| Author | Message | | Guest | |  | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2002 9:31 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.mediamonitors.net/jamesjdavid8.html
Corrupting the Political System
by James J. David
During the past 3 weeks, there hasn't been a single Israeli wounded or killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber, nor has there been one Jewish settler attacked nor has there been one Israeli soldier killed. Instead, there have been 15 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces during this same period including a mother and her two small children, a 7-year old Palestinian boy, and three Palestinian security members, all three killed execution style. In addition, the Israelis have demolished 41 Palestinian homes and uprooted hundreds of Palestinian olive trees. And to add insult to injury, the Israeli government approved a 480 Elkana settlement housing project for more illegal Jewish settlements on confiscated Palestinian land. Yet we heard not one word of condemnation or one voice of criticism from the Bush Administration during this period. Instead, the President expressed some satisfaction for the "relative calm" Middle East violence. I guess "relative calm" only fits description when there are no Israelis killed.
While the Israelis were killing innocent mothers and their young children, and while the Israelis were demolishing innocent Palestinian homes and uprooting olive tree orchards, our U.S. Congress was passing a resolution of solidarity with Israel and calling for sanctions against the Palestinian Liberation Organization led by Yasser Arafat, who they said had supported terrorism against Israel. Earlier in the week Congress passed a resolution backing Israel and supporting its military incursions into Palestinian lands while at the same time the House Appropriations Committee was voting to give Israel an extra $200 million in military aid.
Well, today, a Palestinian suicide bomber disguised in an army uniform slipped into a fruit and vegetable market in the town of Netanya, Israel and detonated his explosive, killing one Israeli, wounding at least 28 and ending a brief period of "relative calm." And yes, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice all rushed to the podium to condemn these terrible attacks on these innocent Israelis, never mentioning the attacks during the past two weeks on the innocent Palestinians.
What about Israel? What about the 15 Palestinians killed this week? What do you have to say about that? You pretend to be concerned about peace in the Middle East but you never condemn the Israelis for their crimes. Do you believe that Palestinians blow themselves up because they like to do that sort of thing? Do you believe they would be using suicide bombers if the Israelis didn't have an occupation army in Palestine and weren't killing Palestinian women and children and bulldozing Palestinian homes? Do you believe that they would be strapping explosives on their own women and sending them into Jewish restaurants and discos if they had tanks and F-16s and Apache helicopters like the Israelis are using against them? You never mention about the bombs and tanks and bulldozers of the Israelis. Are these any less explosive than the suicide bombs that kill innocent Jews?
But when the Palestinians attempt to acquire some weapons to defend themselves Secretary of State Colin Powell makes it out as the most devastating crime of the century while at the same time arming these Israeli criminals with $billions of American made weapons each and every year. Why don't you take a trip to Jenin and see what American made bombs used by the Israeli forces will do, Mr. Secretary? Now, this is real destruction; this isn't just one cafe or one wedding hall. This is an entire village. After all, you were in Israel just a few weeks ago but refused to see the damage first hand; instead, you let the war criminal, Ariel Sharon, talk you out of it. I guess you didn't want to risk being labeled an "anti-Semite" when you returned to face the American people and the American Congress.
That's the problem with our entire Middle East Policy. We're not interested in finding a balanced solution to Middle East violence. We're only interested in doing what the American Jewish interests demand us to do and to do otherwise would be political suicide. This kind of policy is ruining the American system and has cost the American taxpayer more than $100 billion to support this kind of extortion.
Folks, we have a serious problem in Washington. We have a government that bends to the Jewish interests rather than American interests no matter what the costs to the American taxpayer may be. As long as it benefits Israel it benefits their political careers. These political leaders know what side their bread is buttered and anyone who expects otherwise is living in a dream world. We have a serious problem in Washington and I'm pointing at our government from top to bottom. Just before going to work each morning our leaders, representatives and senators make their first stop by the office of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and give their loyalty to the State of Israel, not to the interests of the American people. In turn, this million dollar a year lobbying group then unlocks the door to thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. Over the past decade, pro-Israel interests have given $41 million to candidates, and this stranglehold on our American system has corrupted our United States Government.
And now, these same Jewish interest groups are demanding that we attack Iraq because Iraq is a threat to the United States. Senator Joseph Lieberman, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and the Defense Chairman of the Advisory Board, Richard Perle, are also calling for the bombing of Iraq as the only sure method of destroying this threat. These Jewish politicians aren't concerned about the United States. They're concerned about Israel. Iraq is no threat to the United States. Iraq is a threat to Israel. Senator Lieberman, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and other pro-Israelis in Washington don't want anyone else in the Middle East to own Nuclear weapons except Israel. It's Israel, not the United States, that these zionists are concerned about. And they're willing to risk American lives and American money to insure that Israel is the super power in the Middle East. Funny, they never mention the danger of a homicidal maniac such as Ariel Sharon having his hands on nuclear and biological weapons. Iraq never has attacked the United States, but Israel has. Have they forgotten already about Israel's attempt to sink the USS Liberty and blame it on the Egyptians?"
