| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Sat Jan 04, 2003 7:53 pm Post subject: The Return Of Zionist Extremist Elliott Abrams |
| The Return Of Elliott Abrams
Israel's Likud Scores Big With White House Appointment
Jim Lobe writes for Inter Press Service, an international newswire, and for Foreign Policy in Focus, a joint project of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies and the New Mexico-based Interhemispheric Resource Center.
Neo-conservative hawks in the administration of President George W. Bush have won a major battle against the State Department in the fight for control of United States Mideast policy with the surprise appointment of Iran-Contra figure Elliott Abrams to the region's top policy spot in the National Security Council (NSC).
The appointment, leaked to reporters by the White House, would for the first time place someone in a top Mideast policy spot who has publicly assailed the "land-for-peace" formula that has guided U.S. policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict since the 1967 war.
Abrams, who first came to national prominence as a controversial political appointee in the Reagan administration who later pleaded guilty to lying to Congress regarding the Iran-Contra scandal, has also opposed the Oslo peace process and called for Washington to "stand by Israel," rather than act as a neutral mediator between Israel and the Palestinians.
"Yet another American Likudnik is moving to a position where they control Washington's agenda in the Mideast," said Rashid Khalidi, a Mideast historian at the University of Chicago. "This is a tragedy for the Israeli and American people." Likud is the rightwing Israeli party headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Currently the NSC staff chief for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations, Abrams will become Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the NSC for Southwest Asia, Near East and North African Affairs.
As such, he will be in charge of presenting policy papers and options for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, whose own opinions have proven decisive in cases where the president receives conflicting views from hawks, represented by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, and the more-dovish Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who is often backed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the uniformed military. Rice, a Russia specialist, had no experience with Mideast issues until her current job. Abrams will replace Zalmay Khalilzad, a prominent foreign-policy strategist whose views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are considered much more neutral than Abrams'. Khalilzad succeeded Clinton holdover Bruce Reidel early last year but was quickly consumed with his native-borne Afghanistan after being named special envoy to the interim president, Hamid Karzai. Khalilzad will now become "ambassador-at-large for free Iraqis" and is expected to play a key role in sorting out internal conflicts among the Iraqi opposition.
Beloved by right-wingers who hail him as both a hero for his championship of the Nicaraguan contras during the 1980s, Abrams first gained prominence as a leading neo-conservative when he served as Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights in the early 1980s and then as Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs.
In both positions, he clashed frequently and angrily with mainstream church groups and human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, who often accused him of covering up horrendous abuses committed by U.S.-backed governments, such as El Salvador and Guatemala, and rebel forces, such as the Contras and Angola's Unita, while, at the same time, exaggerating abuses by U.S. foes.
He was indicted by the Iran-Contra special prosecutor for giving false testimony about his role in illicitly raising money for the Contras but pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses of withholding information to Congress in order to avoid a trial and a possible jail term. He was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush along with a number of other Iran-Contra defendants in 1992.
His credibility for truth-telling was so low that at one point he was required to take an oath before testifying before Congressional committees. Most analysts here believe that he was given an NSC post by the new Bush administration because any other position would have required Senate confirmation.
After Reagan left office in 1989, Abrams, like a number of other prominent neo-conservatives, was not invited to serve in the Bush Sr. administration. Instead, he worked for a number of think tanks and eventually became head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) where he wrote widely on foreign-policy issues, including the Middle East, and the threats posed by U.S. secular society to Jewish identity. He also remained an integral part of the tight-knit neo-conservative foreign-policy community in Washington that revolved around one of his early mentors, Richard Perle and former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Then-House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich furthered his public rehabilitation by appointing him to the new U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in 1999 for which he also served as chairman in 2000-01. Muslim groups here have complained about his refusal to criticise Israeli practices in the occupied territories and Jerusalem, such as sealing off Muslim holy sites, as violations of religious freedom.
He is not known as an Arab-Israeli specialist but has long favoured Likud positions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and even assailed former Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for caving into U.S. pressure to respect the Oslo peace process. Shortly after the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifida at the end of September 2000, he criticised mainstream Jewish groups for calling for a resumption of peace talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, as well as a halt to the violence.
