| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 8:57 pm Post subject: Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser |
| http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htm
Published on Monday, March 29, 2004 by Inter Press Service
Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
by Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States.
Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars.
Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role.
Known in intelligence circles as ”Piffy-ab”, the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make.
The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as ”code word” that is higher than top secret.
The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.
Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story.
Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration.
Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001.
In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.
Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.
Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.
Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official -- Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the ”Muslim Middle East”.
Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia.
His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.
In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of ”scarce hard currency” to harness ”communications against electromagnetic pulse”, a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.
That was ”a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange -- they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis”, according to Zelikow.
He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.
”Play out those scenarios,” he told his audience, ”and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it”.
”Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant.”
To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration.
Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.
”Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component,” said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. ”But this is a very good piece of evidence of that.”
Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq.
”They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it,” said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.
But he downplayed the Israel link. ”In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat,” he said.
Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried weight.
”Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made,” Brown said.
Copyright © 2004 IPS-Inter Press Service | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: Iraq War to Protect Israel |
| Subj: Re: Iraq War to Protect Israel
Date: 3/30/04 4:30:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: Adriankrieg
Sorry you got it wrong!
It is not to protect Israel it is to expand its borders and to allow it to import oil from Iraq. Why do you think we put a Zionist in charge in Iraq? Why do you think we did not condemn the murder of a paraplegic religious leader? Why do you think we vetoed a UN resolution supported by every nation in the world except us and Israel? | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:51 pm Post subject: Re: Iraq War to Protect Israel |
| | Alpha wrote: | Subj: Re: Iraq War to Protect Israel
Date: 3/30/04 4:30:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: Adriankrieg
Sorry you got it wrong!
It is not to protect Israel it is to expand its borders and to allow it to import oil from Iraq. Why do you think we put a Zionist in charge in Iraq? Why do you think we did not condemn the murder of a paraplegic religious leader? Why do you think we vetoed a UN resolution supported by every nation in the world except us and Israel? |
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/22/hamas.reaction/
Leaders condemn Yassin killing
Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Posted: 11:51 AM EST (1651 GMT)
Straw: Israel needs to act within international law.
(CNN) -- World reaction to Israel's killing of Hamas movement leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin has been swift and blunt, with many condemning the action as illegal and a blow to efforts to fight terrorism.
Yassin was killed early Monday in an Israeli missile strike. Seven other people were killed in the attack (Full story)
Ahmed Qorei, Palestinian Prime Minister, in Ramallah:
"The cabinet met today with (Palestinian Authority) President (Yasser) Arafat ... and the issue that dominated all the discussion was about the assassination of a prominent leader of the Palestinians, Yassin, and the way that he was assassinated by the Israeli Apache helicopters and while he was in the early morning praying without even respect to any of the villagers and to the beliefs of the Palestinian people. This was condemned strongly in the meeting, and it's been decided that we will go to the Security Council, the United Nations."
Nabil Abu Rudeneh, Arafat spokesman and adviser, in Ramallah:
"This Israeli policy is against any peace effort. So far, they are ruining every single effort to find or safeguard a political solution.
"There will never be any kind of peace or stability. This crime this early morning in Gaza is a dangerous sign for everybody, and we urge the American administration to interfere immediately to stop this escalation because no one is going to win.
"He (Arafat) is very angry and we, on behalf of the Palestinian people, we urge everybody to understand that the Palestinian people are under heavy escalation from the Israeli government and the Israeli army."
Alon Pinkas, Israeli Consul General to the United States, in Washington:
"It was the right thing to do, as crude as that sounds. He's no spiritual leader. You would think you are talking about Mother Teresa or something is a man that embodies terrorism. He was arrested twice, arrested by the Egyptians to begin with, arrested twice. He's masterminded the brutal killings of children, women, way up in the hundreds. He is a force of incitement, a force of hatred towards Israel, towards America, towards the West, toward the Palestinian mainstream for that matter."
Hasan Rahman, Chief Palestinian Representative to the United States, in Ramallah:
"It is absolutely ridiculous to allege that the man who cannot see, cannot hear and who is on a wheelchair can constitute a threat to the biggest military power in the Middle East and one of the biggest the world. That's absolute nonsense."
Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian President, in Cairo:
"What happened was more brutal than anyone can imagine and it doesn't make sense. This action was not considered, and the result of the actions were also not considered, unfortunately. It is a sorrowful thing. We condemn this aggression because he is one of the political symbols in Gaza. We were putting all our efforts into the peace process. It aborted all the peace process efforts. This will have reactions all over the Middle East, not just there. They did not consider any reactions when they did this dangerous procedure."
Richard Boucher, U.S. State Department spokesman, in Washington:
The administration is "deeply concerned and deeply troubled" about the killing and that it "does not help our efforts to move toward peace."
"There is no doubt of Israel's right to self defense," he said. "At the same time we're deeply troubled by this morning's events in Gaza. ... We've made very clear our position on these targeted killings."
Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary-General, in New York:
"Such actions violate international law and do nothing to help find a peaceful solution."
Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary, in Brussels:
"We understand Israel's paramount needs to defend itself, but we also say for Israel to carry the full support of the international community it needs to do so within the boundaries set by international law. It's been the long-standing position of the British government that such targeted killings, assassinations, are out with international law.
"It is very difficult for all countries fighting terrorism to take a measured response in the face of the kind of outrageous terrorism which Israel has suffered. All of us understand that, but a measure of restraint is required and I don't believe Israel will benefit from the fact that this morning an 80-year-old in a wheel chair has been a target of their assassinations."
Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief, in Brussels:
"The position of the European Union has been consistently a condemnation of ... killings. In this particular case, I think a condemnation ought to be stronger. These types of actions do not contribute at all to create the conditions of peace, the conditions of dialogue, which are necessary at this moment."
Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister, in Berlin:
"We are very concerned about the developments. We will observe them very acutely. I am now on the way to Brussels. I am sure that the EU foreign ministers will discuss the current situation. Throughout the day we will also discuss it with our transatlantic-Atlantic partners.
"This is not about fearing something. The situation is as such that all must be done to prevent a further escalation. All sides are called upon to do their part in this effort. At the same time, we are doing everything to pursue a further initiative for the Middle East. However, as said, the current status necessitates a thorough analysis."
Dominique de Villepin, French Foreign Minister, in Brussels:
"France condemns the actions perpetrated against Sheikh Yassin. At a time when it is important to mobilize for the relaunch of the peace process, such acts can only fuel the cycle of violence."
Jan Petersen, Norwegian Foreign Minister, in Berlin:
"It is quite clear that Hamas is a terrorist organization. We certainly condemn the terrorists acts. But in my opinion this, of course, not justify the extra-judicial killing. The killing this morning is something which we condemn."
