| Author | Message | | Guest-c651 | | Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2003 11:07 am Post subject: JINSA Zionist Perle/Wolfowitz Cabal in Bush Regime Push Iraq |
| JINSA Zionist Perle/Wolfowitz/Cheney Cabal in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Invasion:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
Bush is intent on painting allies and enemies in the Middle East as evil
By Robert Fisk
10 September 2002
Just as Americans are recovering from the harrowing television re-runs of the 11 September attacks, their President is going to launch the biggest reshaping of the Middle East since the British and French parcelled out the Arab lands after the 1914-18 war. When he addresses the United Nations on Thursday, George Bush will be threatening not only Iraq – which had absolutely nothing to do with the crimes against humanity in New York and Washington – but Syria, Iran and, by extension, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.The Syrian Accountability Act, which accuses Damascus of supporting "terrorism", will come into force as President Bush is speaking and will follow only days after the State Department branded the Lebanese Hizbollah as the "A-team of terrorism", more dangerous even than Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida. Like Iraq, the Hizbollah had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks – indeed, they were among the first to condemn them – but the White House now seems set on painting allies and enemies alike in the Middle East as a focus of evil.Only The Nation among all of America's newspapers and magazines has dared to point out that a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working within the American administration and the Bush plans for the Middle East – which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world – fit perfectly into Israel's own dreams for the region. The magazine listed Vice-President Dick Cheney – the arch-hawk in the US administration – and John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for Arms Control, with Douglas Feith, the third most senior executive at the Pentagon, as members of the advisory board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) before joining the Bush government. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is still an adviser on the institute, as is the former CIA director James Woolsey.Michael Ledeen, described by The Nation as "one of the most influential 'Jinsans' in Washington" has been calling for "total war" against "terror" – with "regime change" for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Mr Perle advises the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld – who refers to the West Bank and Gaza as "the so-called occupied territories" – and arranged the anti-Saudi "kernel of evil" briefing by Laurent Murawiec that so outraged the Saudi royal family last month. The Saudi regime may itself be in great danger as the princes of the House of Saud attempt to seize more power for themselves in advance of the depart-ure of the dying King Fahd.Jinsa's website says it exists to "inform the American defence and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East". Next month, Michael Rubin of the right-wing and pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute – who referred to the outgoing UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson as an abettor of "terrorism" – joins the US Defence Department as an Iran-Iraq "expert".According to The Nation, Irving Moskovitz, the California bingo magnate who has funded settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is a donor as well as a director of Jinsa.President Bush, of course, will not be talking about the influence of these pro-Israeli lobbyists when he presents his vision of the Middle East at the United Nations on Thursday.Nor will he give the slightest indication that the region is, in the words of its own kings and dictators, a powder keg of resentment and anger. The tectonic plates of the Arab world are now grinding with increasing violence. Into this political earthquake zone, Mr Bush now seems intent on leading his country, with his loyal British ally.Most of today's Arab nations were fashioned out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France in the aftermath of the First World War – and Palestinians still blame Britain today for supporting the formation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.Both European nations stationed tens of thousands of troops across the region, suppressing Arab revolts in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon – itself created by the French at the request of its Christian Maronite community. The whole colonial framework led to the loss of tens of thousands of lives before both the British and French retreated from the Middle East.Now President Bush seems set on following the colonial powers into the region for another military and political adventure – ostensibly to spread "democracy" among those nations it most despises (Iraq, Palestine and Iran) but in fact more likely to increase American control of an increasingly anti-Western Arab world.The Arabs themselves warn that this will lead to massive instability and widespread violence. The Israelis – and their allies in the US administration – are hell bent on the whole shebang.
Here is that "Men from JINSA and CSP" article which Fisk mentions in the above referenced article:
This article can be found on the web at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1
The Men From JINSA and CSP
by JASON VEST
[from the September 2, 2002 issue of "The Nation" magazine in the USA]
Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power. Just as the right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a shadow defense establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too, did the right during the Clinton years, in part through two organizations: the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP). And just as was the case two decades ago, dozens of their members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. Industrious and persistent, they've managed to weave a number of issues--support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general--into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core. On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war--not just with Iraq, but "total war," as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, "regime change" by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative. Anyone who dissents--be it Colin Powell's State Department, the CIA or career military officers--is committing heresy against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East--a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action. For example, the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board--chaired by JINSA/CSP adviser and former Reagan Administration Defense Department official Richard Perle, and stacked with advisers from both groups--recently made news by listening to a briefing that cast Saudi Arabia as an enemy to be brought to heel through a number of potential mechanisms, many of which mirror JINSA's recommendations, and which reflect the JINSA/CSP crowd's preoccupation with Egypt. (The final slide of the Defense Policy Board presentation proposed that "Grand Strategy for the Middle East" should concentrate on "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot [and] Egypt as the prize.") Ledeen has been leading the charge for regime change in Iran, while old comrades like Andrew Marshall and Harold Rhode in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment actively tinker with ways to re-engineer both the Iranian and Saudi governments. JINSA is also cheering the US military on as it tries to secure basing rights in the strategic Red Sea country of Eritrea, happily failing to mention that the once-promising secular regime of President Isaiais Afewerki continues to slide into the kind of repressive authoritarianism practiced by the "axis of evil" and its adjuncts. Indeed, there are some in military and intelligence circles who have taken to using "axis of evil" in reference to JINSA and CSP, along with venerable repositories of hawkish thinking like the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute, as well as defense contractors, conservative foundations and public relations entities underwritten by far-right American Zionists (all of which help to underwrite JINSA and CSP). It's a milieu where ideology and money seamlessly blend: "Whenever you see someone identified in print or on TV as being with the Center for Security Policy or JINSA championing a position on the grounds of ideology or principle--which they are unquestionably doing with conviction--you are, nonetheless, not informed that they're also providing a sort of cover for other ideologues who just happen to stand to profit from hewing to the Likudnik and Pax Americana lines," says a veteran intelligence officer. He notes that while the United States has begun a phaseout of civilian aid to Israel that will end by 2007, government policy is to increase military aid by half the amount of civilian aid that's cut each