| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 7:57 am Post subject: JINSA Zionist Extremists PUSH US TO PERPETUAL WAR |
| JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist Extremists (have hijacked the current Bush regime and are PUSHING US TO PERPETUAL WAR) are associated with the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) which is mentioned in the Guardian newspaper article below:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,903073,00.html
Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus. So says the latest hot polemic exciting transatlantic policy types: Robert Kagan's Paradise and Power, a meditation on how Europeans have grown soft and idealistic (and feminine) while the Yanks remain tough, booted and aware (like real men) of how brutal a place the world can be. According to Kagan, our outlooks have grown so far apart that it's time we stopped pretending we even "occupy the same world". We are from different planets. Maybe that explains why so many Europeans are not just on the opposite side from the US in the debate over the coming war on Iraq, but why we are not even having the same conversation. While we still agonise over whether or not to go to war - forcing our prime minister to make and remake his case, even if that means taking an hour of questions on MTV, as he will next Friday - the American conversation moved on long ago. With barely a peep of congressional opposition to a military attack against Saddam, and most Democrats reduced to silent compliance, the Washington village has taken it as read, both that war will happen, and that it is justified. Their debate is focusing instead on a different question: what next? It might be a simple function of power. We sit back making abstract, moral judgments while they, as the nation poised to do the business, concern themselves with practicalities. We are not quite spectators - 40,000 Brits will be involved, after all - but nor do we have the prime spot in the dugout, making the key decisions. Those will be made in Washington. Whatever the explanation, the gulf between us is real. The op-ed pages of the American papers have the odd thumb-suck on the rights and wrongs of prising Saddam out by force, but their more pressing interest (besides pouring bile on the surrender monkeys of France and Germany) is in the task that will face the great US Army of Liberation once its initial work is done. There is, for example, an argument about personnel. Should the American governor-general ruling newly free Iraq be a civilian - perhaps the former nuclear weapons inspector, David Kay, or Bush-friendly lawyer Michael Mobbs - or a soldier? Surely a man in a suit would smack less of military occupation, and therefore be the more tactful choice? On the other hand, a uniformed viceroy might repeat the magic worked when Douglas MacArthur oversaw Japan. If that's the precedent, then retired lieutenant general and veteran of the first Gulf war, Jay Garner, would be a frontrunner. Or would it be smarter-to- name, Arabic-speaking Lebanese-American General John Abizaid, amusingly known as "Mad Arab" to his colleagues? Such are the dilemmas preoccupying pre-occupier America. There are mechanical questions to ponder, too. Which system would work best? If not a formal military occupation, perhaps a Kosovo-style civilian administration? Or an interim government made up, à la Afghanistan, of multiple opposition groups, returned to Iraq after decades of exile? Or would it be more convenient simply to replace Saddam with a new strongman: whether a former Ba'athist suitably made over and rebranded as "pro-western" or an outsider, like Jordan's Prince Hassan, a cousin of Iraq's last king who was assassinated in 1958? Decisions, decisions. And the US will, barring the most dramatic change of heart by either Saddam Hussein or George Bush, be making them soon. What they will turn on will be more than operational matters of efficiency. They will go instead to the heart of why America is fighting this war. For if this conflict's chief aim is what the new, second UN resolution claims it to be - the simple disarmament of Iraq - then any postwar settlement would be devised around that objective: perhaps a new, compliant dictator would do that job best. If the goal is the one touted by Tony Blair in recent days as the moral case - namely, liberation from tyranny - then only a fresh, democratic start will do. If, however, the American victors insist on a much more robust level of US control - restructuring Iraq entirely, studding it with countless military bases - then we could start drawing rather different conclusions as to the true motive of this campaign. We might agree with those who detect in the Iraq adventure the opening move of a much grander American design: the establishing of US hegemony for the next 100 years. This is not just twitchy, anti-war conspiracy talk. An outfit exists on 17th Street in Washington, DC, called the Project for the New American Century, explicitly committed to US mastery of the globe for the coming age. Its acolytes speak of "full spectrum dominance", meaning American invincibility in every field of warfare - land, sea, air and space - and a world in which no two nations' relationship with each other will be more important than their relationship with the US. There will be no place on earth, or the heavens for that matter, where Washington's writ does not run supreme. To that end, a ring of US military bases should surround China, with liberation of the People's Republic considered the ultimate prize. As one enthusiast puts it concisely: "After Baghdad, Beijing." If this sounds like the harmless delusions of an eccentric fringe, think again. The founder members of the project, launched in 1997 as a Republican assault on the Clinton presidency, form a rollcall of today's Bush inner circle. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle - they're all there. So too is Zalmay Khalilzad, now the White House's "special envoy and ambassador-at-large for free Iraqis". It will not be the war itself which will reveal these ultras' true intent. That would be fought the same way whatever the underlying motive: overwhelming force aimed at a swift decapitation of the Iraqi regime. But the postwar occupation will reveal plenty. Then we will know if the hawkish dreamers of the project have indeed taken over US foreign policy. How they remake free Iraq will tell us whether they plan to remake the world. In other words, this is one debate we cannot afford to sit out. As US commentator Sandra Mackay wrote this month: "Washington's hawks understand that the real risks ... are not in war, but in the peace that follows." It's after victory that the most enduring impact will be felt, whether it be a hated US-led occupation, sparking a fresh round of global terrorism, or the sudden release of Iraq's lethal, internal tensions which Saddam has kept pent-up for 35 years. Kurds could fight Turks for their own state in the north; Shias might team up with Iran for control of the south; everyone may turn on the hated Saddamite Ba'athists in a frenzy of revenge. Iraq will not be like 1940s Japan or Germany, the occupations fondly remembered by the US commentariat. Those were coherent nations; Iraq is an artificial fusion of antagonistic tribes. Victory may be rapid and easy - but that's when the real trouble could start. j.freedland@guardian.co.uk