Asma Khader, Jordanian government spokesman, in Amman:
"We condemn this crime and we find a real obstacle against all political will and efforts to have a sustainable, comprehensive and just peace for all the people of the region."
Hanan Ashwari, Palestinian legislator, in Ramallah:
"There will be, I'm afraid, a very tragic recycle of violence. What more cowardly act than assassinating through the use of missile a helpless man in a wheelchair? What we needed was to introduce a whole new language, a whole new discourse. I'm afraid it will spiral out of control." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:12 pm Post subject: Re: Israel's Isolation – and America's |
| Neoconservatism is a Jewish (Zionist extremist) movement as Professor Kevin MacDonald conveys via the following URL:
http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm
| Alpha wrote: | | Alpha wrote: | "Now Bush has fallen into the trap his father avoided. He is letting Ariel Sharon create the perception that America's war and Israel's war
are one and the same."
Israel's Isolation – and America's
by Patrick J. Buchanan
March 29, 2004
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2201
"Israel has a right to defend itself," said President Bush. And against whom was Israel defending itself at dawn on Monday?
A half blind and deaf paraplegic being wheeled out of a mosque after prayers, Sheik Ahmed Yassin was struck by missiles that blew him to pieces. In carrying out the assassination of the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, Ariel Sharon used a U.S. Apache helicopter gunship. Thus, in Islamic eyes, we are passive accomplices in the killing.
Instantly, protests erupted in Mosul and Basra. Ayatollah al-Sistani, the Shi'ite leader on whom we depend for a peaceful transfer of power in Iraq, was enraged: "(T)his morning, the occupying Zionist entity committed an ugly crime against the Palestinian people by killing one of their heroes, scholar-martyr Ahmed Yassin."
Sharon's defenders say the sheik had sanctioned terror attacks on innocent Israelis. But why did Israel not then seize him, expose his complicity in murder, and put him in prison, as Israel had before? Why convert this crippled old sheik into a martyr-saint? Why enhance the prestige of Hamas?
Has the killing made Israel more secure? If so, why were Israeli buses deserted all week? Has it made us more secure? Why then were the travel advisories issued to Americans in the Middle East? Why are U.S. embassies shutting down? How does inflaming the Islamic world against us advance the president's goal of persuading the world that Islam is not America's enemy?
President Bush must begin to realize that his blind solidarity with Sharon, who has shown himself contemptuous of America's interests in the larger region, is among the greatest crosses we have to bear in the war on terror.
A year after the fall of Baghdad, Bush's men are boasting of his triumphs – the overthrow of the Taliban, the liberation of Iraq, not one act of terror on U.S. soil in two years. But consider the war from bin Laden's vantage point.
The murderous strike of 9-11 electrified America-haters, but produced blowback and near total disaster for bin Laden. In weeks, Bush had united a great coalition, smashed the Taliban and almost finished Osama himself at Tora Bora. Then came Iraq.
Here Bush played straight into bin Laden's hand. By attacking a prostrate Arab nation that played no role in 9-11, we united Arab and Islamic peoples in hatred of America. We shattered alliances and ignited a guerrilla war.
According to a Pew poll, U.S. prestige in the Muslim world has never been lower. Bush is widely detested. In Pakistan, 65 percent of the people hold Osama in high regard, while 8 percent are positive on Bush. We are losing the hearts and minds of the Islamic young, creating a spawning pool out of which future terrorists will emerge.
Now, an attack in Madrid has left 200 dead and blown a hole in our coalition. A socialist has come to power who intends to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. Poland, too, has begun to waver
As Bush wins battles, Osama advances toward his strategic goals: Demonization of America as the enemy of Islam, isolation of America as an imperialist aggressor against Arab nations and the enabler of Sharon, and unification of Islam's young behind bin Laden's ultimate war aim: the expulsion of America from all Muslim lands.
The legendary Col. John Boyd described strategy as appending to oneself as many centers of power as possible, while isolating one's enemy from as many centers of power as possible.
Bush I did this brilliantly in the Gulf War, isolating Saddam. Bush II did it brilliantly in the Afghan war, isolating the Taliban. Now Bush has fallen into the trap his father avoided. He is letting Ariel Sharon create the perception that America's war and Israel's war are one and the same.
In the Middle East, Sharon has no friends. He does not care whom he alienates. But we are a world power with friend, allies and interests in 22 Arab and 57 Muslim countries.
To protect our interests, to win our war on Al Qaeda, it is imperative that we not let ourselves become as isolated as Israel is today.
Between America and Israel there are thus common interests and a collision of interests. Sharon does not want us to confine our war on terror to those who attacked us on 9-11. He wants us to expand our list of enemies to include his list of enemies: Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. He wants us to escalate "the firemen's war" into an American war on Israel's enemies, so, together, we can establish joint hegemony in the Middle East.
If Sharon and his acolytes in the Bush administration succeed in conflating Sharon's war with America's war, we could lose our war. Why cannot the president see what is going on?
_________________
No War For Israel
http://www.nowarforisrael.com/ |
Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest. by Patrick J. Buchanan:
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
The following URL includes more on the Zionist extremist (JINSA/CSP/PNAC) cabal which pushed US to war in Iraq for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/02/29/neo-cons-israel-and-the-bush-administration.php
Richard Perle: A Zionist extremist traitor to America:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/12/Counterpunch_1.html
War Conceived in Israel:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
Robert Fisk on JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs):
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm
Men from JINSA and CSP (this article by Jason Vest is mentioned in the above article by Robert Fisk):
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
Isabel Hilton's article for the UK Guardian on Ahmed Chalabi's association with the Zionist (Israel firster) extremists at JINSA:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1163563,00.html
JINSA Zionist extremists like Richard Perle are also associated with PNAC (Project for the New American Century which is based at the Zi onist American Enterprise Institute-AEI- which is where Bush spoke on the eve of the Iraq war last year-Ruppert Murdoch provides financial support to PNAC and the AEI):
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
Did the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons plan the 9/11 (World Trade Center) attack with their Likudite cronies in Israel:
Israeli Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth with 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/israeli-spy-rumors-fly-on-gusts-of-truth-with-9-11.php
The following email was sent to Tony Benn (who is the president of the anti-war movement in the UK)
Subj: Urgent: Syria and Iran Next for JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons...?