Like Perle, as well as Rumsfeld's civilian advisers like Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and Cheney's top deputy, I. Lewis Libby, he has favoured a Mideast strategy based on the overwhelming military power of both the United States and Israel and on a military alliance between Israel and Turkey against hostile Arab states, particularly Syria and Iraq, in order to create a "broader strategic context" that would ensure whatever state might emerge on Palestinian territory would be friendly to United States and Israeli interests and that could force Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. He has long favoured forceful action to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
He has accused Palestinian Authority leader Yassir Arafat of being an untrustworthy partner under the Oslo process and is believed to have used his previous NSC Democracy position to push for his ouster from power as part of a thorough reform process. That view, which was strongly backed by Rumsfeld and Cheney's offices, was eventually accepted by Bush last June, over strenuous objections by the State Department and senior aides for Bush's father, notably his former national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft.
In his new position, according to John Prados, a historian who has written about the National Security Council, Abrams should be in an excellent position to influence U.S. policy on the Mideast, particularly in "delaying and/or halting policy on the 'roadmap'" that is being developed by the "Quartet" -- the United States, European Union, Russia, and the United Nations -- on resuming political negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Indeed, it already appears that British hopes for a major meeting of the Quartet on the roadmap before the end of the year are fading quickly.
Abrams is expected to support Israel's recent requests both to put off discussion of the 'roadmap' until after Israel's elections at the end of next month and for some 14 billion dollars in military aid and loan guarantees to help the country cope with economic hard times.
Abrams' influence on policy is already clear. For the first time ever the Bush administration voted against a U.N. General Assembly resolution last week that called on Israel to repeal the Jerusalem law that declares that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel."
In the past, Washington has abstained on the issue, insisting that the the status of Jerusalem must be determined by negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Abrams has in the past assailed that vote, as well as Washington's refusal to recogize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, on the grounds that that such a position "tantalizes the Palestinians with the prospect of forcing the Jews to abandon Jerusalem."
As you might expect, Arab-Americans responded to the appointment with a mix of resignation and foreboding.
James Zogby, the director of the Arab-American Institute (AAI) here said Abrams' appointment sends "a very dangerous message to the Arab world" and adds to the "lock that the neo-con set now has on all the major instruments of decision-making except for the State Department."
Khalidi also pointed to Abrams' history as being less than forthcoming with information that may contradict his own views. "He will be yet another filter blocking reality from reaching the president," he said. | |  | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2003 4:23 am Post subject: 'DON'T DIE FOR ISRAEL' |
| > A Review by Dr. Susan Huck of "ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL," by Andrew
> Hurley
>
> Editor comments: Thank you Dr. Susan Huck.
>
> The following powerful one-page review of ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL by
> career journalist and book author Dr. Susan Huck is the most incisive
> review yet. It again reminds your Editor that this book was Andrew
> Hurley's life literary work, resulting from 20 years of careful data
> collection and writing.
>
> Hurley chose, because of the nature of his business relationships, to
> wait until his retirement to publish ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL. Each
> paragraph and every word was mulled over time and time again before
> it was finally printed. Only the clearest facts and conclusions
> survived. The result was this impeccable book.
>
> It was my honor to know Jim Hurley before his death last year, and to
> hear of the many antidotes he did not include, and some he could not
> include. Andrew J. Hurley (Jim) lived an abundant and adventurous
> life that would seem enviable to most of us. However It is my belief
> that he will someday be remembered, not for his business successes,
> but for this, his one and only book.
>
> ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL is the one book we know of that has yet to be
> seriously challenged on any material fact, and nary a detail has been
> upended since WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS published it as our first book.
> Hurley wrote ONUI believing that millions of live were at risk, and
> that he could make a difference.
>
> Thanks to Jim Hurley; we will do our best to help the world remember
> and honor him - Editor.
>
> DON'T DIE FOR ISRAEL
>
> A Review by Dr. Susan Huck of ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL, by Andrew
> Hurley
>
> The original title of this 1990 book, "Holocaust II? Saving
> Israel from Suicide", perhaps more accurately reflected the author's
> concern that aggressive Israeli policies might ultimately lead to
> disaster for Israel. However, the current title very accurately
> reflects the current American, as distinct from the Israeli problem.
> It details, as truthfully as any source I have seen, the manner in
> which Uncle Sam is converted into Uncle Schlemiel, Israel's 900-pound
> gorilla.