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
JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist Extremist 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
Wake Up America: YOUR GOVERNMENT IS HIJACKED BY ZIONISM:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/09/29/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism.php
Iraq Invasion: British MP Asks "Why Now"?:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/25/iraq-invasion-british-mp-asks-why-now.php
Conflict to Leave Millions Hungry/Don't be Fooled by US Claims of Democracy:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/03/01/conflict-to-leave-millions-hungry-don-t-be-fooled-by-us.php
Israeli Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth with 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/israeli-spy-rumors-fly-on-gusts-of-truth-with-9-11.php
Below I included the text of President Bush's speech from last night at the American Enterprise Institute which is a ardent pro-Israel (Zionist) think tank in Washington, D.C. that Richard Perle is associated with (notice how President Bush mentions that he has 20 "minds" from the American Enterprise Institute who are working with his current regime, so no wonder he has such a pro-Israel bias):
Zionist Think Tanks Pushing for US Invasion of Iraq:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,777100,00.html
Washington's Zionist hawks to reshape Mid-East for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/10/25/washington-s-zionist-hawks-to-reshape-mid-east-for-israel.php
President Bush mentioned (in the speech) that he would like a Palestinian state created by 2005 in order to (apparently) placate the Arab countries in the Gulf region (which are concerned by the Palestinian situation in occupied Palestine) for continued use of their respective bases for US military operations (however, in reality, President Bush has Zionist extremists like Elliott Abrams and Doug Feith of JINSA who helped to sabotage the Oslo Peace Accords between the Israelis and Palestinians because they do not believe in a Palestinian state):
Return of Zionist Extremist Elliott Abrams (there is also an article about "transfer/ethnic cleansing the Palestinians off their ancestral homeland and into neighboring Jordan):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/04/return-of-zionist-extremist-elliott-abrams.php
War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/10/the-war-on-iraq-conceived-in-israel.php
Zionist 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
JINSA Zionist Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Long before Bush Presidency:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php
Israeli Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth with 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/israeli-spy-rumors-fly-on-gusts-of-truth-with-9-11.php
Text of Bush's Speech Wednesday Night
Wed Feb 26,10:19 PM ET
By The Associated Press Text of President Bush (news - web sites)'s remarks Wednesday night to the American Enterprise Institute, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:
Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm proud to be with the scholars and the friends and the supporters of the American Enterprise Institute. I want to thank you for overlooking my dress code violation. They were about to stop me at the door, but Irving Kristol said, 'I know this guy, let him in.' Chris, thank you for your very kind introduction and thank you for your leadership. I see many distinguished guests here tonight, members of my Cabinet, members of Congress, Justice (Antonin) Scalia, Justice (Clarence) Thomas and so many respected writers and policy experts. I'm always happy to see your senior fellow, Dr. Lynne Cheney. Lynne is a wise and thoughtful commentator on history and culture and a dear friend to Laura and me. I'm also familiar with the good work of her husband. You may remember him, the former director of my vice presidential search committee. Thank God Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said yes. Thanks for fitting me into the program tonight. I know I'm not the featured speaker; I'm just a warm-up act for Allan Meltzer. But I want to congratulate Dr. Meltzer for a lifetime of achievements and for tonight's well-deserved honor. Congratulations. At the American Enterprise Institute, some of the finest minds in our nation are at work and some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds. I want to thank them for their service, but I also want to remind people that for 60 years AEI scholars have made vital contributions to our country and to our government and we are grateful for those contributions. We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others, the rest will be written by us. On a September morning, threats that had gathered for years in secret and far away, led to murder in our country on a massive scale. As a result, we must look at security in a new way because our country is a battlefield in the first war of the 21st century. We learned a lesson: The dangers of our time must be confronted actively and forcefully before we see them again in our skies and in our cities. And we set a goal: We will not allow the triumph of hatred and violence in the affairs of men. Our coalition of more than 90 countries is pursuing the networks of terror with every tool of law enforcement and with military power. We have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al-Qaida. Across the world we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning and we're showing them the definition of American justice. And we're opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror, outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction. In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country, and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations (news - web sites) and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East.