year--which is not only a boon to both the US and Israeli weapons industries but is also crucial to realizing the far right's vision for missile defense and the Middle East. Founded in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that the United States might not be able to provide Israel with adequate military supplies in the event of another Arab-Israeli war, over the past twenty-five years JINSA has gone from a loose-knit proto-group to a $1.4-million-a-year operation with a formidable array of Washington power players on its rolls. Until the beginning of the current Bush Administration, JINSA's board of advisers included such heavy hitters as Dick Cheney, John Bolton (now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control) and Douglas Feith, the third-highest-ranking executive in the Pentagon. Both Perle and former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, two of the loudest voices in the attack-Iraq chorus, are still on the board, as are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eugene Rostow and Ledeen--Oliver North's Iran/contra liaison with the Israelis. According to its website, JINSA exists to "educate the American public about the importance of an effective US defense capability so that our vital interests as Americans can be safeguarded" and to "inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East." In practice, this translates into its members producing a steady stream of op-eds and reports that have been good indicators of what the Pentagon's civilian leadership is thinking. JINSA relishes denouncing virtually any type of contact between the US government and Syria and finding new ways to demonize the Palestinians. To give but one example (and one that kills two birds with one stone): According to JINSA, not only is Yasir Arafat in control of all violence in the occupied territories, but he orchestrates the violence solely "to protect Saddam.... Saddam is at the moment Arafat's only real financial supporter.... [Arafat] has no incentive to stop the violence against Israel and allow the West to turn its attention to his mentor and paymaster." And if there's a way to advance other aspects of the far-right agenda by intertwining them with Israeli interests, JINSA doesn't hesitate there, either. A recent report contends that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge must be tapped because "the Arab oil-producing states" are countries "with interests inimical to ours," but Israel "stand[s] with us when we need [Israel]," and a US policy of tapping oil under ANWR will "limit [the Arabs'] ability to do damage to either of us." The bulk of JINSA's modest annual budget is spent on taking a bevy of retired US generals and admirals to Israel, where JINSA facilitates meetings between Israeli officials and the still-influential US flag officers, who, upon their return to the States, happily write op-eds and sign letters and advertisements championing the Likudnik line. (Sowing seeds for the future, JINSA also takes US service academy cadets to Israel each summer and sponsors a lecture series at the Army, Navy and Air Force academies.) In one such statement, issued soon after the outbreak of the latest intifada, twenty-six JINSAns of retired flag rank, including many from the advisory board, struck a moralizing tone, characterizing Palestinian violence as a "perversion of military ethics" and holding that "America's role as facilitator in this process should never yield to America's responsibility as a friend to Israel," as "friends don't leave friends on the battlefield." However high-minded this might sound, the postservice associations of the letter's signatories--which are almost always left off the organization's website and communiqués--ought to require that the phrase be amended to say "friends don't leave friends on the battlefield, especially when there's business to be done and bucks to be made." Almost every retired officer who sits on JINSA's board of advisers or has participated in its Israel trips or signed a JINSA letter works or has worked with military contractors who do business with the Pentagon and Israel. While some keep a low profile as self-employed "consultants" and avoid mention of their clients, others are less shy about their associations, including with the private mercenary firm Military Professional Resources International, weapons broker and military consultancy Cypress International and SY Technology, whose main clients include the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, which oversees several ongoing joint projects with Israel. The behemoths of military contracting are also well represented in JINSA's ranks. For example, JINSA advisory board members Adm. Leon Edney, Adm. David Jeremiah and Lieut. Gen. Charles May, all retired, have served Northrop Grumman or its subsidiaries as either consultants or board members. Northrop Grumman has built ships for the Israeli Navy and sold F-16 avionics and E-2C Hawkeye planes to the Israeli Air Force (as well as the Longbow radar system to the Israeli army for use in its attack helicopters). It also works with Tamam, a subsidiary of Israeli Aircraft Industries, to produce an unmanned aerial vehicle. Lockheed Martin has sold more than $2 billion worth of F-16s to Israel since 1999, as well as flight simulators, multiple-launch rocket systems and Seahawk heavyweight torpedoes. At one time or another, General May, retired Lieut. Gen. Paul Cerjan and retired Adm. Carlisle Trost have labored in LockMart's vineyards. Trost has also sat on the board of General Dynamics, whose Gulfstream subsidiary has a $206 million contract to supply planes to Israel to be used for "special electronics missions." By far the most profitably diversified of the JINSAns is retired Adm. David Jeremiah. President and partner of Technology Strategies & Alliances Corporation (described as a "strategic advisory firm and investment banking firm engaged primarily in the aerospace, defense, telecommunications and electronics industries"), Jeremiah also sits on the boards of Northrop Grumman's Litton subsidiary and of defense giant Alliant Techsystems, which--in partnership with Israel's TAAS--does a brisk business in rubber bullets. And he has a seat on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, chaired by Perle. About the only major defense contractor without a presence on JINSA's advisory board is Boeing, which has had a relationship with Israeli Aircraft Industries for thirty years. (Boeing also sells F-15s to Israel and, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, Apache attack helicopters, a ubiquitous weapon in the occupied territories.) But take a look at JINSA's kindred spirit in things pro-Likud and pro-Star Wars, the Center for Security Policy, and there on its national security advisory council are Stanley Ebner, a former Boeing executive; Andrew Ellis, vice president for government relations; and Carl Smith, a former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee who, as a lawyer in private practice, has counted Boeing among his clients. "JINSA and CSP," says a veteran Pentagon analyst, "may as well be one and the same." Not a hard sell: There's always been considerable overlap beween the JINSA and CSP rosters--JINSA advisers Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle and Phyllis Kaminsky also serve on CSP's advisory council; current JINSA advisory board chairman David Steinmann sits on CSP's board of directors; and before returning to the Pentagon Douglas Feith served as the board's chair. At this writing, twenty-two CSP advisers--including additional Reagan-era remnants like Elliott Abrams, Ken deGraffenreid, Paula Dobriansky, Sven Kraemer, Robert Joseph, Robert Andrews and J.D. Crouch--have reoccupied key positions in the national security establishment, as have other true believers of more recent vintage. While CSP boasts an impressive advisory list of hawkish luminaries, its star is Frank Gaffney, its founder, president and CEO. A protégé of Perle going back to their days as staffers for the late Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (a k a the Senator from Boeing, and the Senate's most zealous champion of Israel in his day), Gaffney later joined Perle at the Pentagon, only to be shown the door by Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci in 1987, not long after Perle left. Gaffney then reconstituted the latest incarnation of the Committee on the Present Danger. Beyond compiling an A-list of influential conservative hawks, Gaffney has been prolific over the past fifteen years, churning out a constant stream of reports (as well as regular columns for the Washington Times) making the case that the gravest threats to US national security are China, Iraq, still-undeveloped ballistic missiles launched by rogue states, and the passage of or adherence to virtually any form of arms control treaty. Gaffney and CSP's prescriptions for national security have been fairly simple: Gut all arms control treaties, push ahead with weapons systems virtually everyone agrees should be killed (such as the V-22 Osprey), give no quarter to the Palestinians and, most important, go full steam ahead on just about every national missile