Date: 3/29/04 11:17:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Dear Mr. Benn,
It was very good to hear your interview with Amy Goodman on 'Democracy Now' this morning and to talk with you in the UK moments ago as well (especially about the following which includes the excellent article by Gary Leupp for www.counterpunch.org that discusses how the JINSA/CSP/PNAC neocons like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz want to do further regime change in Syria and Iran as well for the benefit of Israel). It is important to keep in mind that JINSA/PNAC Neocons Richard Perle and Douglas Feith (both of whom are associated with JINSA/PNAC) wrote 'A Clean Break' for incoming Israeli Likudite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 ('A Clean Break' mentioned for Israel to dissolve the Palestinian peace process and to do regime change in Syria and Iran--Perle and Feith had the US military do regime change in Iraq when they got into power in the current Bush regime as fellow Zionist extremist David Wurmser also co-authored 'A Clean Break' as he is now working for Dick Cheney as Cheney was/is also associated with JINSA/PNAC-the Palestinian peace process seems to have been effectively dissolved by the Israelis with their assasination of Yassin last week, so 'A Clean Break' seems to be moving full speed ahead with Israeli/US cooperation on such via the Likudites in Israel and the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neoconservative cabal in the current Bush regime):
A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm:
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
More mention about 'A Clean Break' is included at the following URL:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=1032
War in Iraq Conceived in Israel:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
Please also access this Sunday Herald article (URL) about PNAC:
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
This article about JINSA by Robert Fisk is very good as well:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm
Fisk mentions the following article (from 'The Nation' in the above referenced article):
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
Chalabi's association with JINSA is mentioned by Isabel Hilton in this recent article that appeared in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1163563,00.html
Subj: G.Leupp: Yassin assasination: Prelude to attacking Syria? + Bleier
Date: 3/28/04 12:11:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: rbleier@igc.org
Friends:
Gary Leupp’s article is a realistic look at Sharon’s wider aims with regard to the Yassin assassination. Sharon’s goal which he evidently accomplished in spite of international condemnation, is to conflate Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation with the U.S. led war on terror, and, as Leupp emphasizes, to get U.S. sanction if not participation for future attacks on Hamas. Moreover, as Leupp indicates, Sharon envisions Israeli and/or U.S. attacks on Hezbollah, Syria, and eventually Iran.
Leupp believes that the U.S. was consulted beforehand and/or gave tacit or explicit approval to the Yassin assassination. There’s reason to believe that, on the contrary, the U.S. was surprised and embarrassed by the assassination in view of the upcoming visit by Sharon to the United States, and (as Jeff Blankfort has written) efforts to pacify Iraq before the November elections. A more realistic view of Israeli-U.S. communication regarding the Yassin assassination would spotlight the audacious quality of Sharon’s leadership and also the extraordinary power over U.S. Middle East policy wielded by Israel, its neocon supporters in high places in the Bush administration, and the Zionist lobby including evangelical Christians.
I would also emphasize that the main intention of the Yassin assassination was to destroy a pillar of Palestinian resistance to the threat of another wave of mass expulsions of the Palestinians which is the longer range intention of Zionism: i.e,, to rid the former Palestine of Palestinians. Despite the widespread condemnation of the Yassin assassination, the effect seems to be, as Sharon intended, an even closer identification of the United States with Israeli plans for the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors. Despite the egregious nature of the Yassin assassination, not one mainstream American political figure has had the temerity to condemn it. --
Ronald Bleier
www.counterpunch.org
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp03272004.html
Weekend Edition
March 27 / 28, 2004
Prelude to an Attack on Syria?
The Yassin Assassination
By GARY LEUPP
Everyone is predicting a spate of horrific suicide bombings in Israel as Hamas and other Palestinian groups respond to the "targeted assassination" of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (and killing of seven other people) by an Apache helicopter air strike a few days ago. According to MSNBC, Israel's army chief has stated that Yassir Arafat and the Lebanese Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah will also be assassinated. I take it for granted that the assassins, proud of their work, convinced of its necessity and goodness, know exactly what they're doing. They have factored in ghastly reprisals, and have plans about how to follow up.
Some observations and predictions:
1. The foreign policy of the Bush administration has since 9-11 been steered by officials who have a well thought out and clearly articulated plan to affect regime change throughout the Middle East. Such change in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and a number of other Muslim countries is central to the neocons' world-transforming project. While Israel's security is not the key issue in Bush Middle East policy, it is a very important secondary one, and U.S. and Israeli policies are closely coordinated.
2. Last October 5, Israel responded to an Islamic Jihad suicide bombing in Haifa by staging an air strike on Syria, the first time it had bombed Syria in 30 years. Ariel Sharon argued that Damascus "sponsors" Islamic Jihad and "Palestinian terrorism" in general and so Israel was acting in self-defense.
3. While condemned by European leaders, including the British foreign minister, and almost everybody else, the attack was justified by President Bush as necessary to "defend the homeland." (Note: not "your homeland" but "the homeland." Bush seems not to distinguish.) It was praised by leading neocon Richard Perle (then still on the Defense Policy Board), who declared, "I am happy to see the message was delivered to Syria by the Israeli air force, and I hope it is the first of many such messages." Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stated, "There will have to be change in Syria, plainly."
(This makes me recall the fifth chapter of the Book of Daniel---an interesting novelette written around 160 BCE, and incorporated into the Old Testament. The neocons are, in effect, saying: "The handwriting is on the wall; Bashir Assad's days are numbered; his kingdom will be divided---not between the Medes and the Persians, but--- between the Americans and the Israelis." http://www.inisrael.com/golan/ )
4. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, administration point man on Syria, argued last fall in Congress for the "Syria Accountability Act," which was passed, 398-5, by the House of Representatives Oct. 16. (99% approval. Isn't it great to live in a democracy where well-informed elected officials can express varied views about the Middle East?) Then it sailed through the Senate.
Officially vilifying Syria (which has actually been an ally against al-Qaeda), it accuses Damascus of sponsoring terrorism, amassing weapons of mass destruction, and occupying Lebanon, and applies economic sanctions against the Arab nation. Bolton accuses Syria of allowing "terrorists" to cross its border to abet the resistance in Iraq, receiving some of those elusive WMD from Iraq, and providing banking services for the Iraqi resistance. So there is a long list of charges against Syria, as there was against Iraq, and as there is against Iran---enough to persuade the sufficiently impressionable that Syria should be attacked and occupied.
5. The assassination of the wheelchair-bound paraplegic 75 year old Yassin was condemned by Kofi Annan, and by European leaders, including British foreign minister Jack Straw, but Condoleeza Rice, speaking for the Bush administration, refused to criticize it, merely appealing for everybody in the region to keep calm. While the Bush administration denies any foreknowledge of the attack, it will of course stand by Mr. Sharon, whom Bush with his characteristic distance from the real world has dubbed "a man of peace."