A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform this vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction, to a free and peaceful Iraq. The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein, but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy, yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving in to place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry. We'll make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites operating under the Oil for Food program are stocked and open as soon as possible. The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and to such groups as the World Food Program and UNICEF (news - web sites) to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people. We'll also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos or settle scores or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners, the Iraqi people. The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before, and the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies. We left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home. There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. The nation of Iraq with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life, and there are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap so their people can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation, economic openness and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps to political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different, yet the human heart desires the same good things everywhere on Earth. In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror. Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. But without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders, true leaders who strive for peace, true leaders who faithfully serve the people. A Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful state that abandons forever the use of terror. For its part, the new government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement. As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end. And the Arab states will be expected to meet their responsibilities to oppose terrorism, to support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine, and state clearly they will live in peace with Israel. The United States and other nations are working on a road map for peace. We are setting out the necessary conditions for progress toward the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. It is the commitment of our government and my personal commitment to implement the road map and to reach that goal. Old patterns of conflict in the Middle East can be broken if all concerned will let go of bitterness and hatred and violence and get on with the serious work of economic development and political reform and reconciliation. America will seize every opportunity in pursuit of peace. And the end of the present regime in Iraq would create such an opportunity. In confronting Iraq, the United States is also showing our commitment to effective international institutions. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We helped to create the Security Council. We believe in the Security Council so much that we want its words to have meaning. The global threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction cannot be confronted by one nation alone. The world needs today and will need tomorrow international bodies with the authority and the will to stop the spread of terror and chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. A threat to all must be answered by all. High-minded pronouncements against proliferation mean little unless the strongest nations are willing to stand behind them and use force if necessary. After all, the United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to "make sure that the force of right will, in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force." Another resolution is now before the Security Council. If the council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the council will fulfill its founding purpose. I've listened carefully as people and leaders around the world have made known their desire for peace. All of us want peace. The threat to peace does not come from those who seek to enforce the just demands of the civilized world. The threat to peace comes from those who flout those demands. If we have to act, we will act to restrain the violent and defend the cause of peace, and by acting, we will signal to outlaw regimes that, in this new century, the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected. Protecting those boundaries carries a cost. If war is forced upon us by Iraq's refusal to disarm, we'll meet an enemy who hides his military forces behind civilians, who has terrible weapons, who is capable of any crime. The dangers are real, as our soldiers and sailors, airmen and Marines fully understand. Yet no military has ever been better prepared to meet these challenges. Members of our armed forces also understand why they may be called to fight. They know that retreat before a dictator guarantees even greater sacrifices in the future. They know that America's cause is right and just: The liberty for an oppressed people and security for the American people. And I know something about these men and women who wear a uniform. They will complete every mission they are given with skill and honor and courage. Much is asked of America in this year 2003. The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in the country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East after so many generations of strife. Yet the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us. And Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times and we will meet the tests of our time. We go forward with confidence because we trust in the power of human freedom to change lives and nations. By the resolve and purpose of America, and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty. Free people will set the course of history and free people will keep the peace of the world. Thank you all very much. END | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2003 8:16 pm Post subject: Bush and Blair to Ditch UN if France Blocks Intervention |
| Look at the Russian Parliamentary leader's comments at the end of the folloowing as I would also like to let him know about the JINSA/PNAC cabal as well:
Forwarded:
Recent Gallup polls in the USA show that 59 percent of those polled support an invasion of Iraq (if there were UN Security Council approval). If the Iraqi missiles were taken apart (as they were destroyed yesterday, but I think that such a US/UN double standard when considering that paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 against Iraq calls for the Middle East to be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction to include Israeli nuclear missiles), then only 39 percent support the invasion of Iraq. And only 33 percent approval for going to war without UN approval.
