatories--which are almost always left off the organization's website and communiqués--ought to require that the phrase be amended to say "friends don't leave friends on the battlefield, especially when there's business to be done and bucks to be made." Almost every retired officer who sits on JINSA's board of advisers or has participated in its Israel trips or signed a JINSA letter works or has worked with military contractors who do business with the Pentagon and Israel. While some keep a low profile as self-employed "consultants" and avoid mention of their clients, others are less shy about their associations, including with the private mercenary firm Military Professional Resources International, weapons broker and military consultancy Cypress International and SY Technology, whose main clients include the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, which oversees several ongoing joint projects with Israel. The behemoths of military contracting are also well represented in JINSA's ranks. For example, JINSA advisory board members Adm. Leon Edney, Adm. David Jeremiah and Lieut. Gen. Charles May, all retired, have served Northrop Grumman or its subsidiaries as either consultants or board members. Northrop Grumman has built ships for the Israeli Navy and sold F-16 avionics and E-2C Hawkeye planes to the Israeli Air Force (as well as the Longbow radar system to the Israeli army for use in its attack helicopters). It also works with Tamam, a subsidiary of Israeli Aircraft Industries, to produce an unmanned aerial vehicle. Lockheed Martin has sold more than $2 billion worth of F-16s to Israel since 1999, as well as flight simulators, multiple-launch rocket systems and Seahawk heavyweight torpedoes. At one time or another, General May, retired Lieut. Gen. Paul Cerjan and retired Adm. Carlisle Trost have labored in LockMart's vineyards. Trost has also sat on the board of General Dynamics, whose Gulfstream subsidiary has a $206 million contract to supply planes to Israel to be used for "special electronics missions." By far the most profitably diversified of the JINSAns is retired Adm. David Jeremiah. President and partner of Technology Strategies & Alliances Corporation (described as a "strategic advisory firm and investment banking firm engaged primarily in the aerospace, defense, telecommunications and electronics industries"), Jeremiah also sits on the boards of Northrop Grumman's Litton subsidiary and of defense giant Alliant Techsystems, which--in partnership with Israel's TAAS--does a brisk business in rubber bullets. And he has a seat on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, chaired by Perle. About the only major defense contractor without a presence on JINSA's advisory board is Boeing, which has had a relationship with Israeli Aircraft Industries for thirty years. (Boeing also sells F-15s to Israel and, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, Apache attack helicopters, a ubiquitous weapon in the occupied territories.) But take a look at JINSA's kindred spirit in things pro-Likud and pro-Star Wars, the Center for Security Policy, and there on its national security advisory council are Stanley Ebner, a former Boeing executive; Andrew Ellis, vice president for government relations; and Carl Smith, a former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee who, as a lawyer in private practice, has counted Boeing among his clients. "JINSA and CSP," says a veteran Pentagon analyst, "may as well be one and the same." Not a hard sell: There's always been considerable overlap beween the JINSA and CSP rosters--JINSA advisers Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle and Phyllis Kaminsky also serve on CSP's advisory council; current JINSA advisory board chairman David Steinmann sits on CSP's board of directors; and before returning to the Pentagon Douglas Feith served as the board's chair. At this writing, twenty-two CSP advisers--including additional Reagan-era remnants like Elliott Abrams, Ken deGraffenreid, Paula Dobriansky, Sven Kraemer, Robert Joseph, Robert Andrews and J.D. Crouch--have reoccupied key positions in the national security establishment, as have other true believers of more recent vintage. While CSP boasts an impressive advisory list of hawkish luminaries, its star is Frank Gaffney, its founder, president and CEO. A protégé of Perle going back to their days as staffers for the late Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (a k a the Senator from Boeing, and the Senate's most zealous champion of Israel in his day), Gaffney later joined Perle at the Pentagon, only to be shown the door by Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci in 1987, not long after Perle left. Gaffney then reconstituted the latest incarnation of the Committee on the Present Danger. Beyond compiling an A-list of influential conservative hawks, Gaffney has been prolific over the past fifteen years, churning out a constant stream of reports (as well as regular columns for the Washington Times) making the case that the gravest threats to US national security are China, Iraq, still-undeveloped ballistic missiles launched by rogue states, and the passage of or adherence to virtually any form of arms control treaty. Gaffney and CSP's prescriptions for national security have been fairly simple: Gut all arms control treaties, push ahead with weapons systems virtually everyone agrees should be killed (such as the V-22 Osprey), give no quarter to the Palestinians and, most important, go full steam ahead on just about every national missile defense program. (CSP was heavily represented on the late-1990s Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, which was instrumental in keeping the program alive during the Clinton years.) Looking at the center's affiliates, it's not hard to see why: Not only are makers of the Osprey (Boeing) well represented on the CSP's board of advisers but so too is Lockheed Martin (by vice president for space and strategic missiles Charles Kupperman and director of defense systems Douglas Graham). Former TRW executive Amoretta Hoeber is also a CSP adviser, as is former Congressman and Raytheon lobbyist Robert Livingston. Ball Aerospace & Technologies--a major manufacturer of NASA and Pentagon satellites--is represented by former Navy Secretary John Lehman, while missile-defense computer systems maker Hewlett-Packard is represented by George Keyworth, who is on its board of directors. And the Congressional Missile Defense Caucus and Osprey (or "tilt rotor") caucus are represented by Representative Curt Weldon and Senator Jon Kyl. CSP was instrumental in developing the arguments against the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Largely ignored or derided at the time, a 1995 CSP memo co-written by Douglas Feith holding that the United States should withdraw from the ABM treaty has essentially become policy, as have other CSP reports opposing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the International Criminal Court. But perhaps the most insightful window on the JINSA/CSP policy worldview comes in the form of a paper Perle and Feith collaborated on in 1996 with six others under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Essentially an advice letter to ascendant Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" makes for insightful reading as a kind of US-Israeli neoconservative