And let this be no shock to anyone. It's the U.S. government allowing itself to be used by Israel and by unethical Jewish interest groups that have caused the United States to suffer the losses incurred by the September 11 attack, that resulted in the war against Afghanistan, that has emboldened the Israelis to brutalize and repress the Palestinians even more than usual, that is leading this nation to an all time low.
Our government system is being corrupted by an evil force and it's up to all faithful and loyal citizens to voice their concern and demand from their congressmen/women and senator that America comes first. It's up to all Americans to pressure our representatives in Congress that their loyalty must be with the American people and not with the Jewish demands that may reward their political coffers. Too many American politicians have supported Zionism's criminal activities rather than the true interests of the American people. It's time for all of us to rise to the occasion. America must heed the farewell address of the Father of our Country and "avoid foreign entanglements." America and the American people must always come first.
James J. David is a retired Brigadier General and a graduate of the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College, and the National Security Course, National Defense University, Washington DC. He served as a Company Commander with the 101st Airborne Division in the Republic of Vietnam in 1969 and 1970 and also served nearly 3 years of Army active duty in and around the Middle East from 1967-1969.
Source:
by courtesy & © 2002 James J. David
by the same author:
The source of terrorism
More in 'Perspective' or 'Archive'
Copyright © 2002 Media Monitors Network. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Back to Top
Like this ? Vote for it to win in MMN Contest
"True friends stab you in the front."
- Oscar Fingal O'Flaherty Wilde (1854-1900)
SUPPORT MMN
Plz Choose One Amazon PayPal MMN Gear
Plz Choose One Talk-to-an-Author Syndication Publishing MMN Radio Message Forums Web-Consultation Free E-mail Free Web-sites
MMN SERVICES
Recent Content | | | | Guest | | Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2002 9:37 pm Post subject: zionist "thinktanks" influencing us politics |
| you'd like this superb expose on zionist "thinktanks" influencing politics
-------
To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited site, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk
US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy
Brian Whitaker reports on the network of research institutes whose views and TV appearances are supplanting all other experts on Middle Eastern issues
Monday August 19 2002
The Guardian
A little-known fact about Richard Perle, the leading advocate of hardline policies at the Pentagon, is that he once wrote a political thriller. The book, appropriately called Hard Line, is set in the days of the cold war with the Soviet Union. Its hero is a male senior official at the Pentagon, working late into the night and battling almost single-handedly to rescue the US from liberal wimps at the state department who want to sign away America's nuclear deterrent in a disarmament deal with the Russians.
Ten years on Mr Perle finds himself cast in the real-life role of his fictional hero - except that the Russians are no longer a threat, so he has to make do with the Iraqis, the Saudis and terrorism in general.
In real life too, Mr Perle is not fighting his battle single-handed. Around him there is a cosy and cleverly-constructed network of Middle East "experts" who share his neo-conservative outlook and who pop up as talking heads on US television, in newspapers, books, testimonies to congressional committees, and at lunchtime gatherings in Washington.
The network centres on research institutes - thinktanks that attempt to influence government policy and are funded by tax-deductible gifts from unidentified donors.
When he is not too busy at the Pentagon, or too busy running Hollinger Digital - part of the group that publishes the Daily Telegraph in Britain - or at board meetings of the Jerusalem Post, Mr Perle is "resident fellow" at one of the thinktanks - the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Mr Perle's close friend and political ally at AEI is David Wurmser, head of its Middle East studies department. Mr Perle helpfully wrote the introduction to Mr Wurmser's book, Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein.
Mr Wurmser's wife, Meyrav, is co-founder, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence - of the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), which specialises in translating and distributing articles that show Arabs in a bad light.
She also holds strong views on leftwing Israeli intellectuals, whom she regards as a threat to Israel (see "Selective Memri", Guardian Unlimited, August 12, 2002).
Ms Wurmser currently runs the Middle East section at another thinktank - the Hudson Institute, where Mr Perle recently joined the board of trustees. In addition, Ms Wurmser belongs to an organisation called the Middle East Forum.
Michael Rubin, a specialist on Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, who recently arrived from yet another thinktank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, assists Mr Perle and Mr Wurmser at AEI. Mr Rubin also belongs to the Middle East Forum.