>
> The theme of suicidal Jewish zealotry is outlined in Hurley's
> first chapter, which draws upon A History of the Jews, by Dr. Abram
> Sachar, once president of Brandeis University. Far from the tale of
> continual undeserved victimhood constantly served to the public,
> Sachar demonstrates how, from a thousand years before the birth of
> Christ, Jewish tribes and states kept getting into needless
> difficulties with both friend and foe.
>
> Ah, but such a perspective does not serve current
> purposes. "We" non-Jews must be kept guilt-ridden and "obliged" to
> grovel, pay, and otherwise sacrifice ourselves for Jews. An Anti-
> Defamation League catalogue of "educational" material emphasizes the
> theme of victimhood and martyrdom at the hands of Christians, as in
> The Longest Hatred -- "from the Cross to the Swastika." The ADL's
> concept of a "good Christian" is one who sacrifices himself for the
> Jews. It is sad to see the American armed forces being set up to
> serve as "good Christians" for Israel.
>
> Hurley's book was originally published in 1990, before "Gulf
> War I," the Bush 41 war. The re-titled but not revised edition was
> published in 1999, apparently missing by just a few years "Gulf War
> II," or the Bush 43 war scheduled for 2003. Nothing, it seems, will
> deter President George Bush from initiating the all-out war on Iraq
> being pressed by a Jewish cabal within his administration. Jewish
> enthusiasts look forward to it as the beginning of "World War IV" to
> forcibly "re-educate" all Moslems everywhere, beginning with Israel's
> closest foes.
>
> As the preface to ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL explains, lawyer
> and historian Andrew Hurley does much more than examine Jewish
> history. He explains -- at length and with "documentation," the
> methods by which the Jewish lobby in the United States controls "our"
> federal government. The carrot is money, the stick is public
> smearing, followed if necessary by deprivation of livelihood.
>
> American and Israeli Jews collaborate seamlessly to bulldoze
> Congress and the entire executive branch into sending an
> uninterrupted stream of money, military hardware, and whatever else
> is wanted to Israel. Congressman Larry McDonald, who was on the
> research and development subcommittee of the House Armed Services
> Committee, once told me that "we wouldn't even have an R & D program
> if Israel didn't want us to," because the fruits of taxpayer-funded R
> & D, he knew, were funneled straight to Israel.
>
> The Israelis then feel free to market it, by the way. Hurley
> explains this in great detail. No cabinet member, not to mention mere
> bureaucrat, can stand in the way of this continual transfer of
> wealth, because the Jews can "go over the head" of anyone of any
> rank.
>
> Hurley, writing in 1990, could not have known that George
> Bush's father, Bush 41, would "learn" that he lost his 1992 re-
> election campaign because he merely delayed a "loan guarantee" to
> Israel. (That is, he delayed guaranteeing that if Israel
> defaulted, "our" government would pay. In any event, our annual multi-
> billion dollar gifts to Israel easily cover Israel's debts.) Young
> Bush 43 has been keenly monitored ever since he loomed on the horizon
> as a candidate. The ADL boasts of this.
>
> In short, Hurley's book is a manual of "how they do it,"
> filled with examples as of 1990. In 2003, "how they do it" has simply
> become more blatant, as Jewish "neocons" -- so-called neo-
> conservatives -- pack the administration with armchair warhawks and
> are apparently capable of employing the American armed forces as
> their own.
>
> By employing mere name-calling as a first-line weapon, the
> goyim are reduced to jellyfish. Why does anyone respond to
> accusations of "anti-Semitism" with other than a patient smile and
> the comment, "That won't work, either"?
>
> If the silly goyim ever wake up and do that, the United
> States might cease to be ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL. -end
>
> (Reviewer, Dr. Susan Huck's latest book "WHY DO WE AMERICAN SUBMIT TO
> THIS" By Newcomb Publisher's Inc., is now available from We Hold
> These Truths, $20.00)
>
> To Buy ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL, 345 page soft cover, $17.50; 2 for
> $35.00; 10 for $128.00. (http://www.whtt.org/bookstor.htm)
>
> We Hold These Truths
> P.O. Box 14491
> Scottsdale, AZ 85254
> 480-947-3329
>
> To subscribe, type "Subscribe" in the SUBJECT LINE.
> To unsubscribe, type "Remove" in the SUBJECT LINE.