manifesto. The paper's first prescription was for an Israeli rightward economic shift, with tax cuts and a selloff of public lands and enterprises--moves that would also engender support from a "broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders." But beyond economics, the paper essentially reads like a blueprint for a mini-cold war in the Middle East, advocating the use of proxy armies for regime changes, destabilization and containment. Indeed, it even goes so far as to articulate a way to advance right-wing Zionism by melding it with missile-defense advocacy. "Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state," it reads. "Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel's survival, but it would broaden Israel's base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense"--something that has the added benefit of being "helpful in the effort to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem." Recent months in Washington have shown just how influential the notions propagated by JINSA and CSP are--and how disturbingly zealous their advocates are. In early March Feith vainly attempted to get the CIA to keep former intelligence officers Milt Bearden and Frank Anderson from accepting an invitation to an Afghanistan-related meeting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon--not because of what the two might say about Afghanistan, according to sources familiar with the incident, but likely out of fear that Anderson, a veteran Arabist and former chief of the CIA's Near East division, would proffer his views on Iraq (opposed to invading) and Israel-Palestine (a fan of neither Arafat nor Sharon). In late June, after United Press International reported on a US Muslim civil liberties group's lambasting of Gaffney for his attacks on the American Muslim Council, Gaffney, according to a fellow traveler, "went berserk," launching a stream of invective about the UPI scribe who reported the item. It's incidents like this, say knowledgeable observers and participants, that highlight an interesting dynamic among right-wing hawks at the moment. Though the general agenda put forth by JINSA and CSP continues to be reflected in councils of war, even some of the hawks (including Rumsfeld deputy Paul Wolfowitz) are growing increasingly leery of Israel's settlements policy and Gaffney's relentless support for it. Indeed, his personal stock in Bush Administration circles is low. "Gaffney has worn out his welcome by being an overbearing gadfly rather than a serious contributor to policy," says a senior Pentagon political official. Since earlier this year, White House political adviser Karl Rove has been casting about for someone to start a new, more mainstream defense group that would counter the influence of CSP. According to those who have communicated with Rove on the matter, his quiet efforts are in response to complaints from many conservative activists who feel let down by Gaffney, or feel he's too hard on President Bush. "A lot of us have taken [Gaffney] at face value over the years," one influential conservative says. "Yet we now know he's pushed for some of the most flawed missile defense and conventional systems. He considered Cuba a 'classic asymmetric threat' but not Al Qaeda. And since 9/11, he's been less concerned with the threat to America than to Israel." Gaffney's operation has always been a small one, about $1 million annually--funded largely by a series of grants from the conservative Olin, Bradley and various Scaife foundations, as well as some defense contractor money--but he's recently been able to underwrite a TV and print ad campaign holding that the Palestinians should be Enemy Number One in the War on Terror, still obsessed with the destruction of Israel. It's here that one sees the influence not of defense contractor money but of far-right Zionist dollars, including some from Irving Moskowitz, the California bingo magnate. A donor to both CSP and JINSA (as well as a JINSA director), Moskowitz not only sends millions of dollars a year to far-right Israeli settler groups like Ateret Cohanim but he has also funded the construction of settlements, having bought land for development in key Arab areas around Jerusalem. Moskowitz ponied up the money that enabled the 1996 reopening of a tunnel under the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, which resulted in seventy deaths due to rioting. Also financing Gaffney's efforts is New York investment banker Lawrence Kadish. A valued and valuable patron of both the Republican National Committee and George W. Bush, Kadish helps underwrite CSP as well as Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, an offshoot of conservative activist William Bennett's Empower America, on which he and Gaffney serve as "senior advisers" in the service of identifying "external" and "internal" post-9/11 threats to America. (The "internal" threats, as articulated by AVOT, include former President Jimmy Carter, Harper's editor Lewis Lapham and Representative Maxine Waters.) Another of Gaffney's backers is Poju Zabludowicz, heir to a formidable diversified international empire that includes arms manufacturer Soltam--which once employed Perle--and benefactor of the recently established Britain Israel Communication and Research Centre, a London-based group that appears to equate reportage or commentary uncomplimentary to Zionism with anti-Semitism. While a small but growing number of conservatives are voicing concerns about various aspects of foreign and defense policy--ranging from fear of overreach to lack of Congressional debate--the hawks seem to be ruling the roost. Beginning in October, hard-line American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin (to Rubin, outgoing UN human rights chief Mary Robinson is an abettor of terrorism) arrives at the Pentagon to take over the Defense Department's Iran-Iraq account, adding another voice to the Pentagon section of Ledeen's "total war" chorus. Colin Powell's State Department continues to take a beating from outside and inside--including Bolton and his special assistant David Wurmser. (An AEI scholar and far-right Zionist who's married to Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute--recently the subject of a critical investigation by London Guardian Middle East editor Brian Whitaker--Wurmser played a key role in crafting the "Arafat must go" policy that many career specialists see as a problematic sop to Ariel Sharon.) As for Rumsfeld, based on comments made at a Pentagon "town hall" meeting on August 6, there seems to be little doubt as to whose comments are resonating most with him--and not just on missile defense and overseas adventures: After fielding a question about Israeli-Palestinian issues, he repeatedly referred to the "so-called occupied territories" and casually characterized the Israeli policy of building Jewish-only enclaves on Palestinian land as "mak[ing] some settlement in various parts of the so-called occupied area," with which Israel can do whatever it wants, as it has "won" all its wars with various Arab entities--essentially an echo of JINSA's stated position that "there is no Israeli occupation." Ominously, Rumsfeld's riff gave a ranking Administration official something of a chill: "I realized at that point," he said, "that on settlements--where there are cleavages on the right--Wolfowitz may be to the left of Rumsfeld."