Subj: Bush and Blair to ditch UN if France blocks intervention
Date: 3/2/03 2:24:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
http://www.sundayherald.com/print31828
Sunday Herald - 02 March 2003
Bush and Blair to ditch UN if France blocks intervention
Iraq destroys four missiles, but Straw says it's just a 'cynical' move to divide UN
By James Cusick, Westminster Editor
AS hopes fade of winning a second UN resolution, Britain and the United States are now preparing the ground to argue that both governments already have the implied authority of the UN for conflict. Sources close to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw yesterday admitted that if 'there was no prospect of winning a second resolution' -- due to the use of a UN Security Council veto by potentially France, Russia or China -- 'then we may consider abandoning it altogether'.Washington also yesterday altered its strategy in exactly the same manner when Pres ident George Bush, referring to the existing Security Council resolution 1441, said the US was determined to enforce its terms, which demand that Saddam Hussein surrender his country's weapons of mass destruction.Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser, called the new draft resolution presented to the UN last week simply 'an affirmation of the council's willingness to enforce its own resolution'. Over the coming week, Tony Blair is expected to reinforce the message that it is the 'authority of the UN', already explicit in the unanimously agreed resolution 1441, that must be upheld. In effect, the Prime Minister is preparing the ground for the political mayhem both inside his party and beyond should a second UN resolution fail to materialise and he takes British forces into war alongside the US. Key to winning support in the Security Council would have been Iraq's defiance and obstruction of UN orders to disarm. But yesterday Iraq, reluctantly, agreed to the destruction of four of its outlawed al-Samoud 2 missiles. At a military base just outside Baghdad, bulldozers were brought in to crush the missiles under supervision of the UN. A potential timetable to destroy the remaining 100-plus al-Samoud 2 missiles was also discussed with the UN. Around 50 of the missiles are with Iraqi forces scattered around the country and will have to be brought in to be destroyed. And for the first time in a month, Iraq agreed to unsup ervised interviews with Iraqi scientists, a small number of which have taken place already.Although Dr Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector, described Iraq's move on its missiles as 'a very significant piece of real disarmament' both the US and UK remained sceptical. If Blix reinforces a signif icant positive shift in Iraq's level of co-operation when he delivers his latest report to the UN this Friday, it may put the final nail in the coffin for any hope of agreement on a second resolution. France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said yesterday that the destruction of the missiles 'confirms that inspectors are getting results'. He said Iraq's decision to comply was an important step in the disarmament process. As one of the harshest critics of the US-UK position, and having already demanded inspectors be given more time, it now seems inconceivable that France will now not use its veto in an attempt to avert war. However, the White House said Iraq's compliance was 'propaganda wrapped in a lie inside a falsehood'. Straw warned the international community that it 'should not be taken in' by Saddam. He dismissed Iraq's promise to destroy all its al-Samoud 2 missiles as 'a cynical attempt to divide the Security Council'. To end the crisis Straw said Saddam only had to say he was in 'complete, immediate and full compliance of resolution 1441'. Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri said: 'We are co-operating because we want to co-operate, because we think it is to our benefit. We don't need anyone to tell us to co-operate.'A senior source in the Foreign Office said that following Blix's report this Friday: 'It will probably be towards the end of the following week that the UK-backed second resol ution will be formally put to the Security Council. It is likely we will demand a formal vote, essentially to confront France or whoever and flush out their use of their veto. We would want to make it evident who had halted the resolution. But if there is no prospect of winning, that strategy may be abandoned altogether.' Meanwhile, Turkey's parliament, after a day of high drama and confusion, yesterday finally denied US forces use of Turkish territory to launch a northern attack on Iraq. US supply ships and armaments had been waiting outside Turkish ports, with troops in the US also awaiting final authority to fly into Turkey. However, the Turkish parliament will reconvene on the issue this week. The US -- which has promised a massive financial aid and trade package to Turkey -- are said to be furious at the potential logistical chaos this will bring to its battle plans. A northern front is regarded as crucial to the prospects of a quick, short war.
