War Without End

Guest-cdbc

Subj: Re: PNAC Group....the List of players
Date: 1/31/03 6:20:51 AM Pacific Standard Time

On October 1 of last year, I sent out the following e-mail. I don't have the time to sort out which of you were on my list at that time, so please bear with me if you've seen this already:

Iraq invasion plan written in September 2000 -- BEFORE Bush was "elected"

Bush's new 'global domination' policy is based almost verbatim on a policy written up by PNAC (Project for a New American Century) as found on http://www.newamericancentury.org

It's available for download (for now) and includes all the Bush administration's newly adopted military stances (preemptive strikes, military presence in the Gulf, antiterrorist philosophies, American global domination, etc.).

It should be required reading for all Americans, as well as anyone who believes that Bush is only acting in response to 9/11.

The actual report is at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf I've attached it to this e-mail.

One revealing quote is:

"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American forces presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Looks like they got their wish. The group was formed in 1997 as a response to Clinton's second term, and the membership list reads like a who's who of the Right Wing:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

It includes security advisors going back to Nixon, characters from Iran-Contra, the so-called drug wars, Christian Values groups, Jewish and Israeli lobbyists (not to mention Christian and Jewish coalition groups), and 'Family Value' zealots who led the charge against Clinton during the Lewinsky debacle.

It features the heads of Lockheed, Boeing, and other military suppliers and contractors. Also included are senior editors of the major right-leaning publications, as well as current staffers of the Bush administration (including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and convicted Iran-Contra felon Elliott Abrams).

Amazingly, it also boasts the membership of Jeb Bush, NOT his simpleton 'fool me once' brother -- guess that explains the recent events in Florida (including the theft of the 2000 election in the first place). Also featured is Zalmay Khalilzad who was a paid spokesman for UNOCAL, was pivotal in setting up meetings with the Taliban, and who later gave testimony that Afghanistan needed to be 'converted' into a more US-friendly (read: oil) environment in hearings in March 2000. His supervisor at one point was Condoleeza Rice!

These are the people pulling Bush's strings. And BTW - the guys who were supposed responsible for the lax security on 9/11 (i.e., the 'acting' head of the CIA) are also prominently featured.

Want to really freak out? Run the lesser-known names on the members page through Google. You will NOT believe what you come up with.

Anglo Thug · Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2003 12:57 am Post subject:

And then take a look here to follow the actions of the
men who have seized control of the American government.

Get a low down on each of these bastards by clicking here.
_________________
Please sign the petition to prosecute War Criminal Tony Blair

Anglo Thug · Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2003 1:00 am Post subject:

For example, check out Mr 'I Love America' Dick Cheney.
_________________
Please sign the petition to prosecute War Criminal Tony Blair

Guest-cdbc

Iraq Turns Spotlight on Israel at U.N. Arms Body:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/31/iraq-turns-spotlight-on-israel-at-u-n-arms-body.php

Bush is intent on painting allies and enemies in the Middle East as evil:

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011

By Robert Fisk

10 September 2002

Just as Americans are recovering from the harrowing television re-runs of the 11 September attacks, their President is going to launch the biggest reshaping of the Middle East since the British and French parcelled out the Arab lands after the 1914-18 war. When he addresses the United Nations on Thursday, George Bush will be threatening not only Iraq – which had absolutely nothing to do with the crimes against humanity in New York and Washington – but Syria, Iran and, by extension, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.The Syrian Accountability Act, which accuses Damascus of supporting "terrorism", will come into force as President Bush is speaking and will follow only days after the State Department branded the Lebanese Hizbollah as the "A-team of terrorism", more dangerous even than Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida. Like Iraq, the Hizbollah had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks – indeed, they were among the first to condemn them – but the White House now seems set on painting allies and enemies alike in the Middle East as a focus of evil.Only The Nation among all of America's newspapers and magazines has dared to point out that a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working within the American administration and the Bush plans for the Middle East – which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world – fit perfectly into Israel's own dreams for the region. The magazine listed Vice-President Dick Cheney – the arch-hawk in the US administration – and John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for Arms Control, with Douglas Feith, the third most senior executive at the Pentagon, as members of the advisory board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) before joining the Bush government. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is still an adviser on the institute, as is the former CIA director James Woolsey.Michael Ledeen, described by The Nation as "one of the most influential 'Jinsans' in Washington" has been calling for "total war" against "terror" – with "regime change" for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Mr Perle advises the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld – who refers to the West Bank and Gaza as "the so-called occupied territories" – and arranged the anti-Saudi "kernel of evil" briefing by Laurent Murawiec that so outraged the Saudi royal family last month. The Saudi regime may itself be in great danger as the princes of the House of Saud attempt to seize more power for themselves in advance of the depart-ure of the dying King Fahd. Jinsa's website says it exists to "inform the American defence and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East". Next month, Michael Rubin of the right-wing and pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute – who referred to the outgoing UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson as an abettor of "terrorism" – joins the US Defence Department as an Iran-Iraq "expert".According to The Nation, Irving Moskovitz, the California bingo magnate who has funded settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is a donor as well as a director of Jinsa. President Bush, of course, will not be talking about the influence of these pro-Israeli lobbyists when he presents his vision of the Middle East at the United Nations on Thursday. Nor will he give the slightest indication that the region is, in the words of its own kings and dictators, a powder keg of resentment and anger. The tectonic plates of the Arab world are now grinding with increasing violence. Into this political earthquake zone, Mr Bush now seems intent on leading his country, with his loyal British ally. Most of today's Arab nations were fashioned out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France in the aftermath of the First World War – and Palestinians still blame Britain today for supporting the formation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Both European nations stationed tens of thousands of troops across the region, suppressing Arab revolts in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon – itself created by the French at the request of its Christian Maronite community. The whole colonial framework led to the loss of tens of thousands of lives before both the British and French retreated from the Middle East.Now President Bush seems set on following the colonial powers into the region for another military and political adventure – ostensibly to spread "democracy" among those nations it most despises (Iraq, Palestine and Iran) but in fact more likely to increase American control of an increasingly anti-Western Arab world.The Arabs themselves warn that this will lead to massive instability and widespread violence. The Israelis – and their allies in the US administration – are hell bent on the whole shebang.

JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' before Bush Presidency:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php

Included below is that "Men from JINSA and CSP" article from "The Nation" magazine which Mr. Fisk mentions in his article referenced above:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1

The Men From JINSA and CSP

by JASON VEST

[from the September 2, 2002 issue of "The Nation" magazine in the USA]

The Men From JINSA and CSP

by JASON VEST

[from the September 2, 2002 issue]

Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power. Just as the right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a shadow defense establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too, did the right during the Clinton years, in part through two organizations: the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP). And just as was the case two decades ago, dozens of their members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. Industrious and persistent, they've managed to weave a number of issues--support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general--into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core. On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war--not just with Iraq, but "total war," as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, "regime change" by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative.

General James. David on the Iraqi situation:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/29/gen-j-david-on-the-iraqi-situation.php

Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/21/gore-vidal-claims-bush-junta-complicit-in-9-11.php

Guest-c651

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.marshall.html

Vice Grip

Dick Cheney is a man of principles. Disastrous principles.

By Joshua Micah Marshall

Early last December, Vice President Dick Cheney was dispatched to inform his old friend, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, that he was being let go. O'Neill, the president's advisers felt, had made too many missteps, given too much bad advice, uttered too many gaffes. He had become a liability to the administration. As Cheney himself once said in a different context, it was time for him to go. It couldn't have been a fun conversation--especially since it was Cheney who had picked O'Neill two years earlier. O'Neill stormed off to Pittsburgh and within days the White House had announced his replacement. Yet the new treasury secretary nominee turned out not to be much of an improvement. Like O'Neill, John Snow was a veteran of the Ford administration who ran an old-economy titan (the railroad firm CSX) and seemed to lack the global market financial experience demanded of modern day treasury secretaries. Like other Bush appointees, Snow came from a business that traded heavily on the Washington influence game. And--again typical of the president and his men--the size of Snow's compensation package seemed inversely proportional to the returns he made for his shareholders. Of the three new members of the president's economic team nominated in early December, Snow was the only one to get almost universally poor reviews. He was also Dick Cheney's pick.