Another Middle East scholar at AEI is Laurie Mylroie, author of Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America, which expounds a rather daft theory that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing.
When the book was published by the AEI, Mr Perle hailed it as "splendid and wholly convincing".
An earlier book on Iraq Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf which Ms Mylroie co-authored with Judith Miller, a New York Times journalist, became the New York Times's No 1 bestseller.
Ms Mylroie and Ms Miller both have connections with the Middle East Forum. Mr Perle, Mr Rubin, Ms Wurmser, Ms Mylroie and Ms Miller are all clients of Eleana Benador, a Peruvian-born linguist who acts as a sort of theatrical agent for experts on the Middle East and terrorism, organising their TV appearances and speaking engagements.
Of the 28 clients on Ms Benador's books, at least nine are connected with the AEI, the Washington Institute and the Middle East Forum.
Although these three privately-funded organisations promote views from only one end of the political spectrum, the amount of exposure that they get with their books, articles and TV appearances is extraordinary.
The Washington Institute, for example, takes the credit for placing up to 90 articles written by its members - mainly "op-ed" pieces - in newspapers during the last year.
Fourteen of those appeared in the Los Angeles Times, nine in New Republic, eight in the Wall Street Journal, eight in the Jerusalem Post, seven in the National Review Online, six in the Daily Telegraph, six in the Washington Post, four in the New York Times and four in the Baltimore Sun. Of the total, 50 were written by Michael Rubin.
Anyone who has tried offering op-ed articles to a major newspaper will appreciate the scale of this achievement.
The media attention bestowed on these thinktanks is not for want of other experts in the field. American universities have about 1,400 full-time faculty members specialising in the Middle East.
Of those, an estimated 400-500 are experts on some aspect of contemporary politics in the region, but their views are rarely sought or heard, either by the media or government.
"I see a parade of people from these institutes coming through as talking heads [on cable TV]. I very seldom see a professor from a university on those shows," says Juan Cole, professor of history at Michigan University, who is a critic of the private institutes.
"Academics [at universities] are involved in analysing what's going on but they're not advocates, so they don't have the same impetus," he said.
"The expertise on the Middle East that exists in the universities is not being utilised, even for basic information."
Of course, very few academics have agents like Eleana Benador to promote their work and very few are based in Washington - which can make arranging TV appearances , or rubbing shoulders with state department officials a bit difficult.
Those who work for US thinktanks are often given university-style titles such as "senior fellow", or "adjunct scholar", but their research is very different from that of universities - it is entirely directed towards shaping government policy.
What nobody outside the thinktanks knows, however, is who pays for this policy-shaping research.
Under US law, large donations given to non-profit, "non-partisan" organisations such as thinktanks must be itemised in their annual "form 990" returns to the tax authorities. But the identity of donors does not need to be made public.
The AEI, which deals with many other issues besides the Middle East, had assets of $35.8m (£23.2m) and an income of $24.5m in 2000, according to its most recent tax return.
It received seven donations of $1m or above in cash or shares, the highest being $3.35m.
The Washington Institute, which deals only with Middle East policy, had assets of $11.2m and an income of $4.1m in 2000. The institute says its donors are identifiable because they are also its trustees, but the list of trustees contains 239 names which makes it impossible to distinguish large benefactors from small ones.
The smaller Middle East Forum had an income of less than $1.5m in 2000, with the largest single donation amounting to $355,000.
In terms of their ability to influence policy, thinktanks have several advantages over universities. To begin with they can hire staff without committee procedures, which allows them to build up teams of researchers that share a similar political orientation.
They can also publish books themselves without going through the academic refereeing processes required by university publishers. And they usually site themselves in Washington, close to government and the media.
Apart from influencing policy on the Middle East, the Washington Institute and the Middle East Forum recently launched a campaign to discredit university departments that specialise in the region.
After September 11, when various government agencies realised there was a shortage of Americans who could speak Arabic, there were moves to beef up the relevant university departments.
But Martin Kramer, of the Washington Institute, Middle East Forum and former director of the Moshe Dayan Centre at Tel Aviv university, had other ideas.
He produced a vitriolic book Ivory Towers on Sand, which criticised Middle East departments of universities in the US.
His book was published by the Washington Institute and warmly reviewed in the Weekly Standard, whose editor, William Kristol, was a member of the Middle East Forum along with Mr Kramer.
"Kramer has performed a crucial service by exposing intellectual rot in a scholarly field of capital importance to national wellbeing," the review said.
The Washington Institute is considered the most influential of the Middle East thinktanks, and the one that the state department takes most seriously. Its director is the former US diplomat, Dennis Ross.