Pat Buchanan: Wages of Empire:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/03/01/pat-buchanan-wages-of-empire.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/28/opinion/28KRIS.html?ex=1047450772&ei=1&en=3e008a399a0a04a1
Secret, Scary Plans
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
!!!!!ome of the most secret and scariest work under way in the Pentagon these days is the planning for a possible military strike against nuclear sites in North Korea.
Officials say that so far these are no more than contingency plans. They cover a range of military options from surgical cruise missile strikes to sledgehammer bombing, and there is even talk of using tactical nuclear weapons to neutralize hardened artillery positions aimed at Seoul, the South Korean capital.
There's nothing wrong with planning, or with brandishing a stick to get Kim Jong Il's attention. But several factions in the administration are serious about a military strike if diplomacy fails, and since the White House is unwilling to try diplomacy in any meaningful way, it probably will fail. The upshot is a growing possibility that President Bush could reluctantly order such a strike this summer, risking another Korean war.
The sources of information for this column will be as mystifying as the underlying U.S. policy itself, for few will discuss these issues on the record. But it seems those interested in the military option ? consisting primarily of raptors clustered around Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and in the National Security Council ? have until recently been slapped down by President Bush himself.
Recently Mr. Bush seems to have become more hawkish. He is said to have been furious when Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (one of the few senior Bush aides who know anything about Korea) told Congress that the U.S. would have to talk to North Korea.
So the White House has hardened its position further, swatting away its old willingness to engage North Korea bilaterally within a multilateral setting. Now the administration has dropped the bilateral reference and is willing to talk to North Korea only in a multilateral framework that doesn't exist. The old approach had a snowball's chance in purgatory; now it's less than that.
"We haven't exhausted diplomacy," one senior player noted. "We haven't begun diplomacy. . . . We could have a slippery slope to a Korean war. I don't think that's too alarmist at all."
Other experts I respect are less worried. James Lilley, an old Korea hand and former ambassador to Seoul and Beijing, says my concerns are "much too alarmist." He says the State Department controls Korea policy and realizes that "the military option is almost nonexistent."
Maybe. But meanwhile, North Korea is cranking out provocations and plutonium. This week it started up a small reactor in Yongbyon. More worrying, America's spooks detected on-and-off activity at a steam plant at Yongbyon, which may mean that the North is preparing to start up a neighboring reprocessing plant capable of turning out enough plutonium for five nuclear weapons by summer. Look for reprocessing to begin soon, perhaps the day bombs first fall on Iraq.
Dick Cheney and his camp worry, not unreasonably, that the greatest risk of all would be to allow North Korea to churn out nuclear warheads like hotcakes off a griddle. In a few years North Korea will be able to produce about 60 nuclear weapons annually, and fissile material is so compact that it could easily be sold and smuggled to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and Al Qaeda.
The hawk faction believes that the U.S. as a last resort could make a surgical strike, even without South Korean consent, and that Kim Jong Il would not commit suicide by retaliating. The hawks may well be right.
Then again, they may be wrong. And if they're wrong, it would be quite a mistake.
The North has 13,000 artillery pieces and could fire some 400,000 shells in the first hour of an attack, many with sarin and anthrax, on the 21 million people in the "kill box" ? as some in the U.S. military describe the Seoul metropolitan area. The Pentagon has calculated that another Korean war could kill a million people.
So if the military option is too scary to contemplate, and if allowing North Korea to proliferate is absolutely unacceptable, what's left? Precisely the option that every country in the region is pressing on us: negotiating with North Korea.