Week after week, one need only read the front page of The Washington Post to find similar Cheney lapses. Indeed, just a few days after Cheney hand-picked Snow, Newsweek magazine featured a glowing profile of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that began with an anecdote detailing her deft efforts to clean up another Cheney mess. In a July speech, the vice president had argued that weapons inspections in Iraq were useless and shouldn't even be tried. That speech nearly upended the administration's careful late-summer repositioning in favor of a new United Nations-backed inspections program. As the article explained, Rice--the relatively junior member of the president's inner circle of foreign policy advisers--had to take the vice president aside and walk him through how to repair the damage he'd done, with a new statement implicitly retracting his earlier gaffe. Such mistakes--on energy policy, homeland security, corporate reform--abound. Indeed, on almost any issue, it's usually a sure bet that if Cheney has lined up on one side, the opposite course will turn out to be the wiser. Yet somehow, in Washington's collective mind, Cheney's numerous stumbles and missteps have not displaced the reputation he enjoys as a sober, reliable, skilled inside player. Even the Newsweek article, so eager to convey Rice's competence, seemed never to explicitly note the obvious subtext: Cheney's evident incompetence. If there were any justice or logic in this administration as to who should or shouldn't keep their job, there'd be another high-ranking official in line for one of those awkward conversations: Dick Cheney. Overruling Dick Consider the evidence. Last year, Cheney's White House energy task force produced an all-drilling-and-no-conservation plan that failed not just on policy grounds but as a political matter as well, saddling the administration with a year-long public relations headache after Cheney insisted on running his outfit with a near-Nixonian level of secrecy. (To this day, Cheney and his aides have refused to provide the names of most of those industry executives who "advised" him on the task force's recommendations, though a federal judge has now rejected the Government Accounting Office's effort to make them do so.) During the spring of 2001, rather than back congressional efforts to implement the findings of the Hart-Rudman commission that called for forceful action to combat terrorism (including the creation of a department of homeland security), Cheney opted to spearhead his own group--not because he disagreed with the commission's proposals, but to put the administration's stamp on whatever anti-terrorism reforms did get adopted. Cheney's security task force did nothing for four months, lurching into action only after terrorists actually attacked America on September 11. In the months that followed, Cheney was one of several key advisers arguing that the White House should keep Tom Ridge's Office of Homeland Security within the White House rather than upgrade it to a cabinet department and thus open it to congressional scrutiny. Cheney's obstinacy ensured that the administration's efforts were stuck in neutral for nearly eight months. Cheney has not fared much better in the diplomatic arena. Last March, he went on a tour of Middle Eastern capitals to line up America's allies for our war against Saddam. He returned a week later with the Arabs lining up behind Saddam and against us--a major embarrassment for the White House. Much of the success of the administration's Iraq policy came only after it abandoned the strategy of unilateral action against Saddam, the strategy Cheney championed, to one of supporting a U.N. inspections regime--a necessary and successful course correction that Cheney resisted and almost halted. Indeed, broadly speaking, the evolution of White House Iraq policy might be described fairly as a slow process of overruling Dick Cheney. And there's more. Remember those corporate scandals that came close to crippling Bush? Last summer, White House advisers were pondering whether to back the sort of tough corporate accountability measures that Democrats and the press were demanding. The president was scheduled to deliver a big speech on Wall Street in early July. His advisers were divided. Some argued that strong reforms were at the least a political necessity. But Cheney, along with National Economic Council chair Larry Lindsey, opposed the idea, arguing that new restrictions on corporations would further weaken the economy. The president took Cheney's advice, and gave a speech on Wall Street that recommended only mild and unspecific reforms. "He mentioned a lot of things in the speech that the Securities and Exchange Commission already does," one non-plussed Wall Streeter told The Washington Post with a yawn. The day after the president's speech, the Dow shed 282 points, the biggest single-day drop since the post-terrorist tailspin of Sept. 20. Within days the president was backpedaling and supporting what Cheney had said he shouldn't. Lindsey got the boot later in the year. Cheney is still in the West Wing shaping economic policy. Cartel Capitalists Much of the reason Cheney so often calls things wrong--even on those business issues that would seem his area of expertise--can be traced to the culture in which he's spent most of his professional life. Despite his CEO credentials and government experience, Dick Cheney has been surprisingly insulated from the political and financial marketplace. He began his career as a Nixon-administration functionary under Donald Rumsfeld. Later, he joined the Ford administration as a deputy assistant to the president before becoming White House chief of staff. From there he moved into elective office, but to the ultra-safe House seat from Wyoming, a post only slightly less shielded from the tides of American politics than were his posts in the Ford administration. Cheney resigned his House seat in 1989 and moved back to the executive branch where he belonged, serving--with distinction--as defense secretary under the first President Bush. From there he moved to the corporate suite at Halliburton, where he eventually earned tens of millions of dollars. But Halliburton is a peculiar kind of enterprise. It doesn't market shoes or design software. Rather, its business--providing various products and services to the oil industry and the military--is based on securing lucrative contracts and concessions from a handful of big customers, primarily energy companies and the U.S. and foreign governments. Success in that business comes not by understanding and meeting the demands of millions of finicky customers, but by cementing relationships with and winning the support of a handful of powerful decision-makers. Indeed, that's why Halliburton came to Cheney in the first place. His ties with the Bush family, his post-Gulf War friendships with Arab emirs, and the Rolodex he'd compiled from a quarter century in Washington made him a perfect rainmaker. And though he did rather poorly on the management side--he shepherded Halliburton's disastrous merger with Dresser Industries, which saddled the new company with massive asbestos liabilities--he handled the schmoozing part of the enterprise well. Cheney is conservative, of course, but beneath his conservatism is something more important: a mindset rooted in his peculiar corporate-Washington-insider class. It is a world of men--very few women--who have been at the apex of both business and government, and who feel that they are unique in their mastery of both. Consequently, they have an extreme assurance in their own judgment about what is best for the country and how to achieve it. They see themselves as men of action. But their style of action is shaped by the government bureaucracies and cartel-like industries in which they have operated. In these institutions, a handful of top officials make the plans, and then the plans are carried out. Ba-da-bing. Ba-da-boom. In such a framework all information is controlled tightly by the principals, who have "maximum flexibility" to carry out the plan. Because success is measured by securing the deal rather than by, say, pleasing millions of customers, there's no need to open up the decision-making process. To do so, in fact, is seen as governing by committee. If there are other groups (shareholders, voters, congressional committees) who agree with you, fine, you use them. But anyone who doesn't agree gets ignored or, if need be, crushed. Muscle it through and when the results are in, people will realize we were right is the underlying attitude. The danger of this mindset is obvious. No single group of people has a monopoly on the truth. Whether it be plumbers, homemakers, or lobbyist bureaucrats, any group will inevitably see the world through its own narrow, mostly self-interested, prism. But few groups are so accustomed to self-dealing and self-aggrandizement as the cartel-capitalist class. And few are more used to equating their own self-interest with the interests of the country as a whole. Not since the Whiz Kids of the Kennedy-Johnson years has Washington been led by men of such insular self-assurance. Their hierarchical, old economy style of management couldn't be more different from the loose, non-hierarchical style of, say, high-tech corpor-ations or the Clinton White House, with all their open debate, concern with the interests of "stake-holders," manic focus on pleasing customers (or voters), and constant reassessment of plans and principles. The latter style, while often sloppy and seemingly juvenile, tends to produce pretty smart policy. The former style, while appearing so adult and competent, often produces stupid policy. Over time, people in the White House have certainly had to deal with enough examples of Cheney's poor judgment. It's fallen to the White House's political arm, led by the poll-conscious Karl Rove, to rein in or overrule him. Yet the vice president has apparently lost little stature within the White House. That may be because his get-it-done-and-ignore-the-nay-sayers attitude is one that others in the administration share. Cheney stands up for the cartel-capitalist principles they admire. He is right, in a sense, even when he's wrong. Why, though, has the press failed to grasp Cheney's ineptitude? The answer seems to lie in the power of political assumptions. The historian of science Thomas Kuhn famously observed that scientific theories or "paradigms"--Newtonian physics, for instance--could accommodate vast amounts of contradictory evidence while still maintaining a grip on intelligent people's minds. Such theories tend to give way not incrementally, as new and conflicting data slowly accumulates, but in sudden crashes, when a better theory comes along that explains the anomalous facts. Washington conventional wisdom works in a similar way. It doesn't take long for a given politician to get pegged with his or her own brief story line. And those facts and stories that get attention tend to be those that conform to the established narrative. In much the same way, Cheney's reputation as the steady hand at the helm of the Bush administration--the CEO to Bush's chairman--is so potent as to blind Beltway commentators to the examples of vice presidential incompetence accumulating, literally, under their noses. Though far less egregious, Cheney's bad judgment is akin to Trent Lott's ugly history on race: Everyone sort of knew it was there, only no one ever really took notice until it was pointed out in a way that was difficult to ignore. Cheney is lucky; as vice president, he can't be fired. But his terrible judgment will, at some point, become impossible even for the Beltway crowd not to see.
Joshua Micah Marshall, author of the Talking Points Memo, is a Washington Monthly contributing writer.