>
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WORDS are Stronger than SWORDS! ~ Spread the words to the Wilderness!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
eFreePalestine is America's Secular WILDERNESS VOICE for PALESTINE!*
www.FreePalestine.com No Peace Without Occupation Free PALESTINE!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
Blessed are the Peacemakers NOT the Warmongers!
Chronic INJUSTICE is the ROOT of TERRORISM!
Fighting TERRORISM while AIDING OCCUPATION is Moronic!
END TERRORISM by ENDING Israeli OCCUPATION Stupid!
SHARON NOW = MILOSEVIC Then = HITLER IN 1942!
Peace Only in a Legislatively DEzIONIZED Secular State!
Aiding Israeli OCCUPATION = Aiding TERRORISM!
Where Does Our Simplistic Absolutist President Stand?!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
www.Badil.org The RIGHT of RETURN!
www.IndictSharon.net Indict the BUTCHER!
www.PMWatch.org PALESTINE MEDIA WATCH!
www.PalestineRemembered.com PALESTINE for DUMMIES!
www.FreePalestineCampaign.org Be a Peacemaker in PALESTINE!
www.InternationalAnswer.org Act Now to STOP WAR and End RACISM
www.capwiz.com/ADC/home/ Tell Congress to Stop Aid to Israel!
www.Al-Awda.org/petition.htm END zIONIST Profit from OCCUPATION!
www.RamallahOnline.com Our Occupied Home in Ramallah PALESTINE!
www.groups.Yahoo.com/group/eFreePalestine/messages ARCHIVES!
www.PalestineChronicle.com News and Views from PALESTINE!
www.DocumentaryPhotographs.com Pictures from PALESTINE!
www.PalestineMonitor.org Monitor PALESTINE!
www.WRMEA.com zIONIST-Free MEDIA!
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
eFreePalestine-subscribe@YahooGroups.com SUBSCRIBE NOW 
eFreePalestine-unsubscribe@YahooGroups.com Unsubscribe 
eFreePalestine@YahooGroups.com Speak up on eFreePalestine!
eFreePalestine-owner@YahooGroups.com Questions/Comments!
Views expressed are the author's only*
++++++++++++++++++++++ eFreePalestine ++++++++++++++++++++++
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 12:54 am Post subject: 'Devastating' War Planned by Warmongering Bush & Blair |
| Subj: Iraq: 'Devastating' War Planned by Warmongering Bush & Blair
Date: 1/8/03 3:35:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
BAGHDAD, Iraq (Jan. 8) - Coalition warplanes struck air defense targets in southern Iraq on Wednesday for the second time this week, and a key Iraqi official said the United States and Britain were bent on war with Baghdad to subjugate the Middle East.
In Moscow, meanwhile, Iraq's ambassador to Russia dismissed rumors Saddam Hussein might go into exile to avoid war and said the Iraqi leader would ''fight to the last drop of blood'' to defend his country.
Concerns war is imminent have mounted, with the United States and Britain announcing the dispatch of thousands more troops and weapons to the Persian Gulf region because of misgivings about Iraq's commitment to abandon weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq insists it has no such weapons and maintains that claims to the contrary by Washington and London are simply a pretext for war.
''The aggressors in Washington and London are preparing for a devastating aggression against ... the people of Iraq, and they would like once again to destroy the City of Peace (Baghdad) as they did in 1991,'' Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told a visiting South African delegation Wednesday.
Aziz said U.N. arms inspectors, who returned to Iraq in November after a four-year hiatus, had strayed beyond the search for weapons of mass destruction.
''They are searching for other information about Iraq's conventional military capabilities, the Iraqi scientific and industrial capability in the civilian area, and also espionage questions,'' Aziz said.
U.N. spokesman Hiro Ueki denied those allegations and said U.N. officials had received no formal complaint from Iraqi authorities about alleged espionage.
The United States has accused Saddam of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and says it will use force if necessary to disarm him. Iraq insists it has destroyed its biological and chemical weapons and halted its nuclear program and the making of banned missiles. There have been no known instances of serious problems encountered by the inspectors since they began work Nov. 27.
Nevertheless, the pace of the U.S.-British buildup has accelerated. The American battle staff that would run a military campaign against Iraq is beginning to assemble at a command post in the small gulf state of Qatar, U.S. officials said.
Tens of thousands more combat forces are scheduled to flow into the region over the next few weeks. Some U.S. soldiers landed Wednesday in neighboring Kuwait, but U.S. officials refused to say how many or identify their units.