Besides publishing books and placing newspaper articles, the institute has a number of other activities that for legal purposes do not constitute lobbying, since this would change its tax status.
It holds lunches and seminars, typically about three times a week, where ideas are exchanged and political networking takes place. It has also given testimony to congressional committees nine times in the last five years.
Every four years, it convenes a "bipartisan blue-ribbon commission" known as the Presidential study group, which presents a blueprint for Middle East policy to the newly-elected president.
The institute makes no secret of its extensive links with Israel, which currently include the presence of two scholars from the Israeli armed forces.
Israel is an ally and the connection is so well known that officials and politicians take it into account when dealing with the institute. But it would surely be a different matter if the ally concerned were a country such as Egypt, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
Apart from occasional lapses, such as the publication of Mr Kramer's book, the Washington Institute typically represents the considered, sober voice of American-Israeli conservatism.
The Middle East Forum is its strident voice - two different tones, but mostly the same people.
Three prominent figures from the Washington Institute - Robert Satloff (director of policy), Patrick Clawson (director of research) and Mr Rubin (prolific writer, currently at AEI) - also belong to the forum.
Daniel Pipes, the bearded $100,000-a-year head of the forum is listed as an "associate" at the institute, while Mr Kramer, editor of the forum's journal, is a "visiting fellow".
Mr Pipes became the bete noire of US Muslim organisations after writing an article for the National Review in 1990 that referred to "massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene".
Since he usually complains vigorously when the words are quoted outside their original context, readers are invited to view the full article at www.danielpipes.org. He is also noted for his combative performances on the Fox News channel, where he has an interesting business relationship. Search for his name on the Fox News website and, along with transcripts of his TV interviews, an advert appears saying "Daniel Pipes is available thru Barber & Associates, America's leading resource for business, international and technology speakers since 1977".
The Middle East Forum issues two regular publications, the Middle East Quarterly and the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, the latter published jointly with the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon.
The Middle East Quarterly describes itself as "a bold, insightful, and controversial publication".
Among the insights in its latest issue is an article on weapons of mass destruction that says Syria "has more destructive capabilities" than Iraq, or Iran.
The Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, which is sent out by email free of charge - but can never-the-less afford to pay its contributors - specialises in covering the seamy side of Lebanese and Syrian politics. The ever-active Mr Rubin is on its editorial board.
The Middle East Forum also targets universities through its campus speakers Bureau - that in adopting the line of Mr Kramer's book, seeks to correct "inaccurate Middle Eastern curricula in American education", by addressing "biases" and "basic errors" and providing "better information" than students can get from the many "irresponsible" professors that it believes lurk in US universities.
At a time when much of the world is confused by what it sees as an increasingly bizarre set of policies on the Middle East coming from Washington, to understand the neat little network outlined above may make such policies a little more explicable.
Of course these people and organisations are not the only ones trying to influence US policy on the Middle East. There are others who try to influence it too - in different directions.
However, this particular network is operating in a political climate that is currently especially receptive to its ideas.
It is also well funded by its anonymous benefactors and is well organised. Ideas sown by one element are watered and nurtured by the others.
Whatever outsiders may think about this, worldly-wise Americans see no cause for disquiet. It's just a coterie of like-minded chums going about their normal business, and an everyday story of political life in Washington.
Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited | | | | Guest | | Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2002 9:54 pm Post subject: PERLE'S STEALTH ATTACK ON KINGDOM |
| Subj: PERLE'S STEALTH ATTACK ON KINGDOM
Date: 8/19/02 11:41:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XPyramidX
To: Jdtmorris
PERLE'S STEALTH ATTACK ON KINGDOM
By Richard H. Curtiss
Arab News (Saudi Arabia)
August 19, 2002
Former Pentagon official Richard Perle, a long-time supporter of
Israel, reached new heights in his mission to distract the American
public from dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Perle is
chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel to the
Pentagon, which is often in the headlines.
Former French Ministry of Defense employee Laurent Murawiec, now a Rand
Corporation analyst, gave a controversial briefing to the Defense
Policy Board on July 10. Although the topic was expected to be Iraq’s
Saddam Hussein, there were big surprises in store.
Murawiec’s briefing was, to put it mildly, inflammatory. Presented as
it was to former senior officials and intellectuals who advise the
Pentagon, it might have passed without notice. Perle, however, had
ensured that would not happen, with his journalistic cohorts preparing
the way for Murawiec’s shocking statements.
Prior to the briefing, two articles making similar charges to
Murawiec’s already had appeared. One, in the July issue of Commentary,
published by the American Jewish Committee, was entitled "Our Enemies,
the Saudis," by Victor Davis Hanson. The other article was printed in a
July edition of the Weekly Standard, edited by William Kristol. The
article, written by Simon Henderson, an adjunct scholar of the AIPAC-
spinoff Washington Institute for Near East Policy, was entitled "The
Coming Saudi Showdown."