Guest-c651

Greatest Threat to America's Sovereignty and Security for Her Citizens Worldwide:

Subj: Re: Did Israel deliberately allow 241 American Marines to die?
Date: 2/2/03 9:17:35 PM Pacific Standard Time

The USS Cole and the World Trade Center attacks most likely would not have taken place if it were not for our biased support of Israel (with the BILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars that flow to the rogue state each year via a pro-Israel lobby-corrupted and Zionist-occupied US government as such vast financial aid facilitates Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinian people which contributes to the growing anger and resentment against US in the Arab/Moslem world that contributed to the motivation for the tragic 9/11 attack with even more tragic terror most likely coming our way unless we cut the aid to Israel ASAP and do not invade Iraq as well, but the Israel firsters that have hijacked our beautiful country's government do not tell you this):

WHY TERRORIST ATTACKS ARE NOT INEVITABLE:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/26/why-terrorist-attacks-are-not-inevitable.php

Please read the "Passionate Attachment for Israel" article by B. General James David which is posted on the first page of the following URL:

Did Israel deliberately allow 241 American Marines to die?:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/02/did-israel-deliberately-allow-241-american-marines-to-die.php

At this point in time, I would go as far as saying that Israel knew about the World Trade Center attack (just like it did with the Lebanon bombing of the US Marines according to the former Mossad agent Victor O.) and did not convey the full extent of such to US beforehand (by the way, Zionist "Nano" on this email list easily dismisses the "dancing" Israeli Mossad agents as having "nothing to do" with 9/11 but also hasn't explained exactly what they were doing celebrating with each other as they videotaped each other with the World Trade Center burning in the background as you can read more about such via www.whatreallyhappened.com). When we listen to Zionists like "Nano" with their Israel first mindset, keep in mind how Zionists in Israel lied to us for many years about Jonathan Pollard not being a spy for Israel, and sure enough they finally admitted that he indeed was when it was too ridiculous for them to lie about it any longer.. If you want to read about the "dancing" Israeli Mossad agents mentioned above, take a look at the Jewish "Forward" magazine (from New York) in the March 15th, 2001 issue...

With the JINSA Zionist extremist Wolfowitz/Perle/Cheney cabal (that has hijacked the Bush regime and is driving US to war on Islam in the Middle East for Israel and oil), I would venture to say that anything might just be possible with these radical Israel Firsters (and their Likud cronies in Israel like Netanyahu as you can read what is included below to see what I mean). They have been put wanting to put their radical JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) agenda into play for years (as the tragic World Trade Center attack has given them their "window of opportunity" to do so which makes me very suspicious of them especially when they wanted to invade Iraq six days after 9/11 took place, but Powell would not have it). For more about this radical JINSA Zionist cabal that has hijacked the Bush regime and is driving US to war for Israel and oil, please access the following URL's at your earliest convenience (please tell all of your contacts about this as it is posing a great threat to America's sovereignty and security for her citizens all over the world):

Zionist JINSA Wolfowitz/Perle/Cheney cabal has hijacked the Bush regime and is driving US to it's planned War on Islam in the Middle East:

TOO MANY SMOKING GUNS TO IGNORE: ISRAEL, US JEWS, IRAQ:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/28/too-many-smoking-guns-to-ignore-israel-us-jews-iraq.php

JINSA Zionist Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' before Bush Presidency:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php

Below, you can see many of the same 'Israel Firsters' (some of whom are Jewish and are associated with the JINSA Zionist extremist group mentioned above which has hijacked the Bush regime and is driving US to war for radical Zionism and oil):

Subj: Gathering of ISRAEL FIRSTERS1
Date: 2/2/03 7:34:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: nord@famvid.com

The most important gathering of 2003 for Christians who support Israel

Come join us in our nation's capitol to meet key decision makers, other
Christian leaders and learn how to build a force for Israel in your community.

Dear Friend of Israel:

The Stand for Israel campaign is proud to announce its first annual
Washington Briefing, scheduled for April 2nd and 3rd in Washington
DC. This gathering will be attended by influential Christian leaders and
pastors who will come together to discuss issues facing the security of
Israel and recognize the leadership of Majority Leader Tom DeLay and
Congressman Tom Lantos in standing up for Israel. In the next few days, we
will be contacting you with information on how to reserve your place at the
Stand for Israel Washington Briefing.

Joining our conference in DC will provide you the opportunity to enjoy the
fellowship of national Christian leaders, congressmen, senators, Bush
Administration officials and Israeli representatives in an intimate setting
where you'll learn first-hand what is being done, both in the U.S. and
abroad, to defend the Israeli nation. Invited speakers include former NYC
Mayor Rudy Giuliani, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Congressman Tom
Lantos, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Daniel Ayalon, Israeli Foreign
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz,
Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council, Pastor John Hagee and many
others. You'll also gain specific tools and ideas for taking action when
you go home. This is the most important event of the year for supporters
of Israel and you won't want to miss it!

The Washington Briefing includes an Israel Policy Briefing in the
afternoon, Congressional Reception, and "Friend of Israel" Awards Banquet
in the evening. The recipients for this year's inaugural event are House
Majority Leader Tom DeLay (who is a radical evangelical Christian Zionist and is all for a greater Israel) and California Congressman Tom Lantos (who is a Zionist Jew who promised that an attack on Iraq would be coming soon as he has basically hijacked the House Foreign Relations Committee along with his Zionist cronies who are all driving us to war in Iraq). The
following morning we will hold a seminar on how to build grassroots support
for Israel in your community.

It is our sincere hope that you will take advantage of this unique
opportunity. We look forward to seeing you at the Washington Briefing.