Turkey, Israel and the US (JINSA Zionist Extremists Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz mentioned in this article as well):

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest20020823

Additional URL links taken from the "Israel" and "UK Involvement in War" message boards which one can get to by clicking on "War on Terror" after arriving at the following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk

JINSA Zionist Extremist Richard Perle : 'Inspections Or Not, We'll Attack Iraq':

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/24/zionist-richard-perle-inspections-or-not-we-ll-attack-iraq.php

The Threat of "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) in Israel and Palestine (when the US Invasion of Iraq Gets Underway):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/15/the-threat-of-transfer-in-israel-and-palestine.php

JINSA Zionist planned Iraq 'regime change' before Bush became President:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php

Beyond Regime Change, New 'Old' Sykes-Picot agreement:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/20/beyond-regime-change-new-old-sykes-picot-agreement.php

THE REAL REASONS THE US WILL INVADE IRAQ:

http://www.rense.com/general33/real.htm

Bush Rejects Aid to States but Will Flow Billions to Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/12/bush-rejects-aid-to-states-but-will-flow-billions-to-israel.php

Robert Fisk: America's case for war is built on blindness, hypocrisy and lies:

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=333275

Thousands of Suicide Attackers to Confront US Troops:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=374850

Did Israel deliberately allow 241 American Marines to die?:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/02/did-israel-deliberately-allow-241-american-marines-to-die.php

http://www.