Among the other forces expected to deploy from U.S. bases in the next several days are F-15E and F-15C fighters and B-1B bombers. Still, U.S. and British officials insist war is neither imminent nor inevitable.
As the buildup continues, U.S. warplanes struck Wednesday against air defense communication sites between the cities of Al Kut and An Nasiriyah. The U.S. Central Command said the attacks occurred after Iraqi air defense forces fired anti-aircraft artillery at U.S. planes patrolling the southern ''no fly'' zone and Iraqi military aircraft entered the zone.
On Monday, U.S. planes targeted two Iraqi military radars near the city of Al Amarah. Iraqi officials said two people were killed and 13 were injured in Monday's attacks.
Meanwhile, the official Iraqi News Agency said Saddam held a third day of meetings Wednesday with military and militia commanders, encouraging them not to fear a technologically superior foe.
''In aerial combat, there is a disparity in weapons, but on the ground, men fight with their guns and it's enough for the men to have bombs, bullets, a loaf of bread, water and a gun,'' Saddam was quoted as saying. As long as Iraqi forces receive the support of the people, ''the enemy will be defeated,'' Saddam added.
With tensions rising, Philippine Foreign Minister Blas Ople said Arab governments were trying to convince Saddam to step down and go into exile. Ople, speaking to reporters in Manila, said he learned of those efforts by Arab ambassadors whom he refused to identify.
The German newspaper Tageszeitung said Russian officials had been in Baghdad since November evaluating chances of Saddam stepping down. In a report for publication Thursday, the newspaper said Russian President Vladimir Putin would send a special envoy to Baghdad to finalize details if Saddam appeared willing to accept the Russian offer of exile.
Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency quoted an unidentified ''high-ranking Russian official'' as denying that Moscow was working toward Saddam's departure, saying there were ''no grounds for the Iraqi leader to request political asylum anywhere, including in Russia.''
Iraq's ambassador to Russia, Abbas Khalaf, told the Interfax news agency that Saddam will not leave his country and will ''fight to the last drop of blood.''
Khalaf called reports that Saddam might leave the country ''absolute nonsense'' and ''part of Washington and London's psychological war against Iraq,'' Interfax said.
AP-NY-01-08-03 1508EST | | | | Alpha | | | | Guest | | Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 2:34 pm Post subject: |
| Gaps in Iraq document, Blix expected to tell U.N.
Thursday, January 9, 2003 Posted: 5:33 AM EST (1033 GMT)
Blix will travel to Baghdad later this month.
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix is expected to tell the Security Council on Thursday that his inspectors continue to find more information gaps as they comb the 12,000-page Iraqi weapons declaration.
Since the document was handed over on December 7, teams of analysts in New York have been scrutinizing the weapons declaration, comparing it to prior declarations and to a database of information kept by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.
Rather than resolving outstanding questions in the various weapons areas UNMOVIC is looking at -- chemical, biological and missile -- a U.N. official said, "We're finding more holes ... in all categories." The official would not specify particular gaps.
At the invitation of the Iraqi government, Blix is planning to travel January 19 to Baghdad, where he will raise the questions with the Iraqis. | | | | Alpha | | | | Guest-400c | | | | Guest-5001 | | Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2003 12:30 pm Post subject: Re: "The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel": |
|
Whoever seeks to set one nation against another, seeks to degrade ALL nationalities. Whoever seeks to set one race against another seeks to enslave ALL races. Whoever seeks to set one religion against another seeks to destroy ALL religion. FDR. | | | | Guest-c651 | | Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 8:22 pm Post subject: Richard Perle about "regime change" in Iraq |
| Richard Perle about "regime change" in Iraq [Worth reading]
iraqicommunity-Message 1665.,Tue Feb 25, 2003.
Worth reading
----------------------------------------
Interview: 'Even if Saddam worked for us it is time for us to throw
him out'
London |By Amir Taheri | 23-02-2003
His political enemies have labelled him "The Prince of Darkness"
while his friends claim that he is one of the "best strategic
brains" in Washington. All agree that Richard Perle, who chairs the
all-powerful Defence Policy Board, is one of the key hands in
shaping President George W. Bush's global strategy.
One of the architects of the policy of "regime change" in Iraq,
Perle plays a crucial behind-the-scenes role in all diplomatic,
political and military aspects of what looks like a deepening crisis.