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein (who is obviously a Zionist Jew),

Ralph Reed (who is a radical evangelical Christian Zionist Republican like Delay above who is in cahoots with the Israelis for a greater Israel and is all for an invasion of Iraq because of such)

President and Founder,

Co-Chairman

International Fellowship
of Christians and Jews

Stand for Israel

Guest-c651

JINSA Zionist (Extremist) Perle/Wolfowitz/Cheney Cabal in Bush Regime Pushing Hard for Iraq Invasion:

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011

Bush is intent on painting allies and enemies in the Middle East as evil

By Robert Fisk

10 September 2002

Just as Americans are recovering from the harrowing television re-runs of the 11 September attacks, their President is going to launch the biggest reshaping of the Middle East since the British and French parcelled out the Arab lands after the 1914-18 war. When he addresses the United Nations on Thursday, George Bush will be threatening not only Iraq – which had absolutely nothing to do with the crimes against humanity in New York and Washington – but Syria, Iran and, by extension, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.The Syrian Accountability Act, which accuses Damascus of supporting "terrorism", will come into force as President Bush is speaking and will follow only days after the State Department branded the Lebanese Hizbollah as the "A-team of terrorism", more dangerous even than Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida. Like Iraq, the Hizbollah had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks – indeed, they were among the first to condemn them – but the White House now seems set on painting allies and enemies alike in the Middle East as a focus of evil.Only The Nation among all of America's newspapers and magazines has dared to point out that a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working within the American administration and the Bush plans for the Middle East – which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world – fit perfectly into Israel's own dreams for the region. The magazine listed Vice-President Dick Cheney – the arch-hawk in the US administration – and John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for Arms Control, with Douglas Feith, the third most senior executive at the Pentagon, as members of the advisory board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) before joining the Bush government. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is still an adviser on the institute, as is the former CIA director James Woolsey.Michael Ledeen, described by The Nation as "one of the most influential 'Jinsans' in Washington" has been calling for "total war" against "terror" – with "regime change" for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Mr Perle advises the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld – who refers to the West Bank and Gaza as "the so-called occupied territories" – and arranged the anti-Saudi "kernel of evil" briefing by Laurent Murawiec that so outraged the Saudi royal family last month. The Saudi regime may itself be in great danger as the princes of the House of Saud attempt to seize more power for themselves in advance of the depart-ure of the dying King Fahd.Jinsa's website says it exists to "inform the American defence and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East". Next month, Michael Rubin of the right-wing and pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute – who referred to the outgoing UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson as an abettor of "terrorism" – joins the US Defence Department as an Iran-Iraq "expert".According to The Nation, Irving Moskovitz, the California bingo magnate who has funded settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is a donor as well as a director of Jinsa.President Bush, of course, will not be talking about the influence of these pro-Israeli lobbyists when he presents his vision of the Middle East at the United Nations on Thursday.Nor will he give the slightest indication that the region is, in the words of its own kings and dictators, a powder keg of resentment and anger. The tectonic plates of the Arab world are now grinding with increasing violence. Into this political earthquake zone, Mr Bush now seems intent on leading his country, with his loyal British ally.Most of today's Arab nations were fashioned out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France in the aftermath of the First World War – and Palestinians still blame Britain today for supporting the formation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.Both European nations stationed tens of thousands of troops across the region, suppressing Arab revolts in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon – itself created by the French at the request of its Christian Maronite community. The whole colonial framework led to the loss of tens of thousands of lives before both the British and French retreated from the Middle East.Now President Bush seems set on following the colonial powers into the region for another military and political adventure – ostensibly to spread "democracy" among those nations it most despises (Iraq, Palestine and Iran) but in fact more likely to increase American control of an increasingly anti-Western Arab world.The Arabs themselves warn that this will lead to massive instability and widespread violence. The Israelis – and their allies in the US administration – are hell bent on the whole shebang.

Here is that "Men from JINSA and CSP" article which Fisk mentions in the above referenced article:

This article can be found on the web at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1

The Men From JINSA and CSP

by JASON VEST

[from the September 2, 2002 issue of "The Nation" magazine in the USA]

JINSA Zionist planned Iraq 'regime change' before Bush Presidency:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php

In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/09/15/in-iraqi-war-scenario-oil-is-key-issue.php

Oil is obvious motive for war in Iraq:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/17/oil-is-the-obvious-motive-for-us-interest-in-iraq.php

Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore:
Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq
by BILL and KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
former CIA political analysts

Most of the vociferously pro-Israeli neo-conservative policymakers in the Bush administration make no effort to hide the fact that at least part of their intention in promoting war against Iraq (and later perhaps against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians) is to guarantee Israel's security by eliminating its greatest military threats, forging a regional balance of power overwhelmingly in Israel's favor, and in general creating a more friendly atmosphere for Israel in the Middle East. Yet, despite the neo-cons' own openness, a great many of those on the left who oppose going to war with Iraq and oppose the neo-conservative doctrines of the Bush administration nonetheless utterly reject any suggestion that Israel is pushing the United States into war, or is cooperating with the U.S., or even hopes to benefit by such a war. Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word "domination" anywhere in the vicinity of the word "Israel," as in "U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East" or "the U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel," and some leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination......................................................click URL below for the rest

http://www.counterpunch.com/christison01252003.html

We're Going to War for Oil (and Radical Zionism):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uk-and-europe/2003/01/24/we-re-going-for-oil-and-radical-zionism.php

What's behind the relentless drive to war with Iraq:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/25/what-s-behind-the-relentless-drive-to-war-with-iraq.php

Robert Fisk: The wartime deceptions: Saddam is Hitler and it's not about oil:

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=373102

Robert Fisk: The wartime deceptions: Saddam is Hitler and it's not about oil

27 January 2003

The Israeli writer Uri Avnery once delivered a wickedly sharp open letter to Menachem Begin, the Israeli prime minister who sent his army to defeat in Lebanon. Enraged by Begin's constant evocation of the Second World War – likening Yasser Arafat in Beirut to Hitler in his Berlin bunker in 1945 – Avnery entitled his letter: "Mr Prime Minister, Hitler is Dead."

How often I have wanted to repeat his advice to Bush and Blair. Obsessed with their own demonisation of Saddam Hussein, both are now reminding us of the price of appeasement. Bush thinks that he is the Churchill of America, refusing the appeasement of Saddam. Now the US ambassador to the European Union, Rockwell Schnabel, has compared Saddam to Hitler. "You had Hitler in Europe and no one really did anything about him," Schnabel lectured the Europeans in Brussels a week ago: "We knew he could be dangerous but nothing was done. The same type of person [is in Baghdad] and it's there that our concern lies." Mr Schnabel ended this infantile parallel by adding unconvincingly that "this has nothing to do with oil".

How can the sane human being react to this pitiful stuff? One of the principal nations which "did nothing about Hitler" was the US, which enjoyed a profitable period of neutrality in 1939 and 1940 and most of 1941 until it was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. And when the Churchill-Roosevelt alliance decided that it would only accept Germany's unconditional surrender – a demand that shocked even Churchill when Roosevelt suddenly announced the terms at Casablanca – Hitler was doomed.

Not so Saddam it seems. For last week Donald Rumsfeld offered the Hitler of Baghdad a way out: exile, with a suitcase full of cash and an armful of family members if that is what he wished. Funny, but I don't recall Churchill or Roosevelt ever suggesting that the Nazi führer should be allowed to escape. Saddam is Hitler – but then suddenly, he's not Hitler after all. He is – said TheNew York Times – to be put before a war crimes tribunal. But then he's not. He can scoot off to Saudi Arabia or Latin America. In other words, he's not Hitler.

But even if he were, are we prepared to pay the price of so promiscuous a war? Arabs who admire Saddam – and there are plenty in Jordan – believe Iraq cannot hold out for more than a week. Some are convinced the US 3rd Infantry Division will be in Baghdad in three days, the British with them. It's a fair bet that hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqis will die. But in the civil unrest that follows, what are we going to do? Are American and British troops to defend the homes of Baath party officials whom the mobs want to hang?

Far more seriously, what happens after that? What do we do when Iraqis – not ex-Baathists but anti-Saddam Iraqis – demand our withdrawal? For be sure this will happen. In the Shia mosques of Kerbala and An Najaf, they are not going to welcome Anglo-American forces. The Kurds will want a price for their co-operation. A state perhaps? A federation? The Sunnis will need our protection. They will also, in due time, demand our withdrawal. Iraq is a tough, violent state and General Tommy Franks is no General MacArthur.

For we will be in occupation of a foreign land. We will be in occupation of Iraq as surely as Israel is in occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. And with Saddam gone, the way is open for Osama bin Laden to demand the liberation of Iraq as another of his objectives. How easily he will be able to slot Iraq into the fabric of American occupation across the Gulf. Are we then ready to fight al-Qa'ida in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan and Pakistan and countless other countries? It seems that the peoples of the Middle East – and the West – realise these dangers, but that their leaders do not, or do not want to.

