War Without End

Alpha

Subj: Sen. Hollings: The US went to war for Israel
Date: 5/6/04 9:23:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: jblankfort@earthlink.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)

"Israel's survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel."
http://www.charleston.net/cgi-bin/printme.plBush's failed Mideast policy is creating more terrorism
BY SEN. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS
With 760 dead in Iraq and over 3,000 maimed for life, home folks continue to argue why we are in Iraq -- and how to get out. Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11 (70 cells in the U.S.), the State Department did not list Iraq. Richard Clarke, in "Against All Enemies," tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion. On Page 231, John McLaughlin of the CIA verifies this to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In 1993, President Clinton responded to Saddam's attempt on the life of President George H.W. Bush by putting a missile down on Saddam's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Not a big kill, but Saddam got the message -- monkey around with the United States and a missile lands on his head. Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's intelligence, Mossad, knows what's going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know. Israel's survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area. Wolfowitz wrote: "The United States may not be able to lead countries through the door of democracy, but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up." And on another occasion: Iraq as "the first Arab democracy ... would cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world." Three weeks before the invasion, President Bush stated: "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example for freedom for other nations in the region." Every president since 1947 has made a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But no leadership has surfaced amongst the Palestinians that can make a binding agreement. President Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better. He came to office imbued with one thought -- re-election. Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined. President Bush thought taking Iraq would be easy. Wolfowitz said it would take only seven days. Vice President Cheney believed we would be greeted as liberators. But Cheney's man, Chalabi, made a mess of the de-Baathification of Iraq by dismissing Republican Guard leadership and Sunni leaders who soon joined with the insurgents. Worst of all, we tried to secure Iraq with too few troops. In 1966 in South Vietnam, with a population of 16,543,000, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, with 535,000 U.S. troops was still asking for more. In Iraq with a population of 24,683,000, Gen. John Abizaid with only 135,000 troops can barely secure the troops much less the country. If the troops are there to fight, they are too few. If there to die, they are too many. To secure Iraq we need more troops -- at least 100,000 more. The only way to get the United Nations back in Iraq is to make the country secure. Once back, the French, Germans and others will join with the U.N. to take over. With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting, "Terrorism War." Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don't call the Crimean War with the Charge of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War. There is terrorism in Northern Ireland against the Brits. There is terrorism in India and in Pakistan. In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily. Here, might does not make right -- right makes might. Acting militarily, we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated.

Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/050604/com_06hollings.shtml

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

Top

Alpha

Subj: US Senator Says Israeli Security Was Iraq War's Purpose
Date: 5/8/04 6:39:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: hectorpv@comcast.net
To: hectorpv@comcast.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Friends,

US Senator Says Israeli Security Was Iraq War’s Purpose

It’s amazing. A US Senator has pointed out that the war was directed by the neocons for the benefit of Israel. Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, a Democrat from South Carolina (a Christian Zionist haven), begins his article by pointing out that all of the Bush administration’s stated reasons for the war on Iraq were bogus. Then he rhetorically asks: "With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel.

"Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area."

The only thing wrong here is that Israel hardly wanted democracy (Middle East democracies would be anti-Israel), but rather sought to destabilize the region. This has been the long-held Likud position, as illustrated by the Oded Yinon’s war plan of 1982. [http://www.theunjustmedia.com/the%20zionist_plan_for_the_middle_east.htm]

And in 1996 a group of neocons, which included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, advised then-Prime Minister Netanyahu in their "A Clean Break" policy paper to engage in destabilizing military action in the Middle East. [http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm]

In essence, while acknowledging that Israel’s neocon supporters spearheaded the war on Iraq for the benefit of Israel, Hollings tries to make it appear that the neocons also intended to help the Arabs. They are really good-intentioned people, as Israel is good. Such a sugar coating can, perhaps, be used to ward off the lethal charge of "anti-Semitism."

This fits in with the neocons-as-the-misguided-naïfs theory. An identical view was expressed by international affairs commentator Arnaud de Borchgrave: "The liberation of Iraq, in the neocon scenario, would be followed by a democratic Iraq that would quickly recognize Israel. This, in turn, would "snowball" . . . through the region, bringing democracy from Syria to Egypt and to the sheikhdoms, emirates and monarchies of the Gulf.