U.S. + ISRAEL + U.K. TO ENFORCE 'New World Order':

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/29/u-s-israel-u-k-to-enforce-new-world-order.php

WORLD REBELS AGAINST AMERICA:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/27/world-rebels-against-america.php

Top Labour figures issue warning to Blair:

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=374792

Robert Fisk: Looming War is about OIL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/20/robert-fisk-looming-war-is-about-oil.php

Israel message board:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/index.php

War Without End Message Board (Click on "War on Terror" after Arriving to get to the Israel and UK Involvement in War message boards):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk

Alpha

Alpha

Sustainer Forums Login:
> https://www.zmag.org/sustainers/forums
>
> Today's commentary:
> http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-02/03herman.cfm
>
> ==================================
>
> ZNet Commentary
> The Manufactured And Real Iraq Crisis February 03, 2003
> By Edward Herman
>
> With enough power and chutzpah it is possible for an aggressive and
over-armed state to manufacture a crisis and pretend that the crisis lies
with the threatened victim rather than with the aggressor state. Today, the
United States has not only manufactured one crisis but two: The first is
Saddam Hussein's alleged failure to disarm; the second is North Korea's
attempt to acquire nuclear arms.
>
> The first REAL crisis is the determination of the United States to attack
Iraq, depose Saddam Hussein, and establish a dependent regime in that
country, AND the failure of the "international community" to oppose this
blatant plan of aggression in violation of the UN Charter. The second REAL
crisis is the failure of the international community to vigorously contest
the Bush administration's announced plans to militarize space, to abandon
the Nuclear Test Ban and Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties, to threaten
preemptive wars to stifle challenges to its domination, and to refine and
possibly use nuclear weapons. North Korea's nuclear plans clearly follow in
the wake of those developments, along with the U.S. inclusion of North Korea
in the "axis of evil," so that the North Korean "threat" is derivative and
miniscule in comparison with that posed by the big bully.
>
> There is a third REAL threat attributable to the big bully, namely the
ongoing serious ethnic cleansing being carried out by Israeli leaders in
Palestine, in violation of international law and in opposition to a global
consensus. This deadly process has intensifed under the protection of the
Bush administration's carte blanche to "man of peace" Ariel Sharon and the
diversion provided by the Iraq "crisis," and it may escalate further under
the cover of the U.S. attack on Iraq. This third real threat is closely tied
to the first, not only operationally but in terms of intent, as numerous
high Bush administration officials have "dual loyalties" and are at least
partially serving Likud-Israeli interests.
>
> In the propaganda outpourings of the Bush administration, however, their
"patience" with Saddam Hussein has run out and, given his "growing menace"
(Bush), he must be removed by force. This "crisis" has been completely
contrived by Bush officials, just as the Guatemala crisis of 1954--based on
alleged Soviet proxy aggression!--was fabricated. Every Bush administration
argument is false or irrelevant, and the "international community" is once
again having to expend much effort trying to appease and contain the bully.
However, that community has not had the guts to straightforwardly oppose
him, and the puny efforts to appease via a revised inspections system have
actually given him further weaponry--he has "gone along" with the
inspections, so what more can be asked of him before he does what he planned
to do anyway?
>
> That Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) threaten U.S. national
security is laughable--even if he has a few such weapons (unproven), he has
no delivery systems that could reach the United States and he may not wish
to commit suicide. On the other hand, U.S. WMD not only threaten Iraq but
anybody else who crosses the administration, which has even announced an
intention to preemptively attack enemies of choice and to ignore
international law.
>
> Saddam Hussein does pose a threat to his neighbors, but much less so than
Israel, which has more powerful armed forces and, even more important, is
under the protection of the United States, which has sanctioned numerous
Israeli attacks on neighbors, systematic ethnic cleansing in the occupied
territories, and Israel's acquisition of a large WMD arsenal. Saddam can't
make a move across borders because the United States is waiting to pounce;
but Israel can do so because the United States regularly vetoes any
condemnation of Israeli invasions and would not abide an attempt to halt
Israel by force. Saddam was generously supplied with WMD by the United