Travelling to the US more than once a month, visiting Britain at the weekend, moving around the Middle East, I have never been so struck by the absolute, unwavering determination of so many Arabs and Europeans and Americans to oppose a war. Did Tony Blair really need that gloriously pertinacious student at the Labour Party meeting on Friday to prove to him what so many Britons feel: that this proposed Iraqi war is a lie, that the reasons for this conflict have nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, that Blair has no business following Bush into the America-Israeli war? Never before have I received so many readers' letters expressing exactly the same sentiment: that somehow – because of Labour's huge majority, because of the Tory party's effective disappearance as an opposition, because of parliamentary cynicism – British democracy is not permitting British people to stop a war for which most of them have nothing but contempt. From Washington's pathetic attempt to link Saddam to al-Qa'ida, to Blair's childish "dossier" on weapons of mass destruction, to the whole tragic farce of UN inspections, people are just no longer fooled.

The denials that this war has anything to do with oil are as unconvincing as Colin Powell's claim last week that Iraq's oil would be held in trusteeship for the Iraqi people. Trusteeship was exactly what the League of Nations offered the Levant when it allowed Britain and France to adopt mandates in Palestine and Transjordan and Syria and Lebanon after the First World War. Who will run the oil wells and explore Iraqi oil reserves during this generous period of trusteeship? American companies, perhaps? No, people are not fooled.

Take the inspectors. George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and now, alas, Colin Powell don't want to give the inspectors more time. Why not, for God's sake? Let's just go back to 12 September last year when Bush, wallowing in the nostalgia of the 11 September 2001 crimes against humanity, demanded that the UN act. It must send its inspectors back to Iraq. They must resume their work. They must complete their work. Bush, of course, was hoping that Iraq would refuse to let the inspectors return. Horrifically, Iraq welcomed the UN. Bush was waiting for the inspectors to find hidden weapons. Terrifyingly, they found none. They are still looking. And that is the last thing Bush wants. Bush said he was "sick and tired" of Saddam's trickery when what he meant was that he was sick and tired of waiting for the UN inspectors to find the weapons that will allow America to go to war. He who wanted so much to get the inspectors back to work now doesn't want them to work. "Time is running out," Bush said last week. He was talking about Saddam but he was actually referring to the UN inspectors, in fact to the whole UN institution so laboriously established after the Second World War by his own country.

The only other nation pushing for war – save for the ever-grateful Kuwait – is Israel. Listen to the words of Zalman Shoval, Israeli Prime Minster Ariel Sharon's foreign affairs adviser, last week. Israel, he said, would "pay dearly" for a "long deferral" of an American strike on Iraq. "If the attack were to be postponed on political rather than military grounds," he said, "we will have every reason in Israel to fear that Saddam Hussein uses this delay to develop non-conventional weapons." As long as Saddam was not sidelined, it would be difficult to convince the Palestinian leadership that violence didn't pay and that it should be replaced by a new administration; Arafat would use such a delay "to intensify terrorist attacks".

Note how the savage Israeli-Palestinian war can only – according to the Shoval thesis – be resolved if America invades Iraq; how terrorism cannot be ended in Israel until the US destroys Saddam. There can be no regime change for the Palestinians until there is regime change in Baghdad. By going along with the Bush drive to war, Blair is, indirectly, supporting Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (since Israel still claims to be fighting America's "war on terror" against Arafat). Does Blair believe Britons haven't grasped this? Does he think Britons are stupid? A quarter of the British Army is sent to fight in a war that 80 per cent of Britons oppose. How soon before we see real people power – 500,000 protesters or more in London, Manchester and other cities to oppose this folly?

Yes – an essential part of any such argument – Saddam is a cruel, ruthless dictator, not unlike the Dear Leader of North Korea, the nuclear megalomaniac with whom the Americans have been having "excellent" discussions but who doesn't have oil. How typical of Saddam to send Ali "Chemical" Majid – the war criminal who gassed the Kurds of Halabja – to tour Arab capitals last week, to sit with President Bashar Assad of Syria and President Emile Lahoud of Lebanon as if he never ordered the slaughter of women and children. But Bush and Blair said nothing about Majid's tour – either so as not to offend the Arab leaders who met him or because the link between gas, war crimes and Washington's original support for Saddam is a sensitive issue.

Instead, we are deluged with more threats from Washington about "states that sponsor terror". Western journalists play a leading role in this propaganda. Take Eric Schmitt in TheNew York Times a week ago. He wrote a story about America's decision to "confront countries that sponsor terrorism". And his sources? "Senior defence officials", "administration officials", "some American intelligence officials", "the officials", "officials", "military officials", "terrorist experts" and "defence officials". Why not just let the Pentagon write its own reports in TheNew York Times?

But that is what is changing. More and more Americans – aware that their President declined to serve his country in Vietnam – realise that their newspapers are lying to them and acting as a conduit for the US government alone. More and more Britons are tired of being told to go to war by their newspapers and television stations and politicians. Indeed, I'd guess that far more Britons are represented today by the policies of President Chirac of France than Prime Minister Blair of Britain.

WORLD REBELS AGAINST AMERICA:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/27/world-rebels-against-america.php

U.S. WARNS OF WAR AS WORLD AWAITS INSPECTORS' REPORT:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/27/u-s-warns-of-war-as-world-awaits-inspectors-report.php

U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/26/u-s-weighs-tactical-nuclear-strike-on-iraq.php

What's behind the relentless drive to war with Iraq:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/25/what-s-behind-the-relentless-drive-to-war-with-iraq.php

Robert Fisk: Tony Blair...Any Idea What Flies are Like that Feed off Dead?:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/26/tony-blair-any-idea-what-flies-are-like-that-feed-off-dead.php

Zionist Paul Wolfowitz in Bush Regime is the Enemy Within..:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/17/zionist-paul-wolfowitz-in-bush-regime-is-the-enemy-within.php

Washington's Zionist hawks to reshape Mid-East for Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/10/25/washington-s-zionist-hawks-to-reshape-mid-east-for-israel.php

Zionists Influencing US/Britain to Invade Iraq for Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uk-and-europe/2002/12/30/zionists-influencing-us-britain-to-invade-iraq-for-israel.php

Zionist Richard Perle : 'Inspections Or Not, We'll Attack Iraq':

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/24/zionist-richard-perle-inspections-or-not-we-ll-attack-iraq.php

JINSA ZIONIST RICHARD PERLE (AT PENTAGON) DRIVING US TO WAR:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/22/jinsa-zionist-richard-perle-at-pentagon-driving-us-to-war.php

Bush's Trusty New Mideast Point Man (JINSA Zionists Perle & Wolfowitz Mentioned):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/19/bush-s-trusty-new-mideast-point-man-wolfowitz-mentioned.php

BRITS PULL SUPPORT FOR IRAQ INVASION TO THWART ZIONISTS

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/23/brits-pull-support-for-iraq-invasion-to-thwart-zionists.php

The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/19/the-bush-administration-s-dual-loyalties.php

More on Zionist extremist Elliott Abrams:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/12/10/abrams/index_np.html

Beyond Regime Change, New 'Old' Sykes-Picot Agreement:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/20/beyond-regime-change-new-old-sykes-picot-agreement.php

US/UN Double Standard When It Comes to Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/09/15/us-un-double-standard-when-it-comes-to-israel.php

Support at UN Ebbs for US War Plans:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/07/26/urge-gao-investigation-of-israeli-violation-of-arms-export-c.php

Breaking the Silence on the Israel Lobby:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/breaking-the-silence-on-the-israel-lobby.php

Chickenhawk Bush on dodgy ground:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/27-1-19103-0-20-52.html

Chickenhawk Bush on dodgy ground
Those who served and suffered find strange bedfellows in Iraq protest,
writes AARON HICKLIN
January 27, 2003
AMERICANS have a word for men like George W Bush and Dick Cheney.

In the parlance of Vietnam veterans Mr Bush and his vice-president are "chickenhawks", men who dodged the draft and now cheerfully dispatch young Americans to war. Not without irony they note that the most hawkish and bellicose government in living memory is filled with men who never saw battle themselves. Of the senior members of the US administration, Colin Powell, the secretary of state, is the single exception.