6. The neocons have suffered a series of setbacks, including the highly embarrassing revelations of Bush's former top anti-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, who charges that Bush demanded intelligence forces concoct links between 9-11 and Iraq to justify an invasion. Anyone paying attention now knows that the Iraq stage of the Terror War was based on lies. The bleeding sore of the occupation saps Bush's political support, and he and his world-transforming ideologues may be out of jobs come November. That prospect doesn't make the neocons more humble, but rather more desperate to achieve such pieces of their ambitious program as they might in the next seven months.
7. This month has seen a "human rights" demonstration in Damascus and a couple days of Arab-Kurdish ethnic rioting following a soccer game. These are unusual events in tightly-controlled Syria. There may be an outside hand in them, endeavoring to destabilize the Syrian regime preparatory to some major, externally organized action.
8. A major Hamas suicide bombing would provide a fine pretext for an attack on Syria, perfectly legitimate to anyone predisposed to think Hamas=international terrorism=Syria.
9. At least one Hamas leaflet has suggested that the U.S. bears partial responsibility for Yassin's assassination: "The Zionists didn't carry out their operation without getting the consent of the terrorist American administration and it must take responsibility for this crime."
Let's think about this statement. If the U.S. government can say "you're for us or against us," and make no distinction between "terrorist organizations" and those who "sponsor" them, surely your good, decent, normal Palestinian on the street can draw a connection between an assassination conducted on the explicit orders of Ariel Sharon (whose government is, as the number one recipient of U.S. foreign aid, subsidized by the U.S. to a mind-boggling $ 3 billion---some say $ 6 billion---per year and enjoys about the most intimate relationship with Washington that any foreign government has ever had) and the American administration. Condoleeza Rice has said the U.S. had no prior knowledge of the assassination, but then she also says honest Richard Clarke's recent charges about Bush's handling of the al-Qaeda issue are "ridiculous." The sad fact is that Condi is ridiculous, and her job absolutely requires that she deny U.S. links to assassinations if such occur.
Is the Hamas statement implausible? It seems in fact unlikely that Sharon would undertake his extremely newsworthy action without consulting with the government which subsidizes his own. So Hamas could say: "We make no distinction between those defying international law and assassinating our leaders, and those who sponsor them." Still, it is unlikely that they would undertake an attack on Americans on U.S. soil, however much either al-Qaeda or the neocons might want that (and even be inclined to stage it) in order to exacerbate the confrontation between Islam and the west that they both relish, for their different reasons.
In any case, the statement about "responsibility for this crime" cited above was immediately trumpeted in the U.S. media as a Hamas threat to attack the U.S., something it has never done, would be stupid to do, and probably has no intention of doing. Hamas is not al-Qaeda, however much the Bushites want to conflate all opponents of the U.S. and Israel into a single, simple terroristic Evil. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge immediately indicated that Washington takes "quite seriously" a threat never explicitly made. But Hamas, as it mourns the loss of its founder, and speculates about what forces produced his murder, becomes demonized, al-Qaeda-ized, another object of American fear.
Start worrying now, everybody, that terrorist Hamas, angry about the death of their terrorist founder at the hands of our Israeli friends---a death we support---is going to attack us, because they blame us for it! That's the message.
Hamas having been hit by a strike condemned by the entire world (except the U.S. and Israel) and having, in perfectly rational response, expressed outrage, now in its injured state becomes more targeted by the U.S. than ever. Henceforth whatever Sharon does against Hamas, he will be able to depict as an effort to defend not merely his country but the American Homeland threatened by these angry anti-American Palestinians. And whatever measures the Bushites take against "Palestinian terrorism" will be undertaken as "Homeland Defense" measures as well, the Israeli and American homeland boundaries having been thoroughly blurred long since.
10. Let us say Perle's dream comes true and the Israeli air force does attack pro-Hamas Syria. Let's say it does so big-time, Sharon-style, and does major damage. Enough to cause enough disorder for the U.S. to argue that a deteriorating situation requires international intervention. The Iraq attack required months of preparation, but intervention in Syria will happen very quickly, coming like a thief in the night as it did in Haiti. Perle has suggested that there are troops to spare in Iraq that can occupy "weak" Syria in short order. Even if Israeli action provides the context, Israeli forces won't be needed, and U.S. action will be lent some thin international legitimacy if a few hundred "coalition" troops participate. Thus a second Arab nation will become Americanizedly "free," while Palestinians infuriated by these events will commit acts that will justify the "ethnic cleansing" of the West Bank.
I truly hope my imagination has gotten the better of me, that I am a false prophet, and that what I describe will not come to pass.
Hands off Syria!
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa, Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa, Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900.
He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5945.shtml
U.S. News/Comment
The 10,000-Pound Elephant in the Room
By Michael Saba
Mar 27, 2004, 20:09
Email this article
Printer friendly page
March 27, 2004-Richard Clarke is all over the news these days. The author of "Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror" had his book released this week, the same week that he appeared as a key witness at the blue ribbon Sept. 11 Commission meeting which focused on what went wrong with America’s intelligence leading up to that fateful day.
Clarke, who retired from government service about a year ago, served 30 years under 7 US presidents, 5 of them Republican, as a national security expert.
Clarke has made all the major TV talk shows and appeared on all of the TV networks chastizing Bush and his administration for mistakes prior to Sept. 11 and criticizing President Bush and his key officials for their obsession to go to war with Iraq rather than focusing on Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
Yet with all of this talk and criticism, something was missing. There was a 10,000-pound elephant in the room and, although everybody could see it, nobody wanted to mention it. That 10,000-pound elephant is Israel.
Clarke laid the blame and the Bush administration fought back. The Sept. 11 Commission also got into the act when Clarke testified. Everyone was blaming everyone else but no one mentioned Israel as a possible participant in the equation. And Clarke, although he was taking on the neoconservatives, normally ardent supporters of Israel, seemed to be avoiding the mention of the Jewish state like the plague. Some courageous political pundits such as Pat Buchanan, have consistently pointed out the role of Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby in driving the United States toward war with Iraq. Then recollections of Clarke’s earlier career came to mind.
Clarke served in both the Bush 1 and Clinton administrations. From 1989 to 1992 during Bush 1, Clarke served as the assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs overseeing sensitive US technology transfers. In a March 1992 report, State Department Inspector General Sherman Funk stated "alleged Israeli violations of US laws cited and supported by reliable intelligence information show a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers...dating back to about 1982." According to other US officials at that time, those Israeli violations date back to the early 1970s. Many of those alleged violations during the Reagan era include Israel’s illegal transfers of American technology to China.
The Funk Report heavily criticized State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs for ignoring scores of intelligence reports on apparent violations of retransfer restrictions and other restrictions and for not reporting them to senior officials and Congress, as required by law.