defense program. (CSP was heavily represented on the late-1990s Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, which was instrumental in keeping the program alive during the Clinton years.) Looking at the center's affiliates, it's not hard to see why: Not only are makers of the Osprey (Boeing) well represented on the CSP's board of advisers but so too is Lockheed Martin (by vice president for space and strategic missiles Charles Kupperman and director of defense systems Douglas Graham). Former TRW executive Amoretta Hoeber is also a CSP adviser, as is former Congressman and Raytheon lobbyist Robert Livingston. Ball Aerospace & Technologies--a major manufacturer of NASA and Pentagon satellites--is represented by former Navy Secretary John Lehman, while missile-defense computer systems maker Hewlett-Packard is represented by George Keyworth, who is on its board of directors. And the Congressional Missile Defense Caucus and Osprey (or "tilt rotor") caucus are represented by Representative Curt Weldon and Senator Jon Kyl. CSP was instrumental in developing the arguments against the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Largely ignored or derided at the time, a 1995 CSP memo co-written by Douglas Feith holding that the United States should withdraw from the ABM treaty has essentially become policy, as have other CSP reports opposing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the International Criminal Court. But perhaps the most insightful window on the JINSA/CSP policy worldview comes in the form of a paper Perle and Feith collaborated on in 1996 with six others under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Essentially an advice letter to ascendant Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" makes for insightful reading as a kind of US-Israeli neoconservative manifesto. The paper's first prescription was for an Israeli rightward economic shift, with tax cuts and a selloff of public lands and enterprises--moves that would also engender support from a "broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders." But beyond economics, the paper essentially reads like a blueprint for a mini-cold war in the Middle East, advocating the use of proxy armies for regime changes, destabilization and containment. Indeed, it even goes so far as to articulate a way to advance right-wing Zionism by melding it with missile-defense advocacy. "Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state," it reads. "Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel's survival, but it would broaden Israel's base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense"--something that has the added benefit of being "helpful in the effort to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem." Recent months in Washington have shown just how influential the notions propagated by JINSA and CSP are--and how disturbingly zealous their advocates are. In early March Feith vainly attempted to get the CIA to keep former intelligence officers Milt Bearden and Frank Anderson from accepting an invitation to an Afghanistan-related meeting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon--not because of what the two might say about Afghanistan, according to sources familiar with the incident, but likely out of fear that Anderson, a veteran Arabist and former chief of the CIA's Near East division, would proffer his views on Iraq (opposed to invading) and Israel-Palestine (a fan of neither Arafat nor Sharon). In late June, after United Press International reported on a US Muslim civil liberties group's lambasting of Gaffney for his attacks on the American Muslim Council, Gaffney, according to a fellow traveler, "went berserk," launching a stream of invective about the UPI scribe who reported the item. It's incidents like this, say knowledgeable observers and participants, that highlight an interesting dynamic among right-wing hawks at the moment. Though the general agenda put forth by JINSA and CSP continues to be reflected in councils of war, even some of the hawks (including Rumsfeld deputy Paul Wolfowitz) are growing increasingly leery of Israel's settlements policy and Gaffney's relentless support for it. Indeed, his personal stock in Bush Administration circles is low. "Gaffney has worn out his welcome by being an overbearing gadfly rather than a serious contributor to policy," says a senior Pentagon political official. Since earlier this year, White House political adviser Karl Rove has been casting about for someone to start a new, more mainstream defense group that would counter the influence of CSP. According to those who have communicated with Rove on the matter, his quiet efforts are in response to complaints from many conservative activists who feel let down by Gaffney, or feel he's too hard on President Bush. "A lot of us have taken [Gaffney] at face value over the years," one influential conservative says. "Yet we now know he's pushed for some of the most flawed missile defense and conventional systems. He considered Cuba a 'classic asymmetric threat' but not Al Qaeda. And since 9/11, he's been less concerned with the threat to America than to Israel." Gaffney's operation has always been a small one, about $1 million annually--funded largely by a series of grants from the conservative Olin, Bradley and various Scaife foundations, as well as some defense contractor money--but he's recently been able to underwrite a TV and print ad campaign holding that the Palestinians should be Enemy Number One in the War on Terror, still obsessed with the destruction of Israel. It's here that one sees the influence not of defense contractor money but of far-right Zionist dollars, including some from Irving Moskowitz, the California bingo magnate. A donor to both CSP and JINSA (as well as a JINSA director), Moskowitz not only sends millions of dollars a year to far-right Israeli settler groups like Ateret Cohanim but he has also funded the construction of settlements, having bought land for development in key Arab areas around Jerusalem. Moskowitz ponied up the money that enabled the 1996 reopening of a tunnel under the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, which resulted in seventy deaths due to rioting. Also financing Gaffney's efforts is New York investment banker Lawrence Kadish. A valued and valuable patron of both the Republican National Committee and George W. Bush, Kadish helps underwrite CSP as well as Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, an offshoot of conservative activist William Bennett's Empower America, on which he and Gaffney serve as "senior advisers" in the service of identifying "external" and "internal" post-9/11 threats to America. (The "internal" threats, as articulated by AVOT, include former President Jimmy Carter, Harper's editor Lewis Lapham and Representative Maxine Waters.) Another of Gaffney's backers is Poju Zabludowicz, heir to a formidable diversified international empire that includes arms manufacturer Soltam--which once employed Perle--and benefactor of the recently established Britain Israel Communication and Research Centre, a London-based group that appears to equate reportage or commentary uncomplimentary to Zionism with anti-Semitism. While a small but growing number of conservatives are voicing concerns about various aspects of foreign and defense policy--ranging from fear of overreach to lack of Congressional debate--the hawks seem to be ruling the roost. Beginning in October, hard-line American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin (to Rubin, outgoing UN human rights chief Mary Robinson is an abettor of terrorism) arrives at the Pentagon to take over the Defense Department's Iran-Iraq account, adding another voice to the Pentagon section of Ledeen's "total war" chorus. Colin Powell's State Department continues to take a beating from outside and inside--including Bolton and his special assistant David Wurmser. (An AEI scholar and far-right Zionist who's married to Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute--recently the subject of a critical investigation by London Guardian Middle East editor Brian Whitaker--Wurmser played a key role in crafting the "Arafat must go" policy that many career specialists see as a problematic sop to Ariel Sharon.) As for Rumsfeld, based on comments made at a Pentagon "town hall" meeting on August 6, there seems to be little doubt as to whose comments are resonating most with him--and not just on missile defense and overseas adventures: After fielding a question about Israeli-Palestinian issues, he repeatedly referred to the "so-called occupied territories" and casually characterized the Israeli policy of building Jewish-only enclaves on Palestinian land as "mak[ing] some settlement in various parts of the so-called occupied area," with which Israel can do whatever it wants, as it has "won" all its wars with various Arab entities--essentially an echo of JINSA's stated position that "there is no Israeli occupation." Ominously, Rumsfeld's riff gave a ranking Administration official something of a chill: "I realized at that point," he said, "that on settlements--where there are cleavages on the right--Wolfowitz may be to the left of Rumsfeld."