Following the same policy line, Murawiec’s briefing recommended that
Saudi Arabia should be warned that its financial assets are at
risk. "The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain," he
alleged, "from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot soldier, from
ideologist to cheerleaders."
"Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies," Murawiec
went on to say, adding that Saudi Arabia "is the kernel of evil, the
prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East. The US
should demand that Saudi Arabia stop funding terrorism around the
world, he said, and Saudi Arabia should stop making anti-Israel
statements and "prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror
chain, including in the Saudi intelligence services." If the Saudis
refuse to comply, Murawiec recommended, Saudi oil fields and overseas
financial assets should be "targeted." Murawiec concluded his briefing
by linking the necessity of regime change in Iraq with the need to
alter Saudi behavior.
Having fired a verbal missile against both Saudi Arabia and Iraqi
dictator Saddam Hussein, Chairman Richard Perle then seemed to try to
remove the traces of his stealth attack on Saudi Arabia.
It turned out that Murawiec apparently had no previous experience in
the Middle East. If he has any other credentials of note, Murawiec has
not explained them. In short, after having served his purpose, Murawiec
seems to have become a non-person. The confusion between Perle’s
Defense Policy Board and the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory
Board, headed by retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, apparently serves a
purpose. The 15 members of the latter board have long credentials and
have no overlap at all with Perle’s Defense Policy Board.
It is Perle’s group that has been making headlines. Strangely, after
the Murawiec briefing, only one member of the Perle-chaired board stood
up to defend the long-term relationship between Saudi Arabia and the
US. That was Henry Kissinger, who said, "I don’t consider Saudi Arabia
to be a strategic adversary of the United States. They are doing some
things I don’t approve of, but I don’t consider them a strategic
adversary."
It is not clear which other members of the Perle board were present for
Murawiec’s briefing.
Saudi Arabian Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Saud Al-Faisal has
since denounced the briefing as "pure fiction," predicting that
it "will have no lasting impact. It is unfortunate," Prince Saud
noted, "that there are some people in some quarters who are trying to
cast doubt and undermine the solid and historic ties between our two
countries. I am confident that they will not succeed."
Similarly, Secretary of State Colin Powell telephoned the prince to
assure him that Murawiec’s "musings" did not represent US policy.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, acknowledging differences with
the Saudis, said, "It is nonetheless a country where we have a lot of
forces located and we have had a long relationship."
On Aug. 11, Saudi Foreign Ministry adviser Adel Al-Jubeir appeared
on "Meet the Press" and on CNN. Meanwhile, the Saudi foreign minister
was interviewed on ABC’s "This Week." The two Saudi guests answered all
questions exhaustively. They made the points that Saudi Arabia has been
a very effective member of the international coalition against
terrorism, pointing out that the Kingdom has frozen bank accounts, made
arrests, and seen that "evil doers" were purged from charities.
Richard Perle has long been referred to by his enemies as "The Prince
of Darkness." Once again Perle has lived up to his sobriquet.
Richard H. Curtiss is the executive editor of the Washington-based
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:43 am Post subject: zionists pushing usa to attack for israel |
| www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=325065
http://community1.c-span.org/webx?50@40.RnKBa83GfTA^810@.ee78062
http://www.mediamonitors.net/jamesjdavid12.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,777100,00.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/search.jsp?keywords=fisk&submit=Go
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=17886
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2203976.stm
http://www.ussliberty.com
EPIC Media and Action Alert - 8/19/02
***********************
I. Update – Understanding the New Debate on Iraq
II. NO WAR IN IRAQ! Congressional Briefing August 20
III. TAKE ACTION – Visit Your Senators in Your State August 28
IV. MUST READ Op-ed and Analysis in Saturday’s New York Times
V. Other Articles of Interest
VI. EPIC’s Statement on the Senate Hearings
***********************
I. Update – Understanding the New Debate on Iraq
After being pushed far out on a limb regarding Iraq by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the Defense Policy Board, Department of Defense Chairman Richard Perle, and other neoconservatives, the President is finally backing away from what some newspapers (Washington Post and Wall Street Journal) dubbed an “inevitable” war.
Top Republicans are playing a key role is easing the President off the limb by encouraging more caution and patience in dealing with Iraq. In recent weeks, House GOP leader and fellow Texan Dick Armey, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft have all weighed in against any rush to war.