The report also recommended that the then Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Richard Clarke be disciplined for his lack of oversight on Israel. Clarke was reprimanded and eventually lost his job. However Clarke, a consummate bureaucratic survivor, reappeared shortly after that on the National Security Council staff in the Clinton administration.
When the Funk Report was issued and Clarke was removed from his State Department position, Funk allegedly received threatening phone calls at his home. Funk was summoned to closed-door hearings in the US House of Representatives and was allegedly accused by Representative Tom Lantos of California of harming Israel while others reportedly joined in a verbal assault of Funk’s positions on Israel.
At that same time the Jerusalem Post reported, "It appears the bureaucratic target (of the Funk Report) was Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Richard Clarke. US officials reportedly say Clarke is being removed from his position for negligence." The Jerusalem Post goes on to quote a pro-Israeli activist as saying, "Clarke was a friend of Israel in an administration where they do not necessarily grow on trees. Somebody was out there to get him."
Also defending Clarke at that time in the Jerusalem Post were neoconservative, pro-Israeli advocates Michael Ledeen and Stephen Bryen claiming that there was "lack of proof that Israel had violated any agreements." Interestingly, both Ledeen and Bryen served in the Reagan administration at the same time as Clarke. Bryen was also reprimanded during that period for alleged improprieties regarding technology transfer to Israel. Bryen and Ledeen now serve on the US China Commission which oversees American technology transfers to China.
Clarke himself was quoted in a 1990 article in the Syracuse(NY) Post-Standard as saying, "The US benefits in a lot of ways from its strategic relationship with Israel" and went on to say that Israel could serve as a "war reserve stockpile" in expanding American military capabilities.
In Clarke’s book, he makes positive references to his friend, Richard Perle. The pro-Israeli Perle, known as the "Prince of Darkness" is widely credited as one of the architects of Bush’s attack Iraq policy.
And Clarke is quoted in the official biography of Steven Emerson as saying, "I think of Steve as the Paul Revere of terrorism...(Clarke) credits Emerson with repeatedly warning of Al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the United States. He adds that he would attend Emerson’s speeches whenever possible because ‘we’d always learn things we weren’t hearing from the FBI or CIA, things which almost always proved to be true." Emerson is one of the strongest pro-Likud, pro-Israeli advocates in the United States and is often cited for blaming the Arabs and Muslims for most of the acts of terrorism around the world.
Responding to Clarke’s interview on "60 Minutes" last Sunday night, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett referred to Clarke’s charges as a "red herring", something designed to draw attention from the real issue.
That "red herring", however, is quite different from the 10,000-pound elephant in the room. During an election year with friends of Israel, and especially close friends like Richard Clarke, permeating both political parties, nobody wants to mention that the elephant is in the room.
Dr. Michael Saba is the author of "The Armageddon Network" and is an international relations consultant
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=42001&d=27&m=3&y=2004
Subj: More than 40 senators said they supported Israel’s assassination
Date: 3/26/04 9:39:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: jblankfort@earthlink.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
These senators had a choice on Thursday of attending the 9-11 hearings or meeting with their bosses, or rather one of their bosses, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations which generally lobbies the White House while leaving Congress to AIPAC. Hoenlein, it should be known, drafted the first counter-terrorism bill under the Clinton administration, as reported in the Forward at the time.. There are some folks who would have us believe that foreign policy originates in the White House.
40 senators out of 100! And check out the last line.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency 3.27.4
Jews meet Senate leaders
More than 40 senators said they supported Israel’s assassination of Hamas’ leader, a Jewish official said. The senators met Thursday with officials from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. While some senators voiced concern about the consequences of killing Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the lawmakers — including Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), minority leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) — “supported Israel’s right to take whatever measures are necessary to defend itself,” according to Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Presidents Conference. The group also discussed the U.S. war on terrorism, Iran’s nuclear aspirations, U.S. sanctions against Syria and homeland security funding for U.S. Jewish institutions.
What Congressman Paul Findley Said on AIPAC (Zionist) Lobby:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/09/25/what-congressman-paul-findley-said-on-aipac-zionist-lobby.php | | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 8:05 am Post subject: Israeli Connection Coverup |
| http://www.nowarforisrael.com
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
----- Original Message -----
From: MER - Washington Scene
To: mer
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:15 AM
Subject: Israeli Connection Coverup
31 March 2004
News, Views, & Analysis Governments, Lobbies, & the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know
"The most honest, most comprehensive, and most mobilizing news
and analysis on the Middle East always comes from MER.
It is indispensable!" - Robert Silverman - Salamanca, Spain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MER Washington Scene:
ISRAEL CONNECTION COVERUP
ISRAEL-GATE AHEAD?
MER - Mid-East Realities - www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 3/31/2004:
Key people in Washington know very well that without Israel's extraordinary influence in the United States, and without the many entangling interconnections involving Israel at the highest levels of the Bush Administration, the invasion/occupation of Iraq would probably never have happened. And many other important policies and events relating to the Middle East would also likely never have happened as they did in the past, or as they continue to happen today in the present. But very few in Washington are willing to speak up about this most important reality, especially in public, especially with the media present.
So add the following additional pieces to the great coverup now being perpetrated on the American people by the Bush Administration, which of course follows the great deception that has necessitated this subsequent coverup. The key person in charge of the 9/11 investigation on Capitol Hill is actually one of the closet group we call the 'Israeli-connected neocons'. Until last year Philip Zelikow served on Donald Rumsfeld's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board when chaired by non-other-than Richard Perle. And now we learn that he himself personally acknowledged, at least once in public, that the much-hyped Iraqi threat was to Israel, not really to the U.S.
But then it's not as if insights of this kind have not been available. It's just that the corporate media, itself so interconnected in so many ways with the powers that be, the 'defense industry', and in many cases with the many branches of the Israel/Jewish lobby, always tries extra hard to stay away from this particular topic.
Indeed, just yesterday, MER published a flashback from two years ago this month in which we highlighted that none other than Vice-President Cheney -- at the time seeking more Israeli and Israeli lobby support -- also acknowledged that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was going to be done 'for Israel's sake'.
Now we just can't wait for the new Iraq war commission -- also carefully selected to do more covering up than truth exposing -- is pressed to call on both Mr. Cheney and Mr. Zelikow to raise their hands, pledge to tell the whole truth, and discuss the Israeli connection. Much too soon though to call it Israel-Gate.
Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
by Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON - 29 March - Inter-Press Service: IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States.
Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars.
Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role.
Known in intelligence circles as ”Piffy-ab”, the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make.
The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as ”code word” that is higher than top secret.
The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.
Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story.
Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration.
Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001.
In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.
Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.
Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.
Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official -- Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the ”Muslim Middle East”.
Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia.
His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.