Guest-400c

> https://www.zmag.org/sustainers/forums
>
> Today's commentary:
> http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-02/03herman.cfm
>
> ==================================
>
> ZNet Commentary
> The Manufactured And Real Iraq Crisis
February 03, 2003
> By Edward Herman
>
> With enough power and chutzpah it is possible for an aggressive and
over-armed state to manufacture a crisis and pretend that the crisis lies
with the threatened victim rather than with the aggressor state. Today, the
United States has not only manufactured one crisis but two: The first is
Saddam Hussein's alleged failure to disarm; the second is North Korea's
attempt to acquire nuclear arms.
>
> The first REAL crisis is the determination of the United States to attack
Iraq, depose Saddam Hussein, and establish a dependent regime in that
country, AND the failure of the "international community" to oppose this
blatant plan of aggression in violation of the UN Charter. The second REAL
crisis is the failure of the international community to vigorously contest
the Bush administration's announced plans to militarize space, to abandon
the Nuclear Test Ban and Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties, to threaten
preemptive wars to stifle challenges to its domination, and to refine and
possibly use nuclear weapons. North Korea's nuclear plans clearly follow in
the wake of those developments, along with the U.S. inclusion of North Korea
in the "axis of evil," so that the North Korean "threat" is derivative and
miniscule in comparison with that posed by the big bully.
>
> There is a third REAL threat attributable to the big bully, namely the
ongoing serious ethnic cleansing being carried out by Israeli leaders in
Palestine, in violation of international law and in opposition to a global
consensus. This deadly process has intensifed under the protection of the
Bush administration's carte blanche to "man of peace" Ariel Sharon and the
diversion provided by the Iraq "crisis," and it may escalate further under
the cover of the U.S. attack on Iraq. This third real threat is closely tied
to the first, not only operationally but in terms of intent, as numerous
high Bush administration officials have "dual loyalties" and are at least
partially serving Likud-Israeli interests.
>
> In the propaganda outpourings of the Bush administration, however, their
"patience" with Saddam Hussein has run out and, given his "growing menace"
(Bush), he must be removed by force. This "crisis" has been completely
contrived by Bush officials, just as the Guatemala crisis of 1954--based on
alleged Soviet proxy aggression!--was fabricated. Every Bush administration
argument is false or irrelevant, and the "international community" is once
again having to expend much effort trying to appease and contain the bully.
However, that community has not had the guts to straightforwardly oppose
him, and the puny efforts to appease via a revised inspections system have
actually given him further weaponry--he has "gone along" with the
inspections, so what more can be asked of him before he does what he planned
to do anyway?
>
> That Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) threaten U.S. national
security is laughable--even if he has a few such weapons (unproven), he has
no delivery systems that could reach the United States and he may not wish
to commit suicide. On the other hand, U.S. WMD not only threaten Iraq but
anybody else who crosses the administration, which has even announced an
intention to preemptively attack enemies of choice and to ignore
international law.
>
> Saddam Hussein does pose a threat to his neighbors, but much less so than
Israel, which has more powerful armed forces and, even more important, is
under the protection of the United States, which has sanctioned numerous
Israeli attacks on neighbors, systematic ethnic cleansing in the occupied
territories, and Israel's acquisition of a large WMD arsenal. Saddam can't
make a move across borders because the United States is waiting to pounce;
but Israel can do so because the United States regularly vetoes any
condemnation of Israeli invasions and would not abide an attempt to halt
Israel by force. Saddam was generously supplied with WMD by the United
States and Britain in the 1980s when he was fighting Iran, so apparently his
possession of them is not inherently threatening, but only when not serving
approved U.S.-British ends. It is well-known--though not reported and
reflected on in the U.S. media--that the United States seized the 12,000
page Iraq report on its WMD in order!
> to remove some 8,000 pages that detailed U.S. and other Western company
and official provision of WMD to Iraq in earlier years. Leaving that
material in would have shown U.S. approval of the weapons whose possession
is now deemed a huge menace, demonstrating that the pretense of menace is
blatant hypocrisy.
>
> Since the 1980s, and under the impact of war, sanctions and the
inspections regime, Iraq's military capability and WMD have been drastically
reduced, with high level inspectors claiming that at least 90-95 percent of
Saddam's stocks of chemical weapons have been destroyed, and the IAEA
contending in 1998--and as recently as January 27, 2003--that he has no
nuclear weapons or meaningful nuclear weapons program (Bush's contention in
his State of the Union Message that Saddam "had" such a program and "was
working" on methods of enriching uranium is therefore misleading if not
outright lying). Saddam's "threat" must therefore be much much smaller than
in the period when he was using WMD with U.S. and British approval. That he
now poses a "growing menace" justifying a war is therefore a
misrepresentation of fact and a cover for a semi-hidden agenda.
>
> There is also the claim that Saddam Hussein has produced a "crisis" by his
failure to cooperate with the inspection system, disarm, and obey Security
Council rulings. But the inspection system, like the "sanctions of mass
destruction," has always been a U.S.-British mechanism for punishing Iraq
until there was a "regime change." Numerous U.S. officials have said that
the sanctions would not be lifted until Saddam is removed. This has been a
violation of the original settlement agreement of 1991, which called for
terminable inspections and made no mention of required regime change. All
participants except the United States and Britain have felt that a 90-95
percent WMD removal sufficed; and it is worth repeating that the partners
who have disagreed are the ones who most lavishly supplied Iraq with those
weapons in the 1980s, and opposed any condemnations of Saddam for using
them!
>
> The legal basis of the charges against Iraq is therefore fatally
compromised by the fact of multiple U.S. and British violations of the terms
of Security Council Resolution 687--including, in addition to imposing the
illict objective of regime change, the use of inspections for locating
non-WMD miitary targets (recently acknowledged by longtime Executive
Chairman of UNSCOM, Rolf Ekeus), the unauthorized "no-fly zone" patrols and
attacks, and the transformation of the sanctions system into a mode of
punishment of an entire people, with enormous civilian casualties. The
sanctimonious U.S.-British call for enforcement of Security Council
resolutions also flies in the face of their double standard on this matter:
Israel is not only permitted to acquire WMD, it can repeatedly ignore
Security Council rulings without any penalty whatsoever.
>
> The imminent war is therefore based on considerations that have nothing to
do with Saddam's dictatorship or military threat. Key members of the Bush
administration had announced an aim of "toppling Saddam Hussein" back in
2000 in the publication of the Project for the New American Century, Robert
Kagan's and William Kristol's edited volume entitled Present Dangers, where
Saddam's military threat and WMD were barely mentioned, but the need to
control an important resource-rich area was openly acknowledged. These and
other Bush administration officials have also been notorious for their
strong support of Likud and Israeli ethnic cleansing, three of them--Richard
Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser--even having contributed to a
strategy paper for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996. The Bush
administration's protection of Sharon's state terrorism and the imminent
attack on Iraq serve expansionist Israeli interests well. This factor, along
with the desire to take advant!
> age of military superiority to show the world who is boss, to firm up
contol of an oil-rich territory, and to provide a cover for Bush's domestic
policies, gives us the real motives behind the manufacture of the Iraq
"crisis."
>
> There has been a desperate Bush administration search for plausible
reasons to "topple Saddam Hussein"--ties to Al Qaeda, aversion to
dictatorship and concern for Iraqis, Saddam's growing menace, evasions of
inspections and disrespect for Security Council resolutions, etc. But they
are merely excuses, some false, some trivial, all profoundly hypocritical,
designed to justify an aggression based entirely on other political and
strategic considerations.
>

Guest-98a3

"What America Needs Is a New Pearl Harbor"
Date: 2/5/03 12:22:22 AM Pacific Standard Time

Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was "a new Pearl Harbor". Its published aims have, alarmingly, come true. : John Pilger :12 Dec 2002

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

PR Watch

War Is Sell

by Laura Miller

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q4/war.html

------

Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was "a new Pearl Harbor". Its published aims have, alarmingly, come true. : John Pilger :12 Dec 2002

The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of ages". The extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and "think-tanks" were established to avenge the American "defeat" in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a "peace dividend" following the cold war. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime.