In his opinion piece in last Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, Scowcroft outlined the flaws of current war plans for Iraq. He emphasized that an attack on Iraq would "seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken" and bring even more disaster to the Middle East. Scowcroft has remained a very close friend to George Bush Sr. and some speculate that he would have likely passed this information by the
former president before making it public. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=1100021333
Ever vigilant, Richard Perle was quick to criticize Scowcroft saying “I think Brent just got it wrong.” Allied with Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraq National Congress (INC) and neoconservative Washington insiders, Perle has led the effort to drag the United States into a confrontation with Iraq. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Vietnam Vet and one of the first in Congress to voice concern over war plans, quipped, “Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the
first wave of those who go into Baghdad” (New York Times, 8/16/02).
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/international/middleeast/16IRAQ.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
Involving street-to-street fighting similar to what U.S. Rangers faced in Mogadishu in October 1993 (dramatized by the recent film Black Hawk Down), a U.S. invasion of Iraq may be the most costly war since Vietnam. That risk appears to be awakening the anxiety and concern of our nation. According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, most Americans would not support a ground assault with significant American casualties. “The public also wants
the president to win the support of Congress and U.S. allies for whatever action he chooses to take.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10140-2002Aug12.html
The Perle camp has responded by claiming that international support for a U.S. invasion is unnecessary and that President Bush does not require Congressional authorization because Congress has already authorized the use of U.S. military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks (NOTE: Despite the absence of evidence linking Iraq to any act of terrorism against non-Iraqis since 1971, they allege that Iraq was involved). Regarding the risk
of heavy casualties, they continue to dismiss Iraq’s defensive capabilities as a “cake walk.”
The willingness of Richard Perle and his accomplices to gamble with the lives of our sons and daughters, as well as Iraqi civilians, is matched only by a readiness to lie to further their agenda. But they may have overplayed their cards. On Fox News Sunday, Lawrence Eagleburger, Secretary of State in the first Bush administration, characterized Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle as "devious.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60704,00.html
For more information on Perle and the Defense Policy Board read “Iraq hawks have Bush's ear: Influential defense panel urges U.S. to oust Hussein” from the 8/18 edition of the Chicago Tribune.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi0208180309aug18.story?coll=chi%2Dnews%2Dhed
At the recent Senate hearings, Professor Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), one of the most respected authorities on military strategy, delivered a sharp rebuke against the neoconservatives. Cordesman testified: “To be perfectly blunt, I think only fools would bet the lives of other men's sons and daughters on their own arrogance and call this force a cake walk or a speed bump or something that you
can dismiss. I see every reason for the reservation of the American military and the joint chiefs, and I think efforts to dismiss the military capabilities of Iraq are dangerous and irresponsible. These forces do have serious defects, but Iraq is still the most effective military power in the Gulf.” For more about this and the Senate hearings, see EPIC’s statement below.
In response to growing opposition, the New York Times reported President Bush vowing he would listen to criticisms, but it seems plans for war are still going forward. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/17/international/17PREX.html
Last week, Condoleezza Rice laid out justification for going to war with Iraq stating that there is "a very powerful moral case." In making a case for pre-emption, Rice said, "History is littered with cases of inaction that led to very grave consequences for the world. We just have to look back and ask how many dictators who ended up being a tremendous global threat and killing thousands and, indeed, millions of people, should we have stopped in
their tracks." (Washington Post 8/16/02)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21333-2002Aug15.html
Whether or not the U.S. invades, the administration appears to remain resolved in bringing about a “regime change”. Last week, the State Department announced that it would provide $6.6 million of humanitarian aid to Iraqis inside and outside of the country as well as millions to Saddam Hussein’s opposition. Spokesman Philip Reeker said that $8 million would be provided to the Iraqi National Congress (AP 8/15/02).