In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of ”scarce hard currency” to harness ”communications against electromagnetic pulse”, a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.
That was ”a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange -- they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis”, according to Zelikow.
He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.
”Play out those scenarios,” he told his audience, ”and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it”.
”Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant.”
To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration.
Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.
”Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component,” said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. ”But this is a very good piece of evidence of that.”
Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq.
”They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it,” said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.
But he downplayed the Israel link. ”In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat,” he said.
Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried weight.
”Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made,” Brown said.
Copyright © 2004 IPS-Inter Press Service
Comment on this and other MER articles in the MER FORUM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To receive MER regularly and free click here
If you don't get MER, you just don't get it!
To comment on this and other MER articles click here for the new MER FORUM
MID-EAST REALITIES
www.MiddleEast.Org
Phone: (202) 362-5266
Fax: (815) 366-0800
Email: MER@MiddleEast.Org | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:24 pm Post subject: The 10,000-Pound Elephant in the Room |
| http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5945.shtml
U.S. News/Comment
The 10,000-Pound Elephant in the Room
By Michael Saba
Mar 27, 2004, 20:09
Email this article
Printer friendly page
March 27, 2004-Richard Clarke is all over the news these days. The author of "Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror" had his book released this week, the same week that he appeared as a key witness at the blue ribbon Sept. 11 Commission meeting which focused on what went wrong with America’s intelligence leading up to that fateful day.
Clarke, who retired from government service about a year ago, served 30 years under 7 US presidents, 5 of them Republican, as a national security expert.
Clarke has made all the major TV talk shows and appeared on all of the TV networks chastizing Bush and his administration for mistakes prior to Sept. 11 and criticizing President Bush and his key officials for their obsession to go to war with Iraq rather than focusing on Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
Yet with all of this talk and criticism, something was missing. There was a 10,000-pound elephant in the room and, although everybody could see it, nobody wanted to mention it. That 10,000-pound elephant is Israel.
Clarke laid the blame and the Bush administration fought back. The Sept. 11 Commission also got into the act when Clarke testified. Everyone was blaming everyone else but no one mentioned Israel as a possible participant in the equation. And Clarke, although he was taking on the neoconservatives, normally ardent supporters of Israel, seemed to be avoiding the mention of the Jewish state like the plague. Some courageous political pundits such as Pat Buchanan, have consistently pointed out the role of Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby in driving the United States toward war with Iraq. Then recollections of Clarke’s earlier career came to mind.
Clarke served in both the Bush 1 and Clinton administrations. From 1989 to 1992 during Bush 1, Clarke served as the assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs overseeing sensitive US technology transfers. In a March 1992 report, State Department Inspector General Sherman Funk stated "alleged Israeli violations of US laws cited and supported by reliable intelligence information show a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers...dating back to about 1982." According to other US officials at that time, those Israeli violations date back to the early 1970s. Many of those alleged violations during the Reagan era include Israel’s illegal transfers of American technology to China.
The Funk Report heavily criticized State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs for ignoring scores of intelligence reports on apparent violations of retransfer restrictions and other restrictions and for not reporting them to senior officials and Congress, as required by law.
The report also recommended that the then Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Richard Clarke be disciplined for his lack of oversight on Israel. Clarke was reprimanded and eventually lost his job. However Clarke, a consummate bureaucratic survivor, reappeared shortly after that on the National Security Council staff in the Clinton administration.
When the Funk Report was issued and Clarke was removed from his State Department position, Funk allegedly received threatening phone calls at his home. Funk was summoned to closed-door hearings in the US House of Representatives and was allegedly accused by Representative Tom Lantos of California of harming Israel while others reportedly joined in a verbal assault of Funk’s positions on Israel.
At that same time the Jerusalem Post reported, "It appears the bureaucratic target (of the Funk Report) was Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Richard Clarke. US officials reportedly say Clarke is being removed from his position for negligence." The Jerusalem Post goes on to quote a pro-Israeli activist as saying, "Clarke was a friend of Israel in an administration where they do not necessarily grow on trees. Somebody was out there to get him."
Also defending Clarke at that time in the Jerusalem Post were neoconservative, pro-Israeli advocates Michael Ledeen and Stephen Bryen claiming that there was "lack of proof that Israel had violated any agreements." Interestingly, both Ledeen and Bryen served in the Reagan administration at the same time as Clarke. Bryen was also reprimanded during that period for alleged improprieties regarding technology transfer to Israel. Bryen and Ledeen now serve on the US China Commission which oversees American technology transfers to China.
Clarke himself was quoted in a 1990 article in the Syracuse(NY) Post-Standard as saying, "The US benefits in a lot of ways from its strategic relationship with Israel" and went on to say that Israel could serve as a "war reserve stockpile" in expanding American military capabilities.
In Clarke’s book, he makes positive references to his friend, Richard Perle. The pro-Israeli Perle, known as the "Prince of Darkness" is widely credited as one of the architects of Bush’s attack Iraq policy.
And Clarke is quoted in the official biography of Steven Emerson as saying, "I think of Steve as the Paul Revere of terrorism...(Clarke) credits Emerson with repeatedly warning of Al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the United States. He adds that he would attend Emerson’s speeches whenever possible because ‘we’d always learn things we weren’t hearing from the FBI or CIA, things which almost always proved to be true." Emerson is one of the strongest pro-Likud, pro-Israeli advocates in the United States and is often cited for blaming the Arabs and Muslims for most of the acts of terrorism around the world.
Responding to Clarke’s interview on "60 Minutes" last Sunday night, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett referred to Clarke’s charges as a "red herring", something designed to draw attention from the real issue.
That "red herring", however, is quite different from the 10,000-pound elephant in the room. During an election year with friends of Israel, and especially close friends like Richard Clarke, permeating both political parties, nobody wants to mention that the elephant is in the room.
Dr. Michael Saba is the author of "The Armageddon Network" and is an international relations consultant
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=42001&d=27&m=3&y=2004
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5975.shtml
From Axis of logic (www.axisoflogic.com)
U.S. News/Comment
The Disinformation of Richard Clarke
By Scott Loughrey with editorial comments by Les Blough
Mar 29, 2004, 09:58
Email this article
Printer friendly page
Editor's Note : Much has been written and read about the 9/11/01 attacks - from the American-led empire's pat explanations to those who believe that the empire planned and executed the attacks. At Axis of Logic, we try to deal with facts rather than theories. However, questioning authority - in this case, the official statements of empire is quite simply, sound journalism.