States and Britain in the 1980s when he was fighting Iran, so apparently his
possession of them is not inherently threatening, but only when not serving
approved U.S.-British ends. It is well-known--though not reported and
reflected on in the U.S. media--that the United States seized the 12,000
page Iraq report on its WMD in order!
> to remove some 8,000 pages that detailed U.S. and other Western company
and official provision of WMD to Iraq in earlier years. Leaving that
material in would have shown U.S. approval of the weapons whose possession
is now deemed a huge menace, demonstrating that the pretense of menace is
blatant hypocrisy.
>
> Since the 1980s, and under the impact of war, sanctions and the
inspections regime, Iraq's military capability and WMD have been drastically
reduced, with high level inspectors claiming that at least 90-95 percent of
Saddam's stocks of chemical weapons have been destroyed, and the IAEA
contending in 1998--and as recently as January 27, 2003--that he has no
nuclear weapons or meaningful nuclear weapons program (Bush's contention in
his State of the Union Message that Saddam "had" such a program and "was
working" on methods of enriching uranium is therefore misleading if not
outright lying). Saddam's "threat" must therefore be much much smaller than
in the period when he was using WMD with U.S. and British approval. That he
now poses a "growing menace" justifying a war is therefore a
misrepresentation of fact and a cover for a semi-hidden agenda.
>
> There is also the claim that Saddam Hussein has produced a "crisis" by his
failure to cooperate with the inspection system, disarm, and obey Security
Council rulings. But the inspection system, like the "sanctions of mass
destruction," has always been a U.S.-British mechanism for punishing Iraq
until there was a "regime change." Numerous U.S. officials have said that
the sanctions would not be lifted until Saddam is removed. This has been a
violation of the original settlement agreement of 1991, which called for
terminable inspections and made no mention of required regime change. All
participants except the United States and Britain have felt that a 90-95
percent WMD removal sufficed; and it is worth repeating that the partners
who have disagreed are the ones who most lavishly supplied Iraq with those
weapons in the 1980s, and opposed any condemnations of Saddam for using
them!
>
> The legal basis of the charges against Iraq is therefore fatally
compromised by the fact of multiple U.S. and British violations of the terms
of Security Council Resolution 687--including, in addition to imposing the
illict objective of regime change, the use of inspections for locating
non-WMD miitary targets (recently acknowledged by longtime Executive
Chairman of UNSCOM, Rolf Ekeus), the unauthorized "no-fly zone" patrols and
attacks, and the transformation of the sanctions system into a mode of
punishment of an entire people, with enormous civilian casualties. The
sanctimonious U.S.-British call for enforcement of Security Council
resolutions also flies in the face of their double standard on this matter:
Israel is not only permitted to acquire WMD, it can repeatedly ignore
Security Council rulings without any penalty whatsoever.
>
> The imminent war is therefore based on considerations that have nothing to
do with Saddam's dictatorship or military threat. Key members of the Bush
administration had announced an aim of "toppling Saddam Hussein" back in
2000 in the publication of the Project for the New American Century, Robert
Kagan's and William Kristol's edited volume entitled Present Dangers, where
Saddam's military threat and WMD were barely mentioned, but the need to
control an important resource-rich area was openly acknowledged. These and
other Bush administration officials have also been notorious for their
strong support of Likud and Israeli ethnic cleansing, three of them--Richard
Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser--even having contributed to a
strategy paper for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996. The Bush
administration's protection of Sharon's state terrorism and the imminent
attack on Iraq serve expansionist Israeli interests well. This factor, along
with the desire to take advant!
> age of military superiority to show the world who is boss, to firm up
contol of an oil-rich territory, and to provide a cover for Bush's domestic
policies, gives us the real motives behind the manufacture of the Iraq
"crisis."
>
> There has been a desperate Bush administration search for plausible
reasons to "topple Saddam Hussein"--ties to Al Qaeda, aversion to
dictatorship and concern for Iraqis, Saddam's growing menace, evasions of
inspections and disrespect for Security Council resolutions, etc. But they
are merely excuses, some false, some trivial, all profoundly hypocritical,
designed to justify an aggression based entirely on other political and
strategic considerations.
>

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

Radical JINSA Zionists at Pentagon to Control Iraq