Over the weekend, the changing debate on Iraq among Republicans dominated the news talk shows. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) of the Armed Services committee, former Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Director Ken Adelman, and Richard Perle himself were among those reading from the “get Iraq now” script. On the cautionary side were former Rep. Lee Hamilton, and former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger, and Senators Richard Lugar (R-MO) and
Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
Follow these links to see transcripts from the weekend’s news talk shows:
Fox News Sunday with guest Lawrence Eagleburger
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60704,00.html
Meet the Press with guests Sens. Lugar (R-IN) and Inhofe (R-OK), former secretary of state Henry Kissinger and retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
http://www.msnbc.com/news/795820.asp
Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer with guests Sens. Hagel (R-NE) and Durbin (D-IL), former Rep. Lee Hamilton and former Arms Control and Disarmament Agency director Ken Adelman
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/18/le.00.html
II. NO WAR IN IRAQ! Congressional Briefing August 20
The Senate Hearings on Iraq that were held a few weeks ago failed to provide the public with the reasons why the United States should not invade Iraq. Thus, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) will hold a public briefing 1 pm (Eastern Time), tomorrow (August 20, 2002) in Rayburn 2247 featuring experts who will discuss why U.S. military action in Iraq is illegal, what the regional perspectives and consequences of war are, why this war could lead
to massive casualties on both sides, and what the diplomatic alternatives to military force are. Speakers include: Former Chief UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter; Institute for Policy Studies Fellow Phyllis Bennis; and David Cortright, President of the Fourth Freedom Forum. C-SPAN is tentatively planning to air the event live. For a listing or to watch the briefing over the web, visit http://www.cspan.org/
III. TAKE ACTION – Meet Your Senators August 28
For those of you who have not already scheduled meetings with your Senators while they are home during the August recess, MoveOn.org has been mobilizing their members to set up meetings for Wednesday, August 28. This provides a unique opportunity to connect with others activists in your area who you may not already be working with. If you join one of these meetings, feel free to contact us for talking points and the latest strategies. www.MoveOn.org is an online organization “supporting busy but concerned citizens in finding their political voice.” Space may be limited, sign up at
http://www.moveon.org/iraq_meetings/index.html
IV. MUST READ Op-ed and Analysis in Saturday’s New York Times
President Notes Dissent on Iraq, Vowing to Listen
New York Times 8/17/02
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/17/international/17PREX.html
The Waco Road to Baghdad
New York Times 8/17/02
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/17/opinion/17RICH.html
In response to being jettisoned from the mainstream of the Republican Party, the "get Iraq now" camp has launched attacks against both the New York Times and former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft. In his editorial "Kidnapped by the Times", Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer attacks the New York Times for taking an editorial position critical of a war on Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31321-2002Aug17.html
In the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol calls Scowcroft’s argument against war “laughably weak” in his piece “Axis of Appeasement”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/550afrhr.asp
By attacking the messenger rather than the substantive questions and concerns raised by Brent Scowcroft and the New York Times, Krauthammer and Kristol demonstrate the weakness of their case for war. To respond, email a letter to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com
V. Other Articles of Interest
Iraq: The Doubters Grow
The Nation 9/2/02
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=editors
The case against war on Iraq by Howard Zinn
Boston Globe 8/19/02
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/231/oped/The_case_against_war_on_Iraq+.shtml
Democrats Worry About Iraq as Issue: Debate on War Seen as Diversion From Economy
Washington Post 8/19/02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33796-2002Aug18.html
Strike plans against Iraq move ahead
Boston Globe 8/18/02
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/230/nation/Strike_plans_against_Iraq_move_ahead+.shtml
Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas
New York Times 8/17/02
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68&ncid=68&e=3&u=/nyt/20020817/ts_nyt/officers_say_u_s__aided_iraq_in_war_despite_use_of_gas
Kurdish leader offers to help US with Iraq invasion
The Guardian 8/15/02
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,774657,00.html
Anti-Baghdad Talks Shunned by Top Kurd
New York Times 8/15/02
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/15/international/middleeast/15IRAQ.html
Poll: Americans Cautiously Favor War in Iraq
Washington Post 8/13/02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10140-2002Aug12.html
Iraqi Opposition Gets U.S. Pledge to Oust Hussein for a Democracy
New York Times 8/11/02
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/international/middleeast/11IRAQ.html
VI. EPIC’s Statement on the Senate Hearings
In an effort to drag the United States into a war with Iraq, prominent hardliners in Washington have been relentlessly misleading the U.S. public. While Federal authorities and intelligence agencies fail to find any connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, these neoconservatives circulate stories about terrorist training camps in Iraq and other unsubstantiated rumors. Now, contrary to arms control authorities, they claim that Iraq is
within two years of going nuclear and thus poses an immediate threat to the United States.
All of these efforts are intended to constrain the President's options, making war inevitable. Fortunately, that may now be changing.
We welcome the national dialogue on U.S. Iraq policy that Senators Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Richard Lugar (R-MO) began by holding hearings in the Senate to consider the costs, risks and challenges involved with a U.S. military invasion and occupation of Iraq. The American people, as well as our men and women in uniform, deserve nothing less than a full and honest debate.
As we consider the possibility of a war that could arguably be the most costly since Vietnam, EPIC is encouraged by the growing chorus of voices questioning the wisdom of any attack on Iraq now, including former U.S. officials and prominent Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
For decades, tyranny, wars and international sanctions have constrained the human development of the Iraqi people and contributed to the deaths of millions of innocent civilians. EPIC hopes that the discussion will go beyond words of caution and timing, and begin to consider real ways of resolving the conflict and ending policies that contribute to the suffering of the people of Iraq.