Zionism Unbound (in USA Government):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/23/zionism-unbound-in-us-government.php
What's behind the relentless drive to war with Iraq:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
Oil Shouldn't Be the Only Reason for Opposing This War (as the Radical Zionism of the JINSA Zionist Perle/Wolfowitz/Cheney cabal which has hijacked the Bush regime is another contributing reason as well):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/23/oil-shouldn-t-be-the-only-reason-for-opposing-this-war.php
Zionist 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
Zionist Paul Wolfowitz in Bush Regime is the Enemy Within..:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/17/zionist-paul-wolfowitz-in-bush-regime-is-the-enemy-within.php
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
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 RICHARD PERLE (AT PENTAGON) DRIVING US TO WAR:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/22/jinsa-zionist-richard-perle-at-pentagon-driving-us-to-war.php
Breaking the Silence on the Israeli Lobby:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/breaking-the-silence-on-the-israel-lobby.php
Bush's Trusty New Mideast Point Man (JINSA Zionists Perle & Wolfowitz Mentioned):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/19/bush-s-trusty-new-mideast-point-man-wolfowitz-mentioned.php
Zionists Influencing US/Britain to Invade Iraq for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uk-and-europe/2002/12/30/zionists-influencing-us-britain-to-invade-iraq-for-israel.php
Zionist Perle/Wolfowitz/Cheney Cabal DOES NOT Represent US:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/25/zionist-perle-wolfowitz-cheney-cabal-does-not-represent-us.php
U.S. to Consider Multi-Billion Dollar Israeli Aid Request
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/24/u-s-to-consider-multi-billion-dollar-israeli-aid-request.php
The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/19/the-bush-administration-s-dual-loyalties.php
The Israelization of America
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/07/the-israelization-of-america.php
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 world...
More on Zionist extremist Elliott Abrams:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/12/10/abrams/index_np.html
Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uk-and-europe/2003/01/21/gore-vidal-claims-bush-junta-complicit-in-9-11.php
US/UN Double Standard When It Comes to Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/09/15/us-un-double-standard-when-it-comes-to-israel.php
Liberating America From Israel
by Paul Findley
Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the past 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
The U.S. lobby for Israel is powerful and intimidating, but any determined president-even President Bush this very day-could prevail and win overwhelming public support for the suspension of aid by laying these facts before the American people:
Israel's present government, like its predecessors, is determined to annex the West Bank-biblical Judea and Samaria - so Israel will become Greater Israel. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who maintain a powerful role in Israeli politics, believe the Jewish Messiah will not come until Greater Israel is a reality. Although a minority in Israel, they are committed, aggressive, and influential. Because of deep religious conviction, they are determined to prevent Palestinians from gaining statehood on any part of the West Bank.
In its violent assaults on Palestinians, Israel uses the pretext of eradicating terrorism, but its forces are actually engaged advancing the territorial expansion just cited. Under the guise of anti-terrorism, Israeli forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle. With due process nowhere to be found, hundreds are detained for long periods and most are tortured. Some are assassinated. Homes, orchards, and business places are destroyed. Entire cities are kept under intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting for weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are routinely held at checkpoints for an hour or more. Many children are undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration camps. None of this could have occurred without U.S. support. Perhaps Israeli officials believe life will become so unbearable that most Palestinians will eventually leave their ancestral homes.
Once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in most countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli violations of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the precepts of all major religious faiths.
How did the American people get into this fix?
Nine-eleven had its principal origin 35 years ago when Israel's U.S. lobby began its unbroken success in stifling debate about the proper U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict and effectively concealed from public awareness the fact that the U.S. government gives massive uncritical support to Israel.
Thanks to the suffocating influence of Israel's U.S. lobby, open discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been non-existent in our government all these years. I have firsthand knowledge, because I was a member of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee in June 1967 when Israeli military forces took control of the Golan Heights, a part of Syria, as well as the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. I continued as a member for 16 years and to this day maintain a close watch on Congress.
For 35 years, not a word has been expressed in that committee or in either chamber of Congress that deserves to be called debate on Middle East policy. No restrictive or limiting amendments on aid to Israel have been offered for 20 years, and none of the few offered in previous years received more than a handful of votes. On Capitol Hill, criticism of Israel, even in private conversation, is all but forbidden, treated as downright unpatriotic, if not anti-Semitic. The continued absence of free speech was assured when those few who spoke out-Senators Adlai Stevenson and Charles Percy, and Reps. Paul "Pete" McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard, and myself-were defeated at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel forces.
As a result, legislation dealing with the Middle East has been heavily biased in favor of Israel and against Palestinians and other Arabs year after year. Home constituencies, misled by news coverage equally lop-sided in Israel's favor, remain largely unaware that Congress behaves as if it were a subcommittee of the Israeli parliament.
However, the bias is widely noted beyond America, where most news media candidly cover Israel's conquest and generally excoriate America's complicity and complacency. When President Bush welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, sometimes called the Butcher of Beirut, as "my dear friend" and "a man of peace" after Israeli forces, using U.S.-donated arms, completed their devastation of the West Bank last spring, worldwide anger against American policy reached the boiling point.
The fury should surprise no one who reads foreign newspapers or listens to BBC. In several televised statements long before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, believed by U.S. authorities to have masterminded 9/11, cited U.S. complicity in Israel's destruction of Palestinian society as a principal complaint. Prominent foreigners, in and out of government, express their opposition to U.S. policies with unprecedented frequency and severity, especially since Bush announced his determination to make war against Iraq.
The lobby's intimidation remains pervasive. It seems to reach every government center and even houses of worship and revered institutions of higher learning. It is highly effective in silencing the many U.S. Jews who object to the lobby's tactics and Israel's brutality.
Nothing can justify 9/11. Those guilty deserve maximum punishment, but it makes sense for America to examine motivations promptly and as carefully as possible. Terrorism almost always arises from deeply-felt grievances. If they can be eradicated or eased, terrorist passions are certain to subside.
Today, a year after 9/11, President Bush has made no attempt to redress grievances, or even to identify them. In fact, he has made the scene far worse by supporting Israel's religious war against Palestinians, an alliance that has intensified anti-American anger. He seems oblivious to the fact that nearly two billion people worldwide regard the plight of Palestinians as today's most important foreign-policy challenge. No one in authority will admit a calamitous reality that is skillfully shielded from the American people but clearly recognized by most of the world: America suffered 9/11 and its aftermath and may soon be at war with Iraq, mainly because U.S. policy in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington.
Israel is a scofflaw nation and should be treated as such. Instead of helping Sharon intensify Palestinian misery, our president should suspend all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land Israel seized in 1967. The suspension would force Sharon's compliance or lead to his removal from office, as the Israeli electorate will not tolerate a prime minister who is at odds with the White House.