One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total war", I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism. The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is.

As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." How has this grand strategy been implemented? A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior members of the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated.

On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism". Iraq was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state, persuaded Bush that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible". Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option. If Jonathan Steele's estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000 people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives.

Time and again, 11 September is described as an "opportunity". In last April's New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote that Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called together senior members of the National Security Council and asked them "to think about 'how do you capitalise on these opportunities'", which she compared with those of "1945 to 1947": the start of the cold war. Since 11 September, America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if necessary". Under cover of propaganda about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that undermine international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.

In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception". According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require "counter-attack" by the United States on countries "harbouring the terrorists".

In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United States. This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign - complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans - as justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but with resources undreamt of in 1963 and with no global rival to invite caution. You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that truly dangerous men, such as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney, have power. The thread running through their ruminations is the importance of the media: "the prioritised task of bringing on board journalists of repute to accept our position".

"Our position" is code for lying. Certainly, as a journalist, I have never known official lying to be more pervasive than today. We may laugh at the vacuities in Tony Blair's "Iraq dossier" and Jack Straw's inept lie that Iraq has developed a nuclear bomb (which his minions rushed to "explain"). But the more insidious lies, justifying an unprovoked attack on Iraq and linking it to would-be terrorists who are said to lurk in every Tube station, are routinely channelled as news. They are not news; they are black propaganda.

This corruption makes journalists and broadcasters mere ventriloquists' dummies. An attack on a nation of 22 million suffering people is discussed by liberal commentators as if it were a subject at an academic seminar, at which pieces can be pushed around a map, as the old imperialists used to do.

The issue for these humanitarians is not primarily the brutality of modern imperial domination, but how "bad" Saddam Hussein is. There is no admission that their decision to join the war party further seals the fate of perhaps thousands of innocent Iraqis condemned to wait on America's international death row. Their doublethink will not work. You cannot support murderous piracy in the name of humanitarianism. Moreover, the extremes of American fundamentalism that we now face have been staring at us for too long for those of good heart and sense not to recognise them.

With thanks to Norm Dixon and Chris Floyd

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

War Is Sell

by Laura Miller

"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. told the New York Times in September. Card was explaining what the Times characterized as a "meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress, and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein."

Officially, President George W. Bush is claiming that he sees war as an option of last resort, and many members of the American public seem to have taken him at his word. In reality, say journalists and others who have closely observed the key players in decision-making positions at the White House, they have already decided on war.

In November, key Pentagon advisor Richard Perle stunned British members of parliament when he told them that even a "clean bill of health" from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not stop a US attack on Iraq. "Evidence from one witness on Saddam Hussein's weapons program will be enough to trigger a fresh military onslaught," reported the Mirror of London, paraphrasing Perle's comments at an all-party meeting on global security.

"America is duping the world into believing it supports these inspections," said Peter Kilfoyle, a member of the British Labour party and a former British defense minister. "President Bush intends to go to war even if inspectors find nothing. This makes a mockery of the whole process and exposes America's real determination to bomb Iraq."

Even the US Central Intelligence Agency, hardly a pacifist organization, has come under pressure from White House and Pentagon hawks unhappy with the CIA's reluctance to offer intelligence assessments that would justify an invasion.

"The Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq," reported Robert Dreyfuss in the American Prospect in December. "Morale inside the US national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war."

Much of the pro-war information cited by the White House comes from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a front group established in the early 1990s by the Rendon Group. (PR Watch's Fourth Quarter 2001 issue detailed the Rendon Group's role in creating the INC.)

"Most Iraq hands with long experience in dealing with that country's tumultuous politics consider the INC's intelligence-gathering abilities to be nearly nil," Dreyfuss stated. "The Pentagon's critics are appalled that intelligence provided by the INC might shape US decisions about going to war against Baghdad. At the CIA and at the State Department, Ahmed Chalabi, the INC's leader, is viewed as the ineffectual head of a self-inflated and corrupt organization skilled at lobbying and public relations, but not much else."

Focus, People, Focus

The techniques being used to sell a war in Iraq are familiar PR strategies. The message is developed to resonate with the targeted audiences through the use of focus groups and other types of market research and media monitoring. The delivery of the message is tightly controlled. Relevant information flows to the media and the public through a limited number of well-trained messengers, including seemingly independent third parties.

A seamless blend of private and public money and organizations are executing their war campaign in the face of a sinking US economy and increasing public opposition to attacking Iraq. But with a Republican-controlled Congress and a largely pliant corporate media, there is little to challenge the White House agenda. Its diplomatic and political maneuvers have been tightly choreographed in concert with a handful of right-wing think tanks, the newly concocted Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and well connected PR and lobby firms that now dominate media coverage of US foreign policy in the Middle East.

According to the New York Times, intensive planning for the "Iraq rollout" began in July. Bush advisers checked the Congressional calendar for the best time to launch a "full-scale lobbying campaign." The effort started the day after Labor Day as Congress reconvened and Congressional leaders received invitations to the White House and the Pentagon for Iraq briefings with Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and CIA director George Tenet. White House communications aides scouted locations for the President's September 11 address, which served as a prelude to his militaristic speech to the United Nations Security Council.

The Washington Post reported in July that the White House had created an Office of Global Communications (OGC) to "coordinate the administration's foreign policy message and supervise America's image abroad." In September, the Times of London reported that the OGC would spend $200 million for a "PR blitz against Saddam Hussein" aimed "at American and foreign audiences, particularly in Arab nations skeptical of US policy in the region." The campaign would use "advertising techniques to persuade crucial target groups that the Iraqi leader must be ousted."

The Bush administration has not hesitated to use outright disinformation to bolster the case for war. In December, CBS 60 Minutes interviewed a former CIA agent who investigated and debunked the oft-mentioned report that September 11 airplane hijacker Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague several months before the deadly attacks on September 11. "Despite a lack of evidence that the meeting took place," the CBS report noted, "the item was cited by administration officials as high as Vice President Dick Cheney and ended up being reported so widely that two-thirds of Americans polled by the Council on Foreign Relations believe Iraq was behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11."

The Battle of the Band

"We're getting the band together," said White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett in September. The "band," explained Newsweek's Martha Brant, refers to "the people who brought you the war in Afghanistan--or at least the accompanying public-relations campaign. ... Now they're back for a reunion tour on Iraq."

A group of young White House up-and-comers, the "band" was meeting daily on a morning conference call to plan media strategy with the aim of controlling "the message within the administration so no one--not even Vice President Dick Cheney--freelances on Iraq," Brant wrote. Its main players are Bartlett, Office of Global Communications director Tucker Eskew, and James Wilkinson, former Deputy Communications director who has now been reassigned to serve as spokesperson to Gen. Tommy Franks at US Central Command in Qatar. Other frequent participants in the planning sessions have included top Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke, Cheney advisor Mary Matalin, and Secretary of State Colin Powell's mouthpiece, Richard Boucher.

Meanwhile, the State Department is providing media training to Iraqi dissidents to "help make the Bush administration's argument for the removal of Saddam Hussein," reported PR Week on September 2. Muhammed Eshaiker, who serves on the board of the Iraqi Forum for Democracy, was one of the State Department trainees. "Iraqis in exile were not really taking advantage of the media opportunities," he said during an interview on National Public Radio. "We probably stumble and wait and say well, I mean what's the use--everybody knows [Hussein's] a criminal, so what's the use if we just add another story or another crime? But everything counts! ... If we keep hammering on the same nail, the nail is going to find its way through."

US Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has used an informal "strategic communications" group of Beltway lobbyists, PR people and Republican insiders to hone the Pentagon's message. Pentagon public affairs head Victoria Clarke, who used to run Hill & Knowlton's DC office, is reported to have assembled the Rumsfeld group. Participants "intermittently offer messaging advice to the Pentagon," reported PR Week on August 26. One of the Rumsfeld group's projects is linking the anti-terrorism cause with efforts to convince the public "of the need to engage 'rogue states'--including Iraq--that are likely to harbor terrorists."