In an exclusive interview conducted during a recent visit to London,
Perle responded to our questions.
Excerpts:
Question: Some people in the Arab world believe that Saddam Hussain
works for you.
Answer: Why is that?
"It's a long story. But the main theme is that Saddam, by
threatening and sometimes actually invading Iraq's neighbours,
forced many countries in the region to come under the U.S. umbrella
and even invite American military presence. He also waged war
against the revolution in Iran for eight years, helping you contain
that particular enemy at no cost to yourself. The result of all that
is there is now a quarter of a million American troops where there
was none just three decades ago. The U.S. has some military presence
in all but five of the Arab states. And now, by making an unequal
war inevitable, he is just trying to present Iraq to you on a golden
plate..."
A:Interesting analysis. But I can tell you one thing: even if Saddam
worked for us it is time for us to chuck him out. We are not
interested in maintaining troops outside our own territory just for
the fun of it. The United States was not designed or destined to
become an imperial power. You will not find anywhere in the world
where we intervened militarily and set up a colonial empire.
Our problem with Saddam Hussain is twofold. First, he is clearly
determined to build up his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
which he could use against our allies in the region and, later, even
against Europe and the United States. The simple truth is that we
cannot trust him.
Therefore, we cannot turn our face away and let him to do whatever
he likes in violation of the ceasefire accords of 1991 and 18
Security Council resolutions. The second reason for our position is
that we believe the Iraqi people deserve a better government.
Q:Some Arabs believe you want Iraq's oil…
A:The answer to that question will be given by what we shall all see
very soon. Iraqi oil belongs to the people of Iraq and whoever is
prepared to buy it at world prices. Even now the American market
absorbs most of Iraq's oil.
Q:Some Arabs see you as an enemy…
A:They are wrong. Saddam Hussain is not the symbol of Arab dreams,
hopes and aspirations. No one has harmed Arab interests as much as
he has in the past few decades. All that I want is for Arabs to be
able to elect their own governments, hold them accountable.
All I want is for the Arabs to have a robust open market economy so
that they can have a share in the fantastic prosperity created by
the new global economy. Why is it that the Arab countries are
absolutely the only ones whose real income per head has fallen in
the past two decades?
A friend is not one who flatters you and congratulates you for your
weaknesses. A friend is he who criticises you. I want the Arabs to
ask themselves why are they weak and confused? The answer is:
because they are not free. Because they have suffered from leaders
like Saddam Hussain.
Q:Are the Arabs ready for the kind of Western-style system you
preach?
A:I think they are. At least they must be given a chance. When they
had a chance, several Arab countries were slowly building democracy –
among them Iraq and Egypt. And today several Arab states are taking
risks with reform and change. The Arabs have a great culture and
civilisation behind them. So, why should they be shut out of
contemporary civilisation?
Q:So, you think that post-Saddam Iraq will be a model for all Arabs?
A:I don't believe in models. You can never generalise in these
things. Each country has its own traditions, its own dynamism for
reform. It is not for us to tell anyone how to do things. All that
we are saying is that people should not be imprisoned or killed
because of their opinions, that governments should be answerable to
people, and that the national economy is not a thieves' bazaar for
the rulers.
Q:One of your former advisors Laurent Murawiec says that Saudi
Arabia should be regarded as "Enemy Number One" of the United States
and even invaded and carved into five mini-states. Do you agree?
A:No, I don't. Saudi Arabia is a valuable ally. There are aspects of
Saudi policy with which we disagree just as there are aspects of our
policy that the Saudis do not like. So we tell them what we think
and they tell us what they think.
I must also tell you that Saudi Arabia is not a monolith. Not all
Saudis think and behave alike. There is a wide-range of opinion on
all key issues in the kingdom where we have solid friends. The
reform plan proposed by Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdelaziz contains
some interesting suggestions. It could provide the Arabs with a
roadmap for collective change.
Q:There are frequent reports about plans to persuade Saddam Hussain
to step down and go into exile, thus preventing a war.
A:I know. But we will not accept fudge. We will not accept a half
solution under which the Iraqis will end up with a light version of
Saddam. What we are talking about is regime change, not just a
change of personnel.
Saddam is both the cause and the effect of an evil system that has
brought so much suffering to the people of Iraq. That system must
go. If Saddam's departure into exile is the first step to the kind
of change I am talking about, very well. If not, no thanks.