If Bush needs an additional reason for doing the right thing, he can justify the suspension as a matter of military necessity, an essential step in winning international support for his war on terrorism. He can cite a worthy precedent. When President Abraham Lincoln issued the proclamation that freed only the slaves in states that were then in rebellion, he make the restriction because of "military necessity."
If Bush suspends U.S. aid, he will liberate all Americans from long years of bondage to Israel's misdeeds.
Mr. Paul Findley, who served as a Republican congressman from Illinois for 22 years, is the author of 'They Dare to Speak Out' and a member of the American Educational Trust's Foreign Relations Committee.
(Cut off the) Passionate Attachment for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/24/passionate-attachment-to-israel.php
Lest We Forget:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/14/lest-we-forget.php
Price of Support for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/17/the-price-of-israel.php
More & More Americans Anti-Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/23/more-more-americans-anti-israel.php
Why Terrorism is Not Inevitable:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/26/why-terrorist-attacks-are-not-inevitable.php
What other Country (Israel) Knew about 9/11?:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/18/what-other-country-israel-knew-about-9-11.php | |  | | Guest-c651 | | Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2003 11:21 am Post subject: Re: JINSA Zionist Perle/Wolfowitz Cabal in Bush Regime Push |
| [quote="Guest-c651"]JINSA Zionist Perle/Wolfowitz/Cheney Cabal in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Invasion:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
Here is that "Men from JINSA and CSP" article which Fisk mentions in the above referenced article:
This article can be found on the web at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1
The Men From JINSA and CSP
by JASON VEST
[from the September 2, 2002 issue of "The Nation" magazine in the USA]
The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/19/the-bush-administration-s-dual-loyalties.php
Zionist Paul Wolfowitz in Bush Regime is the Enemy Within..:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/17/zionist-paul-wolfowitz-in-bush-regime-is-the-enemy-within.php
This article appears in the Oct. 26, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
`Wolfowitz Cabal' Is an Enemy Within U.S.
by Michele Steinberg
On Oct. 14, the London Observer published one of the now familiar—and totally false—propaganda scare stories, entitled "Iraq 'Behind U.S. Anthrax Outbreaks.' " The story gave credence to the ravings of "American hawks" who say there is "a growing mass of evidence that [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein was involved, possibly indirectly, with the Sept. 11 suicide hijacks." If confirmed, said the Observer, "the pressure now building ... for an attack [on Iraq] may be irresistible." One of these "hawks," an unnamed U.S. "administration official," told the Observer that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a "faithful ally" in the war against terrorism and that "if it means we are embarking on the next Hundred Years' War, then that's what we are doing" (emphasis added).
The "next Hundred Year's War"? Who are the U.S. maniacs who use such language, and are they not as dangerous as Osama bin Laden's jihad?
Here we will name the names of the fanatics in this anti-Iraq grouping who have become known as the "Wolfowitz cabal," named after Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. According to the New York Times, which published a leak about their activities on Oct. 12, this grouping wants an immediate war with Iraq, believing that the targetting of Afghanistan, already an impoverished wasteland, falls far short of the global war that they are hoping for. But Iraq is just another stepping stone to turning the anti-terrorist "war" into a full-blown "Clash of Civilizations," where the Islamic religion would become the "enemy image" in a "new Cold War."
The "Clash of Civilizations" theory, developed by Harvard professor-turned President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and his protégés, including Harvard Prof. Samuel Huntington, defined the Arab and Islamic world as an "arc of crisis" from the Middle East to the Islamic countries of Central Asia in the then-Soviet Union. Brzezinski wanted to use the "Islamic card" against the Soviet Union, and in so doing, began the policy of promoting Islamic fundamentalists against moderate and pro-Western Arab and Islamic governments. After the end of the Cold War, the Brzezinski/Huntington crowd updated their "arc of crisis," declaring that the Islamic religion is the enemy, in a new war in which religions, rather than political systems, inevitably battle each other. However, trained by British and U.S. special intelligence services and the CIA, and armed by Israeli military networks, the very terrorist drug-runners in the Islamic world who were launched by Brzezinski and "adopted" by the Iran-Contra networks run by Lt. Col. Oliver North, under the elder George Bush's Executive Order 12333, have become the main suspects in terrorist attacks against the United States.
A Network Throughout the Government
The adherents of the so-called "Wolfowitz cabal," pushing the "Clash of Civilizations" theory, are nothing less than "an enemy within" the United States, a network that cuts across the Defense Department, the State Department, the White House, and the National Security Council. This report is not a "good guys" versus "bad guys" description of the Bush Administration; rather it is a warning that this cabal is a close-knit rogue network that is trying to hijack U.S. policy, and turn the current Afghanistan mess into a global war. The cabal bears a dangerous resemblance to the "secret parallel government" of North and Gen. Richard Secord's "Project Democracy" operation that ran Iran-Contra. In fact, some of the cabal members now in the Bush Administration are convicted criminals as a result of their activity in North's "Enterprise"!
On Oct. 12, the New York Times revealed deep divisions in the Bush Administration, describing how the cabal plots policy behind the back of Cabinet officials, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the name of the U.S. government. The group wants to obliterate Iraq, put Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority on the terrorism list (if not the obituary list), and declare war on nation-states.
The Times revealed that a key section of the "Wolfowitz cabal," is the 18-member Defense Policy Board, which met for more than 19 hours on Sept. 19-20 to "make the case" against Saddam Hussein. The meeting pushed for a renewed war against Iraq as soon as the war against Afghanistan had concluded its initial phase. It discussed overthrowing Saddam Hussein, partitioning Iraq into mini-states led by U.S.-funded dissidents who would steal the proceeds from the Basra oil revenues for their quisling government. The meeting discussed how to manipulate information so as to pin the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States on Saddam Hussein.
According to the Times, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld attended the meetings for only "part" of both days, and on Sept. 22, President George Bush rejected the Policy Board's recommendation to declare war against Iraq. But to the "Wolfowitz cabal," Bush's decision didn't really matter—senior members of the Policy Board had been selected for their broad international connections, especially to the United Kingdom and Israel, allowing them to force changes in U.S. policy through an "outside-inside" operation. If unable to change policy through advising, the network could also run covert operations as a "government within a government," as they had maneuvered during Iran-Contra.
The chairman of the Defense Policy Board is Richard Perle, the former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, now based at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Perle, nicknamed "The Prince of Darkness" because of his nuclear Armageddon views during the Cold War, is, more importantly, an asset of Conrad Black's Hollinger International, Inc., which grew out of British Empire Security Coordinator William Stephenson's efforts to secure arms for Britain during World War II. At present, Hollinger owns the British Tory Party-linked Telegraph PLC, whose International Advisory Board is headed by former British Prime Minister, now Lady Margaret Thatcher. Hollinger also owns the Jerusalem Post, another war-mongering press outlet.