In particular, we call attention to the 230 weapons inspectors trained and ready to go into Iraq. EPIC encourages the Bush Administration to work with the UN Security Council to reinstate UN weapons inspections in Iraq, which remains the most effective and humane means for disarming Iraq and resolving the conflict. Furthermore, the UN disarmament process provides the only viable mechanism for lifting the UN economic sanctions against Iraq and ending
Iraq’s 12-year long humanitarian crisis.
NOTE: EPIC will soon have the entire transcript of the Senate hearings posted on our website along with selected quotes. | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:47 am Post subject: Chicken Hawks/Washingtons governed men hid from the draft! |
| Engel in America
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicken hawks
Matthew Engel
Tuesday August 20, 2002
The Guardian
Of all the many nonsenses affecting American aviation at present, the most absurd by far is the post-September 11 regulation imposed solely on flights to and from National Airport (or, as the Republicans try to insist, Reagan National) in Washington that bars anyone leaving their seat for the half-hour of flying time nearest the capital.
No matter that you are old, young, sick or simply bursting. No matter that half an hour in the air takes you hundreds of miles away. No matter that the rule does not apply at Washington's other airport, Dulles (about two minutes' flying time from National), nor at any of the hundreds of other American airports near potential terrorist targets. The flight path at National goes close to the centre of Washington and the leaders' safety is paramount. As we saw when the president's jet zigzagged across the country in the hours after the attacks, members of the ruling elite are concerned about the safety of all Americans, but somewhat more concerned about their own. This fits, to a startling extent, with their personal histories.
Traditionally, the left has always had an inferiority complex about military experience. In Britain, Ted Heath (a wartime artillery colonel) used to patronise Harold Wilson (who spent the war in Whitehall) on the subject. Here in 1996 Bob Dole (badly wounded in the second world war) played the same card against the unheroic Bill Clinton. But as the Bush administration paints itself into an ever-tighter corner with its Iraq rhetoric, it is instructive to note the astonishing extent to which those so anxious to stage the next war managed to be absent from the last one.
The US is now mainly governed by men in their mid-50s, ie the Vietnam generation - except that this lot missed being the Vietnam generation. The enterprisingly original New Hampshire Gazette (www.nhgazette.com) maintains a "Chickenhawks" database to tell their stories. Most of the allegations fit with facts recorded elsewhere.
Not everyone is implicated: Colin Powell's military record is solid, of course, which may help explain his distaste for fighting; and Donald Rumsfeld, an older man, was a naval aviator, albeit in the undramatic mid-50s. Otherwise, it starts with the president, who missed Vietnam by securing a cushy number in the Texas air national guard after (so everyone assumes) his congressman father pulled strings to get him in. It is less well-known that Dick Cheney avoided the draft by getting deferments, first because he was a student, then because he was married. "I had other priorities in the 60s than military service," he has said. Fine. Me too, Dick. Some people have got other priorities now. How about you?
Consider Washington's two most prominent superhawks: Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy) and his adviser Richard Perle. Who's Who in America is curiously vague about their precise whereabouts in the late 1960s, though it is fairly clear where they were not. As the shrewd and sceptical Republican senator Chuck Hagel said last week: "Maybe Mr Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad."
The two Democrat leaders in Congress, Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle, served; their Republican counterparts, Trent Lott and Dick Armey, did not. Tom DeLay, the most powerful hawk in the House of Representatives, missed Vietnam too: he was working as a pest exterminator. Reportedly, he once complained that he would have served; but, he said, all the places were taken up by ethnic minorities.
There are similar stories about almost every other prominent rightwing Republican of recent vintage. Newt Gingrich, ex-Speaker of the House, went the Cheney route; Kenneth Starr, Clinton's legal nemesis, had psoriasis; Jack Kemp, Dole's running mate in 1996, was unfit because of a knee injury, though he heroically continued as a National Football League quarterback for another eight years; Pat Buchanan had arthritis in his knees, though he soon became an avid jogger.
The best story concerns Rush Limbaugh, the ferociously bellicose radio personality, who allegedly had either "anal cysts" or an "ingrown hair follicle on his bottom". It is not my custom to mock others' ailments, but anyone who has listened to Limbaugh's programme can imagine the dripping scorn he would bring to the revelation that a prominent Democrat had skipped a war over something like that. Also, in his case, a pain in the arse is peculiarly appropriate.
Admission: I did not serve in Vietnam either. My country was not there, and did not ask me, or anyone else. Like those named above, I was unenthusiastic about that war. Unlike most of them, I am profoundly alarmed about the one now being plotted.
matthew.engel@guardian.co.uk | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