According to military analyst William Arkin, Rumsfeld's group is doing more than merely spinning rationales for attacking Iraq. Writing for the November 24 Los Angeles Times, Arkin called Rumsfeld's communication strategy "a policy shift that reaches across all the armed services," as "Rumsfeld and his senior aides are revising missions and creating new agencies to make 'information warfare' a central element of any US war."

"Information warfare" blurs the line between distributing factual information and psychological warfare. During the current buildup against Iraq, for example, the Bush administration's statements have been calculated to create confusion about whether an actual US invasion is imminent. Such confusion can be a useful weapon against an enemy, forcing Saddam Hussein to divide his efforts between diplomatic initiatives and military preparations. The confusion is so complete, however, that even the American people have little idea what their leaders are actually planning.

The Committee for the Invasion of Iraq

The anti-Hussein public relations work is also being done by a number of front groups and pundits with close ties to the Pentagon and White House. These private-sector war boosters are making the rounds of TV news programs and newspaper editorial pages. What won't be apparent to the average US media consumer are the many tangled connections that exist between them.

The newly-formed Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) sits at the center of the PR campaign, which is coordinated closely with other groups that are actively promoting an attack on Iraq, including the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Project for a New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute, Hoover Institute, and the clients of media relations firm Benador Associations.

CLI sends its message to American citizens through meetings with newspaper editorial boards and journalists, framing the debate and providing background materials written by a close-knit web of supporters. CLI also works closely with Condoleezza Rice and other administration officials to sponsor foreign policy briefings and dinners.

"It is also encouraging its members to hold lectures around the US, creating opportunities to penetrate local media markets," reported PR Week on November 25. "Members have already been interviewed on MSNBC and Fox News Channel, and articles have appeared in the Washington Post and the New York Times."

The CLI's mission statement says the group "was formed to promote regional peace, political freedom and international security by replacing the Saddam Hussein regime with a democratic government that respects the rights of the Iraqi people and ceases to threaten the community of nations." CLI representatives have made it clear that they plan to focus the debate on regime change, regardless of what weapons inspectors find or don't find inside Iraq. Although CLI uses humanitarian buzzwords on its web site and strives for a bipartisan look, its leadership and affiliations are decidedly right-wing, militaristic and very much in step with the Bush administration.

CLI president Randy Scheunemann is a well-connected Republican military and foreign policy advisor who has worked as National Security Advisor for Senators Trent Lott and Bob Dole. He also owns Orion Strategies, a small government-relations PR firm.

CLI is ostensibly "an independent entity," although it is expected to "work closely with the administration," the Washington Post's Peter Slevin reported on November 4. "At a time when polls suggest declining enthusiasm for a US-led military assault on Hussein, top officials will be urging opinion makers to focus on Hussein's actions in response to the United Nations resolution on weapons inspections--and on his past and present failings. They aim to regain momentum and prepare the political ground for his forcible ouster, if necessary."

According to former Secretary of State George Schultz, who chairs CLI's advisory board, the committee "gets a lot of impetus from the White House," essentially serving as a public outlet for some of the Bush administration's more hawkish thinking.

CLI also has a number of direct connections with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and other conservative think tanks that focus on the Middle East. According to reporter Jim Lobe, it "appears to be a spin-off of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a front group consisting mainly of neo-conservative Jews and heavy-hitters from the Christian Right, whose public recommendations on fighting the 'war against terrorism' and US backing for Israel in the conflict in the occupied territories have anticipated to a remarkable degree the administration's own policy course."

PNAC was founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, both of whom sit on PNAC's board of directors. Kristol edits the conservative Weekly Standard and is also a CLI advisory board member. Kagan was George Shultz's speechwriter during his tenure as President Reagan's Secretary of State. CLI is chaired by another PNAC director--Bruce P. Jackson, a former vice president at Lockheed Martin who also served as an aide to former Secretaries of Defense Frank Carlucci and Dick Cheney.

Other CLI advisory board members include:

a.. former House Speaker Newt Gingrich

b.. former Senator Bob Kerrey

c.. Teamster President James Hoffa, Jr.

d.. retired Generals Barry McCaffrey, Wayne Downing and Buster Glosson

e.. Jeane Kirkpatrick, a White House and Pentagon advisor under former presidents Reagan and Bush who is currently an AEI senior fellow

f.. Danielle Pletka, AEI vice president for Foreign and Defense Policy

g.. former CIA director James Woolsey

h.. top Pentagon advisor and AEI fellow Richard Perle, who helped sell the 1991 war in the Persian Gulf as co-chair of the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG). According to journalist Jim Lobe, CPSG "worked closely with both the Bush Sr. administration in mobilizing support of the war, particularly in Congress, and with a second group financed by the Kuwaiti monarchy called Citizens for a Free Kuwait. CPSG also received a sizable grant from the Wisconsin-based Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, a major funder of both PNAC and AEI."

i.. former New York Democratic Representative Stephen Solarz, who was Perle's former co-chair at CPSG

Trust Us, We're Experts

A number of Iraq hawks, including Perle and Woolsey, are clients of Eleana Benador, whose PR firm, Benador Associates, doubles as an "international speakers bureau." Other Benador clients, many of whom have a prior history of advancing aggressive military policies and promoting dirty wars, include:

a.. conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who criticized the New York Times in August for reporting that prominent Republicans were dissenting from Bush's Iraq war plans

b.. dissident Iraqi nuclear scientist Dr. Khidir Hamza

c.. Alexander Haig, former US Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan

d.. Michael Ledeen, another AEI fellow and a prominent figure in the Reagan administration's Iran/Contra scandal who helped broker the covert arms deal between the US and Iran

In an October 14 article for WorkingForChange.com, Bill Berkowitz reported that Benador's "high-powered media relations" company gets her clients "maximum exposure on cable's talking-head television programs and [places] their op-ed pieces in a number of the nation's major newspapers." Benador and her clients have assumed a prominent role in shaping the public debate over US Middle East policy.

Benador Associates lists 34 speakers on its web site, at least nine of whom are connected with the American Enterprise Institute, the Washington Institute and the Middle East Forum. "Although these three privately-funded organizations promote views from only one

The Washington Institute publishes books, places newspaper articles, holds luncheons and seminars, and testifies before Congress. Whitaker calls it "the most influential of the Middle East think tanks." Its board of advisors include Alexander Haig, along with CLI advisory board members Richard Perle, George Shultz, and Jeane Kirkpatrick.

The Washington Institute "takes credit for placing up to 90 articles written by its members--mainly 'op-ed' pieces--in newspapers during the last year," Whitaker writes. "Fourteen of those appeared in the Los Angeles Times, nine in New Republic, eight in the Wall Street Journal, eight in the Jerusalem Post, seven in the National Review Online, six in the Daily Telegraph, six in the Washington Post, four in the New York Times and four in the Baltimore Sun."

The Middle East Forum (MEF) is headed by Daniel Pipes, a frequent guest on TV public affairs shows. It publishes Middle East Quarterly and Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, an email newsletter sent free to journalists, academics, and other interested groups.

MEF also sponsors Campus Watch, a project that "monitors and critiques Middle East studies in North America, with an aim to improving them." What this means in practice is that Campus Watch attacks university professors and departments that are perceived as harboring pro-Arab sympathies, "working for the mullahs" or encouraging "militant Islam." Its web site provides a form to report on "Middle East-related scholarship, lectures, classes, demonstrations, and other activities relevant to Middle East studies" and lists academics that "Campus Watch has identified as apologists for Palestinian and Islamist violence."

Like Benador, MEF provides its own "list of experts . . . to guide television and radio bookers" and to speak in other venues. Three of MEF's experts, in fact, are also listed on Benador's list: Khalid Durán, director of the Council on Middle Eastern Affairs; Michael Rubin, a AEI visiting fellow and Pentagon advisor, and Meyrav Wurmser, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the conservative Hudson Institute and the former executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute. MEF's list of experts also includes two staff members from the Washington Institute as well as PNAC/CLI's William Kristol.

Guest-c651

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.

PNAC Group....the List of players