The "heavy hitters" on the Defense Policy Board are the worst of the Anglo-American-Israeli geopolitical fanatics from the last several decades, including: former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who is also a member of Hollinger's International Advisory Board; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Clinton Administration Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey; former Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. David E. Jeremiah; former Vice President Dan Quayle; former Defense and Energy Secretary James R. Schlesinger; and former President Carter's Defense Secretary Harold Brown.
Though Perle was only recently appointed to head the Defense Policy Board, he and Wolfowitz have been collaborators for more than two decades, as agents-of-influence of the right-wing Israeli war faction. In 1985, when it was clear that Jonathan Jay Pollard, an American convicted that year of spying for Israel, could not have been working alone in stealing such high-level U.S. secrets for Israel to sell to the Soviet Union, top-level intelligence officials told EIR that an entire "X Committee" of high-level U.S. officials, was being investigated. Wolfowitz and Perle were on the list of "X Committee" suspects, and Israeli spying against the United States was so thick that investigators told EIR they had found "not moles, but entire molehills." Pollard and his Israeli defenders later claimed that Pollard "had to" spy against the United States because the Americans were soft on Iraq and other Arab countries.
The "Wolfowitz cabal" is deterimined to push the United States in the direction of the most dangerous Israeli right-wing policy, including a possible Israeli nuclear attack on an Arab state. They are implementers of the very "breakaway ally" scenario about which 2004 Democratic Party Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche warned in his statement of Oct. 12 (see International).
Plan B: Wagging the Dog
The "Wolfowitz cabal" is out to destroy any potential for a Middle East peace, and simultaneously is determined to crush Eurasian economic development centered around cooperation among Europe, Russia, and China. After being rebuffed after the marathon Defense Policy Board meetings, the Wolfowitz cabal set various operations in motion to plant propaganda stories, falsify reports of U.S. policy, and carry out other maneuvers, whereby the tail would "wag the dog." Unapproved statements are made by cabal members, interviews misrepresenting U.S. policy are planted around the globe, and intelligence reports are altered or manufactured to further the policy goals.
The pattern is becoming crystal clear.
In the first such instance, shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, Wolfowitz declared that the United States will "end states harboring terrorism," and insisted that under the principle of self-defense, the United States could act alone, without the United Nations, or cooperation from any other country. He wanted to establish the "doctrine" that the United States would hit a country "anywhere, anytime" based on secret evidence. But, Wolfowitz was forced to retract his statements, in a visible rift with the White House. Some days later, NATO allies at its Brussels headquarters snubbed Wolfowitz, and refused to formalize cooperation with the United States under NATO agreements at a meeting where Wolfowitz represented the Bush Administration.
In the same vein, on Oct. 7, the day the Afghanistan bombings began, the cabal again attempted to provoke a rift between the United States and members of the UN Security Council, especially Russia and China, by altering the text of a letter from U.S. Ambassador to the UN John D. Negroponte. (Not coincidentally, Negroponte was a notorious insider in the Iran-Contra operation, who was accused of collaborating with narcotics-linked military death squads in Honduras in the 1980s.) The changes in the letter were made without notifying Negroponte's boss, Secretary of State Powell.
In the letter, Negroponte echoed Wolfowitz's so-called gaffe, writing, "We may find that our self-defense requires further action with respect to other organizations and states" (emphasis added). The statement implicitly targetted Iraq, Syria, and Sudan, all countries which are on the State Department's list of countries that support terrorism. The statement violated promises the United States had made, that it would limit "coalition" action to redressing the attack of Sept. 11. Upon learning of the statement, from the press, Powell reportedly "hit the roof." The insertion was drafted by Stephen J. Hadley, who is the Deputy Adviser to the National Security Council. The stunt may have been planned at the Defense Policy Board meetings.
Then there's the case of former CIA director R. James Woolsey, whose defined role is as the Policy Board member who is most public in demanding the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The Knight-Ridder newspaper chain reported on Oct. 11, that Woolsey had been authorized the prior month to fly to London on a U.S. government plane, accompanied by Justice and Defense Department officials, on a secret mission to gather evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attack. In a Sept. 18 press conference by Defense Week, Woolsey called for creating a "no-fly and no-drive zone" in the north and south of Iraq, so that the Kurds and the Shi'ites, respectively, could better fight Saddam. "The watchword of the day," Woolsey said, is, "It's the Regimes, Stupid!"
Since the Oct. 5 death from anthrax of Bob Stevens, the Sun tabloid photo editor, from anthrax, Woolsey has been the world's leading finger-pointer at Saddam as being behind the anthrax attack. His so-called evidence is dated, prejudiced, and completely unreliable.
It was no accident that Woolsey role-played a prominent character—CIA Director—in the New York Council on Foreign Relations 1999-2000 scenario the previous year, "The Next Financial Crisis: Warning Signs, Damage Control, and Impact," that acted out a virtual coup d'état coming on the heels of a combined financial crisis and terrorist attack. In the CFR war-game, the U.S. President would be taken out of the picture, leaving the country under the control of a crisis management dictatorship.
Also dispatched to London to propagandize for a "rolling war" that would attack Afghanistan, then Iraq, then country after country until revenge is exacted, was fellow Policy Board member Newt Gingrich. Talking to the London Times, owned by top British-Israeli propagandist Rupert Murdoch, Gingrich said that the United States is "at war" with "organized, systematic extensions of terror, supported by nation-states." He said that targetting the Afghan Taliban without defeating Iraq would be "like defeating Imperial Japan and leaving the Nazis alone." Gingrich threatened that countries judged not cooperative against terrorism would face the consequences: "The U.S. and the coalition forces will assist your own people in removing you."
Setting the pace for his team, Perle was the joint initiator with neo-con William Kristol of the Rupert Murdoch-funded Weekly Standard, of an open letter to President Bush, that, while ostensibly supporting the President in the war against terrorism, was, in fact, an ultimatum to support a "Clash of Civilizations" Thirty Years' War in the Middle East. Among the non-negotiable demands set forth in that letter was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [Sept. 11] attack."
There is no doubt that the Wolfowitz/Perle duo is at the heart of the network that can use Israel in the "breakaway ally scenario." Indeed, Wolfowitz is one of great hopes of right-wing extremists in Israel, including among the radical settlers movement, who are demanding the assassination of Arafat and the expulsion of all Palestinians from the Occupied Territories (see coverage in International). But, Wolfowitz and Perle are not "Israeli agents." Rather, they are second-generation operatives both mentored by the RAND Corp.'s Albert Wohlstetter, a former Trotskyite communist turned nuclear strategist. Nor are the cabal war-mongers Seven Days in May militarists.