Ironically, the gravity of the situation isn't yet fully understood in either South Korea or Japan, partly because they do not think this administration would be crazy enough to consider a military strike against North Korea. They're wrong.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB28Ak02.html
http://www.atimes.com
Middle East
Bush shares dream of Middle East democracy
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - In a major policy address to the neo-conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), US President George W Bush on Wednesday pledged to "ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another" in post-invasion Iraq and argued that a US victory there "could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace".
"The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers," he said. "And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated."
The speech, the latest in an accelerating series of appearances by Bush and other senior members of his administration to drum up public support for war in Iraq with or without the United Nations Security Council's authorization, was notable as much for its venue as its content.
AEI, whose foreign policy "scholars" are closely identified with the most unilateralist and pro-Likud elements in the Bush administration, has acted as the hub of a network of neo-conservative activists and groups, including the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and several others that have agitated for war against Iraq and other Arab states that are believed to threaten Israel since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in Manhattan and the Pentagon near Washington, DC.
More than any other think-tank in Washington, AEI and its associates have consistently formulated and favored the most radical and hardline proposals for US policy, including aligning US policy in the Middle East with Israel's right-wing Likud party; cutting ties with traditional US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; opposing negotiations with North Korea; providing direct security guarantees to Taiwan; and treating China as a strategic threat with which an eventual confrontation should be considered inevitable.
In sympathetic publications - including the Weekly Standard, the National Review, the Washington Times, the New Republic, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal - as well as on talk shows on Fox News and CNN, they have aggressively pressed those positions, and launched attacks against their perceived enemies, particularly Secretary of State Colin Powell and former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, both of whom are seen as dangerous realists, and, more recently, the governments of France and Germany.
AEI has also served as a major recruiting ground for foreign-policy positions in the administration.
Indeed, its former executive vice president, John Bolton, has become one of the Bush administration's most powerful - despite journalistically undercovered - figures as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, a key post that he has used not only to ensure Washington's withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, but also the undermining of other elements of the international arms-control regime. He has also spearheaded US efforts to attack the Rome Protocol to set up the new International Criminal Court. He told the Wall Street Journal last year that signing the letter informing the UN of Washington's renunciation of adherence to the Rome Protocol was "the happiest moment of my government service".
Presiding over much of AEI's foreign-policy program has been Richard Perle, a close advisor and longtime friend of Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, who named him as chairman of the Defense Policy Board (DPB). Lynne Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney's spouse, also works at AEI, albeit not in a foreign-policy position, as does former UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.
Perle, who has also worked closely with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz since they were students at the University of Chicago in the late 1960s, convened the DPB within a few days of the attacks to discuss possible links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda and put Baghdad squarely in Washington's crosshairs in the impending anti-terrorist campaign.
Indeed, within just nine days of September 11, 2001, Perle helped mobilize support for an open letter to Bush by PNAC, whose offices are on the fifth floor of the AEI building in downtown Washington, that laid out a program for conducting a war on terrorism that anticipated much of what the administration has subsequently followed.
Signed by 40 prominent right-wingers and neo-conservatives, of whom at least a dozen were directly associated with AEI, the letter argued that the war on terror must not stop with bin Laden, but must also include ousting Saddam Hussein, "even if evidence does not link him to the [September 11] attack", cutting off aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA), striking Hezbollah in Lebanon, retaliating against Iran and Syria if they do not stop supplying Hezbollah, and sharply increasing the defense budget.
In another letter six months later, the same group called for the US to cut all ties with Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and cease pressure on Israel to negotiate with him pending the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership. "Israel's fight against terrorism is our fight," the letter said. "Israel's victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism." After a major struggle between the hawks clustered around Rumsfeld and Cheney and more realist forces led by Powell, Bush adopted PNAC's recommendations.
Having won that battle, its AEI associates led by Perle transformed themselves into neo-Wilsonians by leading the charge for a regional policy of "reshaping", "transforming" and "democratizing" the entire Middle East, the main subject of Bush's address on Wednesday.
"This war cannot be limited to national theaters," Michael Ledeen, another AEI "scholar" and JINSA co-founder along with Perle, argued last September. "We face a regional challenge and must respond accordingly. We are the one truly revolutionary country on Earth, which is both the reason for which we were attacked in the first place and the reason we will successfully transform the lives of millions of people throughout the Middle East."