"All these new democracies would then embrace Israel and hitch their backward economies to the Jewish state's advanced technology. And Israel could at long last lower its guard and look forward to a generation of peace. That was the vision." [http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040209-090308-2252r]

Of course, there is not reason to think that Israel desires democracy (as democracy is usually understood) in the Middle East. Governments that in any sense represented the popular will in the Middle East would be vehemently anti-Israel. (Sometimes neocons do define support of Israel as being democracy.) It should be noted that when the neocons advised Netanyahu in 1996 to destabilize the Middle East there was no mention of any emerging democratic states. The Israeli goal has always been to establish weak and/or controlled neighbors. The purpose is currently being achieved with the added benefit that the US is now Islam’s major enemy. It is in Israel’s interests to drive a wedge between the United States and its Middle East neighbors. As Zbigniew Brzezinski (Former President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser and a noted expert on international affairs) writes in his new book The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership: "From Israel’s standpoint, however, the resulting American-Arab ties are disadvantageous: they not only limit the degree to which the United States is prepared to back Israel’s territorial aspirations, they also stimulate American sensitivity to Arab grievances against Israel." (p. 64) The hate spawned by this war should greatly harm any such Arab-American ties and leave Israel as America’s only close "friend."

Despite my differences with Senator Hollings assessment, it is still amazing that he would dare to refer to Israel.

_______________________

http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/opinion/2004506A17.html

Contact: Andy Davis, (202) 224-6654

OPINION

Bush's failed Mideast policy is creating more terrorism

By U.S. Senator Ernest F. Hollings

Originally published in the Charleston Post and Courier

May 6, 2004

With 760 dead in Iraq and over 3,000 maimed for life, home folks continue to argue why we are in Iraq -- and how to get out.

Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11 (70 cells in the U.S.), the State Department did not list Iraq. Richard Clarke, in "Against All Enemies," tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion.

On Page 231, John McLaughlin of the CIA verifies this to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In 1993, President Clinton responded to Saddam's attempt on the life of President George H.W. Bush by putting a missile down on Saddam's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Not a big kill, but Saddam got the message -- monkey around with the United States and a missile lands on his head. Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's intelligence, Mossad, knows what's going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know.

Israel's survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel.

Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area. Wolfowitz wrote: "The United States may not be able to lead countries through the door of democracy, but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up." And on another occasion: Iraq as "the first Arab democracy ... would cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world." Three weeks before the invasion, President Bush stated: "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example for freedom for other nations in the region."

Every president since 1947 has made a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But no leadership has surfaced amongst the Palestinians that can make a binding agreement. President Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better. He came to office imbued with one thought -- re-election. Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined.

President Bush thought taking Iraq would be easy. Wolfowitz said it would take only seven days. Vice President Cheney believed we would be greeted as liberators. But Cheney's man, Chalabi, made a mess of the de-Baathification of Iraq by dismissing Republican Guard leadership and Sunni leaders who soon joined with the insurgents. Worst of all, we tried to secure Iraq with too few troops.

In 1966 in South Vietnam, with a population of 16,543,000, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, with 535,000 U.S. troops was still asking for more. In Iraq with a population of 24,683,000, Gen. John Abizaid with only 135,000 troops can barely secure the troops much less the country. If the troops are there to fight, they are too few. If there to die, they are too many. To secure Iraq we need more troops -- at least 100,000 more. The only way to get the United Nations back in Iraq is to make the country secure. Once back, the French, Germans and others will join with the U.N. to take over.

With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting, "Terrorism War." Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don't call the Crimean War with the Charge of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War. There is terrorism in Northern Ireland against the Brits. There is terrorism in India and in Pakistan. In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily. Here, might does not make right -- right makes might. Acting militarily, we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to Sen. Hollings' Home Page

Alpha

Head of Sept 11 Commission Said Iraq War for Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/04/03/head-of-sept-11-commission-said-iraq-war-for-israel.php

Brahimi versus Chalabi: The daggers are drawn:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/05/brahimi-versus-chalabi-the-daggers-are-drawn.php

TORTURE INTERCONNECTIONS - The U.S. and Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/06/torture-interconnections-the-u-s-and-israel.php

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

Sen. Hollings: The US went to war for Israel