A key member of the cabal is Richard Armitage, the number-two man in the U.S. State Department, who was investigated in the Iran-Contra scandal, and who is a longtime collaborator of Wolfowitz in the targetting of Iraq. The cabal also has high-level operatives at the National Security Council (NSC):
Gen. Wayne Downing, former Commander in Chief of the Special Operations Command, was just appointed as Director of Combatting Terrorism for the Homeland Defense Board, headed by former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge. In 1997-98, Downing drew up a military plan to overthrow Saddam, by assassination, if necessary. The plan hinged on heavily arming dissident gangs of Iraqi Shi'ites in the south of Iraq, and Kurdish fighters in the north. Invasion by U.S. Special Forces ground troops was not ruled out. The promoter of the neo-Conservative yahoos in Congress and the think-tanks was Wolfowitz, then head of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Unable to ram this plan through the Clinton Administration, Wolfowitz shopped the plan to Perle, an expert in "chain-letter" pressure politics, who garnered signatures. Now at the NSC, Downing has the ready-made plan to hit Iraq.
Richard Clarke, Adviser to the President for Cyberspace Warfare. Clarke, who was originally with the State Department during the elder Bush's Administration, was demoted for covering up Israeli violations of the Arms Exporting laws. In August 1998, Clarke was one of the key figures who planted false information about Sudan's involvement in the East Africa U.S. Embassy bombings, which led to U.S. cruise missile attacks on a Sudanese pharmaceutical company in Khartoum. Clarke shopped in disinformation from British-Israeli covert operations stringer Yosef Bodansky that targetted Sudan.
Elliott Abrams, NSC staff. Abrams, who was convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, was quietly placed on the NSC as a specialist in "religion and human rights." He is a longtime member of the right-wing Zionist networks that infiltrated the U.S. security establishment. He worked closely with Secord and North in Central America, also providing a link to the Israeli gun-running networks that delivered arms to Khomeini's Iran. | | | | Guest-c651 | | Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2003 11:27 am Post subject: Re: JINSA Zionist Perle/Wolfowitz Cabal in Bush Regime Push |
| [/quote]Elliott Abrams, NSC staff. Abrams, who was convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, was quietly placed on the NSC as a specialist in "religion and human rights." He is a longtime member of the right-wing Zionist networks that infiltrated the U.S. security establishment. He worked closely with Secord and North in Central America, also providing a link to the Israeli gun-running networks that delivered arms to Khomeini's Iran.[/quote]
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-98a3 | | | | Guest-98a3 | | | | Guest-98a3 | | Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2003 12:22 pm Post subject: US Pressed to Give Iraq Time (but Wolfowitz & Perle Aren |
| DAVOS/BAGHDAD (Jan. 25) - U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Saturday he had extensively discussed the use of Turkish bases for a possible attack on Iraq, as pressure built to allow U.N. arms inspectors more time to do their job.
The inspectors are due to make a key report to the U.N. Security Council on Monday on progress in their search for banned nuclear, chemical and biological weapons Washington says Baghdad possesses. Iraq denies having such weapons programmes.
In Washington, U.S. officials said the report would kick off a final phase of consultations as the United States neared a decision on toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by force if necessary.
President George W. Bush discussed the standoff with Iraq with the leaders of Italy and Japan as Washington stepped up a diplomatic offensive ahead of the report. He also discussed North Korea with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, a White House spokesman said.
Greece, which holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, said there was an emerging consensus in the 15-nation bloc that the inspectors should be given more time if chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei requested it.
"Obviously there is a consensus that, yes, we should give them the necessary time if they ask," Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou told a news conference at the World Economic Forum meeting at the Swiss resort of Davos.
Papandreou said he expected EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday to declare full support for U.N. efforts to deal with the problem of Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction and urge a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
HIZBOLLAH WARNING TO U.S.
In Damascus, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Lebanese Islamic militant group Hizbollah, warned Washington an attack on Iraq would lead to an Arab war against the United States. He was speaking at a conference on boycotting Israel and its allies.
"If this war broke out it would not be over in a year or two," he said arguing that no military power can win a war against Arabs because they would fight Americans in a fashion similar to the Palestinian uprising and the Lebanese resistance against Israeli occupation troops.
Powell said he had had "an extensive discussion" on the use of Turkish bases in a meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul and ruling AKP party leader Tayyip Erdogan on the sidelines of the Davos gathering.
Asked if a deadline for agreement came up during the 75-minute meeting, Powell said: "We didn't discuss deadlines. They have a good sense of the timing that's involved.
"They understand our needs and I have a complete understanding of their political situation and their parliamentary situation, and we're in close contact with each other."
Gul called the talks "fruitful; and useful," adding: "War is nobody's choice, we want peace. But of course at the same time the preparation for all kinds of scenarios is very normal."
U.S. sources in Washington said the United States wanted to put at least 15,000 troops in Turkey to open a "northern front" against Baghdad in the event of war.
In return for Turkish cooperation, Washington was offering an economic and military aid package worth nearly $14 billion over three years.
U.S. ACCUSATIONS
U.S. officials have already accused Iraq of unacceptable "wilful defiance" in what they said was its refusal to allow private interviews with scientists. They cited what they said were other violations proving Baghdad's unwillingness to disarm.
"Events will drive the timeline regarding inspectors," one official said. "The question is not timing, its compliance. The (report on Monday) begins a final phase of consultations and what that means is a decision will have to come soon."
On his way to Davos, Powell told reporters at least a dozen nations would back an attack on Iraq, even without a fresh U.N. resolution.
Powell also told reporters on the flight to Davos that potential U.S. allies would prefer a new council resolution authorising force against Iraq, but would not insist on one.
"We would not be alone, that's for sure. I could rattle off at least a dozen off memory, and I think that there will be more," Powell said.
In Baghdad, an Iraqi thought to be a scientist visited the hotel housing U.N. arms inspectors on Saturday, a day after Washington accused Iraq of blocking private meetings between scientists and U.N. arms experts.
He left after 90 minutes alone, carrying documents and refusing to speak to reporters.
But U.N. inspectors said they had failed to persuade two Iraqi scientists and an expert to agree to private interviews.
U.S. and British aircraft hit two targets on Friday and Saturday in southern Iraq's "no fly" zone, set up after the 1991 war to protect Shi'ite Muslims in the south from Baghdad's forces. A similar zone protecting Kurds exists in the north.
Iraqi Parliament Speaker Saadoun Hammadi told reporters in New Delhi his country would "use every method to inflict damage and casualties against those who invade our country."
01/25/03 17:57 ET | | | | Guest-98a3 | | | | Guest-98a3 | | | | Guest-98a3 | | Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2003 12:37 pm Post subject: U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq |
| http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-nuke25jan25,0,4684654.story
U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq
For what one defense analyst says is a worst-case scenario, planners are studying the use of atomic bombs on deeply buried targets.