Similarly, another AEI associate, Joshua Muravchik called as early as a year ago for an aggressive pro-democracy policy in the region. Citing a recent survey by Freedom House, a New York-based neo-conservative think-tank, that found Arab states to be the least "free" of any other region, he argued that "far from pointing toward a relaxation of military efforts [in the war against terror, the survey] suggests that the more terror-loving tyrannies the United States can topple the better".
Yet another AEI scholar and former Central Intelligence Agency officer, Marc Reuel Gerecht, has also called for sweeping changes in US policy toward authoritarian Arab regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, although his views about the compatibility of democratic institutions with Arab temperaments have tended to be far more equivocal, if also revealing. "Arabs only respect strength," he wrote last year in an appeal for Washington to back Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's efforts to crush Palestinian resistance in the occupied territories. "Though the Near East Bureau at State hates the notion, the tougher Sharon becomes, the stronger our image will be in the Middle East."
Gerecht has also been a major proponent of severing ties with Saudi Arabia, as has Perle himself, who last summer got in trouble with the White House for inviting a vehemently anti-Saudi French scholar to address the DPB about the necessity of ousting the royal family from power.
Bush's appearance at AEI on Wednesday, however, made it clear that all had been forgiven. And his embrace of virtually all of the think-tank's theories about democratizing the region made clear the extent to which the most radical hawks in the administration have prevailed in the internal policy debate.
"There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values," said Bush. "Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. "The nation of Iraq ... is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.
"A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region," he declared, adding that "it is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world - or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim - is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life".
Moreover, "success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state ... Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders: true leaders who strive for peace; true leaders who faithfully serve the people.
"For its part, the new government of Israel - as the terror threat is removed and security improves - will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement," Bush said in his one concession to Arab opinion that must have disappointed his hosts. "As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end."
(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
Wages of Empire:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/03/01/pat-buchanan-wages-of-empire.php
US Prepares to USE TOXIC GASES in IRAQ:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=383006
House of Commons Debate: Only Resort to Warfare Once All other Methods are Exhausted:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=382072
A Reminder from the Back Benches: Don't Take the Party for Granted:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=382041
British and Spanish Empires did Not Last Either:
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/reviews/story.jsp?story=368892
Russian parliament speaker blasts U.S.
From the International Desk
Published 3/1/2003 7:58 PM
TUNIS, Tunisia, March 1 (UPI) -- Russia's parliamentary speaker Saturday blasted the United States' policy towards Iraq, the region, and the world, warning that his country would use its veto power in the U.N Security Council to prevent a war on Iraq.Duma Speaker Gennadii Seleznev said at a news conference that proposals calling for the Iraqi leadership's ouster were "ridiculous." Unilateral U.S. action against Iraq would represent "radical political changes on the global level and would lead to the destruction of international law, the U.N and the Security Council," Seleznev said.Speaking at a news conference in Tunis after a three-day visit, Seleznev said these actions called for "serious thought for establishing alternative international bodies to the U.N. that could guarantee global security, especially that Russia and the rest of the world strongly reject the return to the laws of the jungle where the strong eats the weak." Countries cannot change regimes just because they don't like them, Seleznev told reporters. The current U.S. unilateralist slant is a "serious trend that needs to be confronted and to affirm that the people alone have the right to change their own regimes," he said.The Russian legislator said his country would use its veto power as one of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members to knock down any U.S. resolution allowing the use of force against Iraq for its failure to disarm.He also criticized the United States for adopting "double standard policies, where Iraq is asked to apply Security Council resolutions while Israel publicly rejects implementing resolutions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict."He added that Washington "does not hesitate in imposing sanctions on Iraq on the excuse that it possesses weapons of mass destruction, and does not do the same to Israel, which does own WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and refuses to accept U.N. resolutions."Former U.S. administrations, displeased with Cuban President Fidel Castro's regime, "had to eventually tolerate his presence and were able to co-exist with his authority. So this suggestion (to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein) is ridiculous and does not deserve discussion," Seleznev added.
To see this story with its related links on the The Observer site,
go to http://www.observer.co.uk
Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war
Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of
key Security Council members
The Guardian, March 01 2003
The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign
against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its
battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq.
Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves
interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of
UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The
Observer.
The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official
at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts
communications around the world - and circulated to both senior
agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence
agency asking for its input.
The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is
clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations
'particularly directed at... UN Security Council Members (minus US
and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for
Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding
the issue of Iraq.