We aren't sure what to make of Clarke's "defection" at this point, other than to say: (1) The 9/11/01 attacks and their aftermath have been extremely well-planned for a long time. (2) That Clarke's "defection" and it's publicity both occur within the empire. We believe Scott Loughrey's article below raises questions worthy of consideration. His references to the gatekeepers of the so-called "left" as sources of disinformation are well-taken. We believe that Loughrey's observations and his incredulity surrounding the regime's 9/11/01 behavior and their version of what actually happened on 9/11/01 are clearly worthy of independent investigation. - Les Blough
The apparent defection of former counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke is a propaganda coup for the Bush Regime. It is reminiscent of the old fable of the smart man who manages to elude a King's scrutiny by smuggling wheel barrels past him in full view.
Let's begin with a selection of facts :
In his book Painful Questions Eric Hufschmid points out that the World Trade Center rubble was quickly shipped out of New York City after 9-11 before proper examination by qualified investigators took place (Painful Questions, 2002, Eric Hufschmid).
Richard Clarke was designated "crisis manager" by Condoleezza Rice within minutes after the "second jetliner hit the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001" (Washington Post, 03/23/04, Eggen and Pincus). Although the mainstream media won't inquire to know all that he was responsible for, presumably the decision to quickly sell the WTC rubble for scrap was on his to-do list.
Clarke writes a book (Against All Enemies) that states the top officials in the Bush Regime were immediately trying to link 9-11 to Iraq; while he was telling them it was "Al Qaeda" and made-to-order villain Osama bin Laden.
The White House controlled the book's publication date, citing "national security" (Patrick Martin, 23 March 2004, WSWS.org).
The White House chose a date for Clarke's book to be published shortly before its top officials would be testifying before the 911 Commission.
So, why should anyone think that Clarke isn't representing the acceptable opposition to the Bush Regime as its top officials receive the old frat-boy-network treatment from the already-compromised 911 Commission? Clarke is telling the 911 Families and the 911 Commission that the Bush Regime failed to act on the al Qaeda threat. That's food for the Left Gatekeepers and other sources of disinformation.
In other words, it is hard not to believe that Clarke's "defection" is a hoax . The target audiences are the media sources and personalities who are still trying to promote the Bush Regime's Official Story of what happened on 9/11/01. (This is the fable of 19 suicidal hijackers flying planes into tall buildings at the behest of dialysis patient Osama bin Laden from his cave in Afghanistan.) Since the 911 Truth Movement is now very publicly challenging the Official Story, the White House surely enlisted Richard Clarke s defection in order to help the media define the level of permissible dissent from the 911 Commission.
Sadly, the Left Gatekeepers continue to represent Richard Clarke's actually very narrow divergence from the Bush Regime's propaganda as significant. Meanwhile, every chance they get they repeat the ludicrous elements of the 9-11 Official Story as if no one has yet heard the World Trade Center 7 mystery , among thousands of others. The 911 Truth Movement can only stand on the sidelines while what used to constitute the Left in the US prefers their audience be fooled by the Bush Regime's very obvious wheelbarrow.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU403A.html | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:32 pm Post subject: Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official |
| Subj: Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official
Date: 3/31/04 11:39:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: nord@famvid.com
To: bilcar80@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
March 31, 2004
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html
Regards, Bill
Front Page
Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official
By Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.
Inter Press Service uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission - in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch US ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of US President George W Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of Saddam and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of September 11 and the future of the war on al-Qaeda.
"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 US troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched after September 11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the US.
Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of US$3-4 billion.
Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role. Known in intelligence circles as "Piffy-ab", the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make. The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as "code word" that is higher than top secret.
The national security adviser to former president George H W Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.
Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and e-mail messages from IPS for this story.
Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration. Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001. In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.
Richard A Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor president Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings. Clarke said that Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.
Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.
Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official - Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the Muslim Middle East.
Aside from his position on the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the September attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.
In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of "scarce hard currency" to harness "communications against electromagnetic pulse", a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.
That was "a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange - they [Iraqi officials] were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis," according to Zelikow.
He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the US, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.
"Play out those scenarios," he told his audience, "and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it".
"Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel?' Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant."
To date, the possibility of the US attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration. Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said that they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.
"Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component," said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. "But this is a very good piece of evidence of that."
Others say that the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq. "They [the administration] made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it," said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.
But he downplayed the Israel link. "In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat," he said.
Still, Brown says that Zelikow's words carried weight. "Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz, or Rice or [Secretary of State Colin] Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made," Brown said.
(Inter Press Service) | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:26 pm Post subject: Ahmed Chalabi's Ties To Mossad and the Neocons |
| http://www.nowarforisrael.com
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
Ahmed Chalabi's Ties To
Mossad And Neocons
By Christopher Bollyn
RumorMillNews.com
4-26-3
When Gen. Abdul Karim Qasim ousted the Iraqi monarchy of King Faisal II in
July 1958, many Iraqis, like the family of Ahmed Chalabi, which had enjoyed close ties with the monarchy, were forced to flee the country.
Today, Chalabi is the man behind the self-declared government that has come
to power in Baghdad.
Chalabi, a non-practising Shia, is reportedly a close friend of the late Shah of Iran, the former Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan and Col. Oliver North of the Reagan
Administration, according to a recent paper on Chalabi for the South Asia Analysis Group titled "Ahmed Chalabi: The Janos Kadar of Iraq" by B. Raman, a Indian intelligence expert.
The head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), Chalabi comes from an
aristocratic Shiite family that was connected to the monarchy of Faisal. The
Iraqi monarchy had been installed by the British when they created the Iraqi
state after the first World War.
Chalabi's father was a member of the Faisal's Council of Ministers and
president of the senate nominated by Faisal and set up to provide the Iraqi monarchy with a democratic facade.
The Chalabi family fled to Jordan when King Faisal II was overthrown in 1958
by Qasim's group of army officers who had allegedly acted in collusion with the
Iraqi Communist Party.
Years later, Chalabi amassed a great deal of wealth as a banker in Jordan. However, in 1989, Chalabi was found guilty of embezzlement and fraud in a military court in Jordan and was sentenced to 22 years. Chalabi reportedly fled Jordan in the trunk of a car with over $20 million.
It was alleged that during his association with the bank Chalabi embezzled nearly $70 million and stashed it in secret Swiss bank accounts.
The financial improprieties that Chalabi was found to have been directly involved in led to the collapse the Jordanian bank he directed, Petra Bank.
At the time of its crash, Petra was the third-largest bank in Jordan, and the Jordanian government was forced to pay out $200 million to depositors who faced the loss of their savings.
In 1992, Mr Chalabi was tried in absentia and sentenced by a Jordanian court to 22 years jail on 31 charges of embezzlement, theft, misuse of depositor funds and currency speculation.
A report by Arthur Andersen subsequently found that Chalabi's Petra Bank's assets had been overstated by some $200 million. Many of the bank's bad loans were to Chalabi-linked companies in Switzerland and Lebanon.