By Paul Richter
Times Staff Writer
January 25 2003
WASHINGTON -- As the Pentagon continues a highly visible buildup of troops and weapons in the Persian Gulf, it is also quietly preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq, according to a report by a defense analyst.
Although they consider such a strike unlikely, military planners have been actively studying lists of potential targets and considering options, including the possible use of so-called bunker-buster nuclear weapons against deeply buried military targets, says analyst William M. Arkin, who writes a regular column on defense matters for The Times.
Military officials have been focusing their planning on the use of tactical nuclear arms in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical or biological weapons, or to preempt one, Arkin says. His report, based on interviews and a review of official documents, appears in a column that will be published in The Times on Sunday.
Administration officials believe that in some circumstances, nuclear arms may offer the only way to destroy deeply buried targets that may contain unconventional weapons that could kill thousands.
Some officials have argued that the blast and radiation effects of such strikes would be limited.
But that is in dispute. Critics contend that a bunker-buster strike could involve a huge radiation release and dangerous blast damage. They also say that use of a nuclear weapon in such circumstances would encourage other nuclear-armed countries to consider using such weapons in more kinds of situations and would badly undermine the half-century effort to contain the spread of nuclear arms.
Although it may be highly unlikely that the Bush administration would authorize the use of such weapons in Iraq -- Arkin describes that as a worst-case scenario -- the mere disclosure of its planning contingencies could stiffen the opposition of France, Germany and Middle East nations to an invasion of Iraq.
"If the United States dropped a bomb on an Arab country, it might be a military success, but it would be a diplomatic, political and strategic disaster," said Joseph Cirincione, director of nonproliferation studies at the Carnegie Endowment for Interna- tional Peace in Washington.
He said there is a danger of the misuse of a nuclear weapon in Iraq because of the chance that "somebody could be seduced into the mistaken idea that you could use a nuclear weapon with minimal collateral damage and political damage."
In the last year, Bush administration officials have repeatedly made clear that they want to be better prepared to consider the nuclear option against the threat of "weapons of mass destruction" in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations. The current planning, as reported by Arkin, offers a concrete example of their determination to follow through on this pledge.
Arkin also says that the Pentagon has changed the bureaucratic oversight of nuclear weapons so that they are no longer treated as a special category of arms but are grouped with conventional military options.
A White House spokesman declined to comment Friday on Arkin's report, except to say that "the United States reserves the right to defend itself and its allies by whatever means necessary."
Consideration of the nuclear option has defenders.
David J. Smith, an arms control negotiator in the first Bush administration, said presidents would consider using such a weapon only "in terribly ugly situations where there are no easy ways out. If there's a threat that could involve huge numbers of American lives, I as a citizen would want the president to consider that option."
Smith defended the current administration's more assertive public pronouncements on the subject, saying that weapons have a deterrent value only "if the other guy really believes you might use them."
Other administrations have warned that they might use nuclear weapons in circumstances short of an all-out atomic war.
In January 1991, before the Persian Gulf War, Secretary of State James A. Baker III warned Iraqi diplomat Tarik Aziz in a letter that the American people would "demand the strongest possible response" to a use of chemical or biological weapons. The Clinton administration made a similar warning to the Libyans regarding the threat from a chemical plant.
But officials of this administration have placed greater emphasis on such possibilities and have stated that preemptive strikes may sometimes be needed to safeguard Americans against adversaries who cannot be deterred, such as terrorists, or against dictators, such as Saddam Hussein.
Instead of making such a warning from time to time as threats arise, the Bush administration "has set it out as a general principle, and backed it up by explaining what has changed in the world," Smith said.
In a policy statement issued only last month, the White House said the United States "will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force -- including through resort to all of our options -- to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States."
One year ago, the administration completed a classified Nuclear Posture Review that said nuclear weapons should be considered against targets able to withstand conventional attack; in retaliation for an attack with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments." And it identified seven countries -- China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria -- as possible targets.
The same report called on the government to develop smaller nuclear weapons for possible use in some battlefield situations. Both the United States and Russia already have stockpiles of such tactical weapons, which are often small enough to be carried by one or two people yet can exceed the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, Japan, in World War II.
The administration has since been pushing Congress to pay for a study of how to build a smaller, more effective version of a 6-year-old nuclear bunker-buster bomb called the B-61 Mod 11. Critics maintain that the administration's eagerness for this study shows officials' desire to move toward building new weapons and to end the decade-old voluntary freeze on nuclear testing.
The B-61 is considered ineffective because it can burrow only 20 feet before detonating. The increasingly sophisticated underground command posts and weapon storage facilities being built by some countries are far deeper than that. And the closer to the surface a nuclear device explodes, the greater the risk of the spread of radiation.
The reported yield of B-61 devices in U.S. inventory varies from less than 1 kiloton of TNT to more than 350. The Hiroshima bomb was 20 kilotons.
Discussion of new weapons has set off a heated argument among experts on the value and effects of smaller-yield nuclear weapons.
Some Pentagon officials contend that the nation could develop nuclear weapons that could burrow deep enough to destroy hardened targets. But some independent physicists have argued that such a device would barely penetrate the surface while blowing out huge amounts of radioactive dirt that would pollute the region around it with a deadly fallout. | | | | Guest-98a3 | | Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2003 12:40 pm Post subject: Iraq Faces Massive U.S. Missile Barrage |
| Noticed at http://www.lewisnews.com/main.asp --
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews
Iraq Faces Massive U.S. Missile Barrage
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24, 2003
CBS) They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.
If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.
On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.
"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.
The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces.
"We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.
"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.
In the first Gulf War, 10 percent of the weapons were precision guided. In this war 80 percent will be precision guided.
The Air Force has stockpiled 6,000 of these guidance kits in the Persian Gulf to convert ordinary dumb bombs into satellite-guided bombs, a weapon that didn't exist in the first war.
"You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted," Ullman tells Martin.
Last time, an armored armada swept into Kuwait and destroyed Saddam's elite republican guard divisions in the largest tank battle since the World War II. This time, the target is not the Iraqi army but the Iraqi leadership, and the battle plan is designed to bypass Iraqi divisions whenever possible.
If Shock and Awe works, there won't be a ground war.
Not everybody in the Bush Administration thinks Shock and Awe will work. One senior official called it a bunch of bull, but confirmed it is the concept on which the war plan is based.
Last year, in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, the U.S. was badly surprised by the willingness of al Qaeda to fight to the death. If the Iraqis fight, the U.S. would have to throw in reinforcements and win the old fashioned way by crushing the republican guards, and that would mean more casualties on both sides.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