The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened
surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon,
Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New
York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being
fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and
the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France,
China and Russia.
The memo is directed at senior NSA officials and advises them that
the agency is 'mounting a surge' aimed at gleaning information not
only on how delegations on the Security Council will vote on any
second resolution on Iraq, but also 'policies', 'negotiating
positions', 'alliances' and 'dependencies' - the 'whole gamut of
information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining
results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises'.
Dated 31 January 2003, the memo was circulated four days after the
UN's chief weapons inspector Hans Blix produced his interim report
on Iraqi compliance with UN resolution 1441.
It was sent by Frank Koza, chief of staff in the 'Regional Targets'
section of the NSA, which spies on countries that are viewed as
strategically important for United States interests.
Koza specifies that the information will be used for the US's 'QRC'
- Quick Response Capability - 'against' the key delegations.
Suggesting the levels of surveillance of both the office and home
phones of UN delegation members, Koza also asks regional managers
to make sure that their staff also 'pay attention to existing
non-UN Security Council Member UN-related and domestic comms
[office and home telephones] for anything useful related to
Security Council deliberations'.
Koza also addresses himself to the foreign agency, saying: 'We'd
appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who
might have similar more indirect access to valuable information
from accesses in your product lines - ie, intelligence sources.'
Koza makes clear it is an informal request at this juncture, but
adds: 'I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines
in formal channels.'
Disclosure of the US operation comes in the week that Blix will
make what many expect to be his final report to the Security
Council.
It also comes amid increasingly threatening noises from the US
towards undecided countries on the Security Council who have been
warned of the unpleasant economic consequences of standing up to
the US.
Sources in Washington familiar with the operation said last week
that there had been a division among Bush administration officials
over whether to pursue such a high-intensity surveillance campaign
with some warning of the serious consequences of discovery.
The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have
been requested by President Bush's National Security Adviser,
Condoleezza Rice, is deeply embarrassing to the Americans in the
middle of their efforts to win over the undecided delegations.
The language and content of the memo were judged to be authentic
by three former intelligence operatives shown it by The Observer.
We were also able to establish that Frank Koza does work for the
NSA and could confirm his senior post in the Regional Targets
section of the organisation.
The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension
6727 at the agency which was answered by an assistant, who
confirmed it was Koza's office. However, when The Observer asked
to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at
the United Nations, it was then told 'You have reached the wrong
number'.
On protesting that the assistant had just said this was Koza's
extension, the assistant repeated that it was an erroneous
extension, and hung up.
While many diplomats at the UN assume they are being bugged,
the memo reveals for the first time the scope and scale of US
communications intercepts targeted against the New York-based
missions.
The disclosure comes at a time when diplomats from the
countries have been complaining about the outright 'hostility'
of US tactics in recent days to persuade then to fall in line,
including threats to economic and aid packages.
The operation appears to have been spotted by rival organisations
in Europe. 'The Americans are being very purposeful about this,'
said a source at a European intelligence agency when asked about
the US surveillance efforts. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2003 11:28 am Post subject: NEED TO GET JINSA/PNAC OUT OF US GOVERNMENT |
| We Need to Get these Treasonous Israel Firsters Like Richard Perle out of the US government as soon as possible before they PUSH US into a World War for their nefarious JINSA/PNAC agenda (I have heard that Richard Perle was found guilty of a misdemeanor crime for the following or similar to it):
RICHARD PERLE IN 1970
"In mid-October 1970, Kissinger testified, when a second wiretap was
authorized for Helmut Sonnenfeldt, who was then Kissinger’s closest
friend on the NSC staff, his role was even more tangential… was a
summary of a wiretap on the Israeli embassy in which Richard Perle, a
foreign policy aide to Senator Jackson, was overheard discussing
classified information that had been supplied to him by someone on the
National Security Council staff… Kissinger, perhaps seeking to ward off
a Nixon explosion – had handed him (Haldeman) the FBI
wiretap on the Israeli Embassy and requested that the FBI be assigned to
determine which NSC staff member was in contact with Richard Perle.
Kissinger had to realize that Haldeman and Hoover would suspect
Sonenfeldt, who was known from previous wiretaps to have close ties to
the Israelis and Perle."
Source: Seymour M. Hersh, The Price of Power (New York: Summit Books,
1983), pages 321-322. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