Q:From what you say it seems to me that war has become inevitable…
A:War was never ruled out as an option. But nothing is inevitable
until it has happened. Obviously, the final word must come from
President George W. Bush.
Q:Could it come soon? And how long do you think the war would take?
A:My hunch is that it will come soon. My understanding is that we
can wrap the whole thing in 30 days.
Q:So there is no chance that in November 2004 when there will be
another U.S. presidential election we shall still have Saddam
Hussain in power in Baghdad pointing to the scalp of a second
President Bush on his wall?
A:No chance. Guaranteed.
Q: Will the U.S. go to war even without a second UN resolution?
A:Anyone with a smallest doe of fairness would know that, legally
speaking, we do not need a second resolution. We didn't even need
1441. The Security Council gave Iraq 60 days to disarm back in 1991.
One thing is certain: we will not allow manoeuvrings over a second
resolution to be used as a tactic to buy Saddam more time.
Q:What if France vetoes a second resolution that authorises the use
of force?
A:That won't happen. The last time France vetoed an American
resolution was in 1956. At that time the U.S. wanted French, British
and Israeli forces to immediately evacuate the Sinai that they had
captured from Egypt in the Suez War. The French veto had no real
effect. The U.S. succeeded in making sure that Egyptian territory
was evacuated.
Q:Does this mean the U.S. will ignore a French veto?
A:Certainly. If a veto can dictate our policy then France would be
regarded as the master of the world. In any case, there will be no
French veto. The French know that if they veto we shall ignore them.
They would also know that Saddam Hussain couldn't win. So, what
would be the sense of antagonising a victorious U.S. to please a
losing Saddam?
Q:I don't know. But I can tell you that President Jacques Chirac
seems determined to make life as hard as he can for you. He cannot
accept that the U.S. should have the power to go around changing
regimes it does not like…
A:I don't agree with your analysis. Just before the war starts
France will jump on our side. It has happened all the time, most
recently in Afghanistan. The French behaved in exactly the same way
last time when Saddam had invaded Kuwait.
Let me tell you something more important: the French attitude makes
war more likely. It gives Saddam false hope that things can be
dragged on and on until the next American presidential election.
Thus Saddam sees no reason why he should really show his weapons to
the inspectors.
That gives us the clear reason we need for attacking him. Thus,
Chirac's policy will, in the final analysis, lead to Saddam's
destruction.
Q:Isn't there a subtext to the French position, one linked to French
oil interests in Iraq?
A:The French company Total has signed a $40 billion oil deal with
the Iraqis. Paris is, therefore, anxious to preserve that. But many
Iraqis say the contract is unfair and one-sided. They want it to be
renegotiated in favour of Iraq. But that is not an issue for us. It
is the future Iraqi government that would decide what do with the
country's oil and other resources.
There is no reason why France, which has a long presence in Iraq,
should be excluded from normal and mutually beneficial deals. Let me
repeat that we are not in this for oil. We are in this for something
much more important than oil: our future security and the security
of our allies in the region.
Q:Is there enough Arab support for the American position?
A:More than enough. Not a single Arab state is making the slightest
move against our policy on this issue. And at least a dozen are
actively cooperating with us in whatever field we require.
Q:Could you tell us which ones?
A:No. I am not their spokesman. What interests me is that almost all
Arab states are showing a sense of realism and an understanding of
their own interests on this issue.
Secretary of State Colin Powell told us recently in Davos that the
U.S. had 12 allies in the coming war…
As soon as it becomes clear that we are going to war we shall have
plenty of allies. But even if we didn't have a single ally, we would
still do what needs to be done. One way or another, and sooner
rather than later, Saddam Hussain must go, that's the message.
Q:Who will be your next target? Iran, Syria, Libya?
Change is needed in all those three countries, and a few others
besides. But the Iraqi case is unique. I think Iran can be changed
by the action of the Iranian people. We shall provide whatever
support they need to ensure the success of the reform movement.
I believe that Syria, too, can organise change from within. As for
Libya, it is a weird case. For the time being it is out of world
reality. But the colonel knows that we have our eyes on him.
Q:In Davos, Colin Powell told us that there would be a Palestinian
state by 2005...
A:2005 is a long way off. Once the Iraqi situation is settled we can
move faster. The president's "two-states" vision is already clear.