A detailed 500-page Technical Committee Report was subsequently compiled for the Jordanian military attorney-general on June 10, 1990.
In the report Chalabi was named as being the man at Petra Bank who was directly responsible for "fictitious deposits and entries to make the income ... appear larger."
To this day, Chalabi insists that the charges were politically charged and the fact that there has never been formal extradition attempts prove the case was not genuine.
Chalabi is considered by experts to be a long-time collaborator with the CIA
and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) at the Pentagon.
After fleeing Jordan, Chalabi went to Europe and founded the INC in 1992 at a meeting of some anti-Saddam Hussein exiles held in Vienna, Austria. James Woolsey, who became the Director of the CIA under President Bill Clinton, made Chalabi's INC the cutting-edge of the CIA's operations against Saddam Hussein. Chalabi allegedly became Woolsey's blue-eyed boy and the INC became the most favored recipient of CIA funds meant for the overthrow of Saddam, according to Raman.
In the 1980s, when he was associated with the Petra Bank, Chalabi, who was allegedly helping the Mossad, the Israeli external intelligence agency, used to visit Israel secretly.
During those visits, he became close to the late Albert Wohlstetter, who is reputed to be "a godfather of the neoconservative movement in the US," according to Raman.
Chalabi had met Wohlstetter during his student days at the University of Chicago, Raman wrote, but the friendship became close only after their meetings in Israel. Through Wohlstetter, Chalabi became acquainted with Richard Perle, who was Under-Secretary of Defence for international-security policy under President Reagan, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, both of whom served under President Ronald Reagan.
Perle, as chief of the Defence Policy Advisory Board, has been a strong supporter of Chalabi, but the CIA and the State Department have serious reservations about him.
Chalabi's criminal past notwithstanding, Chalabi is today being presented as the possible head of an interim Iraqi authority to provide an Iraqi face for what is likely to become an extended U.S. military occupation of Iraq.
"He is tipped to occupy an important post in the US occupation regime in Baghdad to create a new Iraqi intelligence agency, which would be loyal to the USA and protect its national interests," Raman wrote.
On April 16, two close associates of Chalabi said they had been elected
mayor and governor of Baghdad by tribal and religious chiefs acting with the
consent of the U.S. government.
INC General Jaudat Obeidi who, prior to his return to Iraq, had reportedly
lived in exile in Oregon claimed he had been selected mayor of Baghdad. And, with a massive media entourage, Mohammed Mohsen Zubeidi, proclaimed himself governor of a new interim administration for Baghdad.
A spokesman for the U.S. Marines in Baghdad denied that the United States
has recognized anyone to head up a new Iraqi government.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=31508 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:29 pm Post subject: Re: Israeli Connection Coverup |
| Step Forward Mr. Chalabi. The JINSA Connection:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/03/06/step-forward-mr-chalabi-the-jinsa-connection.php
Keep in mind that Woolsey and Feith are associated with JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) as you can read via the following URLs:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
Also, be sure to access the 'War Conceived in Israel' article which is linked under the map of 'greater Israel' after scrolling down to it on the left after arriving at www.nowarforisrael.com
| Alpha wrote: | http://www.nowarforisrael.com
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
----- Original Message -----
From: MER - Washington Scene
To: mer
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:15 AM
Subject: Israeli Connection Coverup
31 March 2004
News, Views, & Analysis Governments, Lobbies, & the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know
"The most honest, most comprehensive, and most mobilizing news
and analysis on the Middle East always comes from MER.
It is indispensable!" - Robert Silverman - Salamanca, Spain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MER Washington Scene:
ISRAEL CONNECTION COVERUP
ISRAEL-GATE AHEAD?
MER - Mid-East Realities - www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 3/31/2004:
Key people in Washington know very well that without Israel's extraordinary influence in the United States, and without the many entangling interconnections involving Israel at the highest levels of the Bush Administration, the invasion/occupation of Iraq would probably never have happened. And many other important policies and events relating to the Middle East would also likely never have happened as they did in the past, or as they continue to happen today in the present. But very few in Washington are willing to speak up about this most important reality, especially in public, especially with the media present.
So add the following additional pieces to the great coverup now being perpetrated on the American people by the Bush Administration, which of course follows the great deception that has necessitated this subsequent coverup. The key person in charge of the 9/11 investigation on Capitol Hill is actually one of the closet group we call the 'Israeli-connected neocons'. Until last year Philip Zelikow served on Donald Rumsfeld's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board when chaired by non-other-than Richard Perle. And now we learn that he himself personally acknowledged, at least once in public, that the much-hyped Iraqi threat was to Israel, not really to the U.S.
But then it's not as if insights of this kind have not been available. It's just that the corporate media, itself so interconnected in so many ways with the powers that be, the 'defense industry', and in many cases with the many branches of the Israel/Jewish lobby, always tries extra hard to stay away from this particular topic.
Indeed, just yesterday, MER published a flashback from two years ago this month in which we highlighted that none other than Vice-President Cheney -- at the time seeking more Israeli and Israeli lobby support -- also acknowledged that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was going to be done 'for Israel's sake'.
Now we just can't wait for the new Iraq war commission -- also carefully selected to do more covering up than truth exposing -- is pressed to call on both Mr. Cheney and Mr. Zelikow to raise their hands, pledge to tell the whole truth, and discuss the Israeli connection. Much too soon though to call it Israel-Gate.
Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
by Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON - 29 March - Inter-Press Service: IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States.
Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars.
Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role.
Known in intelligence circles as ”Piffy-ab”, the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make.
The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as ”code word” that is higher than top secret.
The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.
Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story.
Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration.
Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001.
In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.
Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.
Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.
Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official -- Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the ”Muslim Middle East”.
Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia.
His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.
In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of ”scarce hard currency” to harness ”communications against electromagnetic pulse”, a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.
That was ”a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange -- they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis”, according to Zelikow.
He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.
”Play out those scenarios,” he told his audience, ”and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it”.
”Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant.”
To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration.
Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.
”Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component,” said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. ”But this is a very good piece of evidence of that.”
Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq.
”They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it,” said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.
But he downplayed the Israel link. ”In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat,” he said.
Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried weight.
”Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made,” Brown said.
Copyright © 2004 IPS-Inter Press Service
Comment on this and other MER articles in the MER FORUM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To receive MER regularly and free click here
If you don't get MER, you just don't get it!
To comment on this and other MER articles click here for the new MER FORUM
MID-EAST REALITIES
www.MiddleEast.Org
Phone: (202) 362-5266
Fax: (815) 366-0800
Email: MER@MiddleEast.Org | | | | | dangerousdna | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