We also have a road map. We are convinced that, without the
settlement of the Palestinian issue, new political architecture of
the Middle East would not be possible.
Q:Can the U.S. handle the Iraqi conflict and the North Koran crisis
at the same time?
A:Certainly. For the past 20 years we have worked on a strategy that
enables us to fight at least two major wars simultaneously. We are
not going to let North Korea off the hook simply because we are
working to get rid of Saddam.
Q:Do you plan to impose a military occupation of Iraq?
A:No. Our first task is to topple the dictatorship and destroy its
weapons. We shall then have the task of ensuring security and law
and order for a brief period during which the new Iraqi government
establishes itself and rebuilds its police and armed forces.
The Iraqis will have the opportunity to have a new constitution,
hold elections and produce a government of their own choosing. Once
that government asks us to leave, we shall leave.
Q:So, all this talk about an American ruler for Iraq is out of
place? I have heard many names including Colin Powell and even
former Senator George Mitchell...
A:Mitchell? You must be kidding. No, Iraq does not need an American
ruler. We had to assume direct rule in Germany and Japan after the
Second World War because there were no alternative forces in those
countries at the time.
The majority of the Germans had supported Hitler and the majority of
the Japanese had endorsed the policies of their military rulers. In
Iraq, however, the majority is against Saddam Hussain. There are
Iraqis from all shades of opinion to come together and create a
pluralist system.
You can have two-dozen political parties covering the whole spectrum
in Iraq. There are also many competent, experienced, well-educated
and dedicated Iraqis to assume control of their country and rebuild
it. They won't need an American ruler. Iraq is to be a model of
democracy, not a model of American military rule.
Q:A word about Turkey and Iran. Do you have their support?
A:As much as needed. Turkey is an ally, and Iran knows what it must
do.
Q:Nevertheless, the Turks are making noises about the Treaty of
Lausanne that gives them the so-called "right of observance" in
northern Iraq, especially in the oil regions of Mosul and Kirkuk.
Iran, for its part, talks about the Erzerum Treaty that gives Tehran
some say in the affairs of the Shiite holy shrines in southern Iraq.
A:I don't know about all that. All I can say is that we shall not
allow anyone to threaten Iraq's independence, territorial integrity
and full sovereignty. Turkey has received assurances about the
Turkmen minority in northern Iraq.
It is also aware of the fact that it cannot create an empire in
northern Iraq. As for Iran, whatever the Shiites do about their
shrines is their private matter. The new Iraqi government will not
allow any foreign intervention.
Q:What is the timetable? Would there be a new Iraqi regime in time
for the Arab summit, perhaps in spring?
A:Why not? | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:24 pm Post subject: Jane's: Israeli Moles Penetrate Pentagon |
| Jane's: Israeli Moles Penetrate Pentagon
A mole called Mega
The scandal over a suspected Israeli mole in the Pentagon who allegedly passed highly sensitive policy documents on Iran to Israeli agents in Washington has rekindled suspicions long held by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and others in Washington, that Israel systematically spies on its strategic ally and benefactor.
The FBI probe currently under way goes far beyond the allegations that a lone analyst was providing the Israelis with US secrets.
Shortly before George Tenet retired as director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in June, he alleged that an Israeli agent was operating in Washington. Tenet was challenged to identify the agent but for reasons that were never explained apparently did not do so. For years, the FBI has been convinced that there is at least one high-level Israeli mole in Washington.
The Tenet episode underlined growing unease in some quarters in Washington about the influence that Israel's right wing has in US President George W Bush's administration through the pro-Likud neo-conservatives, largely in the Pentagon, and the politically powerful America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and loosely associated organisations, such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service, is known to seek out Jews around the world to serve as informal agents, known in Hebrew as sayanim or 'helpers'.
The Israeli government and AIPAC have strenuously denied that they were involved in the current scandal. But Israel's intelligence organisations have been spying on the US and running clandestine operations since Israel was established. These operations range from spiriting an estimated 200 lbs of weapons-grade uranium for its secret nuclear arms programme in the 1960s to widescale industrial espionage.
Much of this is conducted by the secret Scientific Liaison Bureau, known by its Hebrew acronym Lakam, run by the Ministry of Defence and its equally little-known successor, Malmab (the Security Authority for the Ministry of Defence).
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr040929_1_n.shtml | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
