| Author | Message | | Guest-a443 | | Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 10:41 pm Post subject: America: Wake Up! |
| America: Wake Up!
by William Hughes
John Podhoretz is at it again! The Tel Aviv-friendly pundit, crowed in
his column, (NY Post, 01/29/03), about the landslide victory of Ariel
Sharons Likud gang in the recent Israeli election. This was bad enough,
but, there was more torture to come.
Podhoretz roared on, Israel has been forced by historical circumstances
to lead the way for America, especially when it comes to militant
Islamic terror and the kinds of hard choices a democracy has to make in
combatting it. This is where I wanted to throw up.
What a sad state we are in, when an Israeli shill, like Podhoretz, can
prophesy that America will follow the lead of Zionist Israel. For a
translation to the politically challenged, this will mean that America
will be deferring to the oppressive policies of Sharon, whose name will
forever be linked to the deaths of the innocent at Deir Yassin; in
Lebanon, as a result of Israels 1982 invasion; at Sabra and Shatila;
and, finally, at Jenin.
The notion that America will be minicking Sharon, a man who exists just
one step ahead of the War Crimes prosecutors in Belgiums Justice
Ministry, fills me with outrage. Now, I wonder: Was our Revolutionary
War and other battles, too, fought and won to bring us to this point of
national humiliation? Where are our true patriots? God knows, there are
only a handful in the complicit Congress or the Establishment-controlled
media.
As for Israel being a democracy, dont believe it! It stands in
violation of over 66 Resolutions of the United Nations, including
Resolution 242, unanimously adopted on Nov. 22, 1967, which mandated it
to vacate the Occupied Territories that belong to the Palestinians.
But, Podhoretz, wasnt finished yet. Without showing any mercy, he
forecasted that, Israel may be leading the way politically as well. He
added, Yesterday, the Israeli electorate delivered its verdict on its
leaders in the first parliamentary election since the beginning of the
suicide-bomb war launched by the Palestinians. He further insisted,
The tough tactics (read gross human rights violations) adopted by
right-wing Premier Ariel Sharon to fight the terror war, were almost
universally accepted. What universe does this guy live in? In Star Treks?
Podhoretz, ranting on under a Jerusalem dateline, bragged how the
Israeli electorate had decimated the Left. Looking into his crystal
ball, he predicted the loser fate of the Labor Party in Israel, will be
the destiny, too, of the Democrats, unless they glue themselves to
George W. Bushs side on matters of war and terror. What a frightening
thought! The only thing that could have been worse is if Podhoretz had
also announced that his beloved Sharon had been cloned!
Sometimes, you can see yourself better through the eyes of others.
Podhoretz may have, unintentionally, done us a huge favor by holding up
a mirror that reads: America will follow Israel! This could be a wake
up call for those that love our country more than any dubious
relationship with a so-called ally, that viciously attacked the USS
Liberty, on June 8, 1967, murdering 34 of our finest sons (Ken Ringle,
Attack on the Liberty, Washington Post, 02/01/03). If U.S. foreign
policy patterns itself after Sharons, it will be a sure prescription
for national suicide.
Thankfully, we can learn important lessons from our history, especially
during the founding of this nation. By December, 1776, General George
Washingtons demoralized Continental Army had been pushed off Long
Island and Manhattan, too, out of the state of New Jersey, across the
Delaware River, and into Pennsylvania, by the seasoned military British
forces under Lord William Howe. In a moment of deep despair, Washington,
writing to his brother, had said: The game is pretty near up.
On the brink of defeat, the immortal Washington could have called it
quits. Instead, putting his duty to his countrymen first, he
courageously led his army to stunning victories over the British, at
Trenton, (12/25/1776), and Princeton, (01/03/1777), that were hailed as
a turning point in that eight and one half year conflict (see, Richard
M. Ketchums compelling The Winter Soldiers ).
Americans, today, need to remember who they are, where they have come
from, and that they live in a Republic that depends on their fully
participating in it, in order to reach the common good. An attachment
to Israels ideals is asking for endless, costly wars, including the
phony one looming ahead with Iraq, and also for more terrorist attacks
on this country. The people must demand that our national interest come
first, instead of following Sharons lead into Armageddon. If they dont
do so, the game may, indeed, be pretty near up.
America: Wake Up!
© William Hughes 2003
William Hughes is the author of Andrew Jackson vs. New World Order
(Authors Choice Press) and Baltimore Iconoclast (Writers Showcase),
which are available online. He can be reached at liamhughes@mindspring.com.
Published, The Palestine Chronicle, Feb. 4, 2003, at:
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030204100555699 | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Guest-98a3 | | Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2003 7:35 am Post subject: Pre 911 strategy began 1996 |
| Forwarded Message:
Subj: Pre 911 strategy began 1996
Date: 2/11/03 8:57:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Pre 911 strategy began 1996
-Unbeknownst to most of the American public, the 'Get Saddam' crowd has been calling on Bush to topple the Ba'ath regime since the very beginning of his administration - well before the terrorist attacks of 9-11.
(I feel like I found the MOTHER LOAD) CThom
NOTE: The outline below is presently being maintained by CCR. If you or your organization would like to sponsor this page, please contact us.
Table of Contents
1 Think tanks, geopolitical strategists, etc.
2 Republican Party
3 Media reports and opinion pieces suggesting that there were sentiments prior to 9-11 to invade Iraq.
1 Think tanks, geopolitical strategists, etc.
a Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.
i A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, July 8 1996.
(A) Summary.
(1) The report was authored by a study group commissioned by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies with the purpose of providing policy recommendations to the incoming government of Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Several individuals who now have key positions in the Bush administration contributed to the project, including Douglas Feith, now undersecretary of defense for policy; David Wurmser, now a special assistant to State Department arms-control chief John R. Bolton; and Richard Perle, the current chairman of the civilian Defense Policy Board [profile]. On July 10, two days after the Israeli Prime Minister received the report from Richard Perle, he gave a speech before a joint session of the U.S. Congress [US Congress 7/10/96], which reflected the policy recommendations outlined in the document. Also that day, the Wall Street Journal published excerpts of the report and then endorsed the recommendations in the following day’s editorial pages. (Larouche 9-8-2002; Sands 10-7-2002)
(B) Text. [The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies 6/8/2002]
(C) Policy recommendations
(1) Specific actions.
(a) Abandon the Oslo Accords. (Larouche 9-8-2002)
(b) Reserve the right to invade the West Bank and Gaza Strip when Israel believes it is appropriate to do so.
(c) Remove Saddam Hussein from power. (Larouche 9-8-2002; Sands 10-7-2002)
(d) Overthrow or destabilize the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. (Larouche 9-8-2002; Sands 10-7-2002)
(2) General policy changes.
(a) Reestablish a policy of preemptive strikes.
(i) The Washington Times, quoting the report, stated, “Israel would ‘transcend its foes’ by ‘re-establishing the principle of pre-emption, rather than retaliation alone, and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response,’ according to a summary of the panel's deliberations prepared by the think tank.” (Sands 10-7-2002)
b 10 former government officials
i 9-point strategy to remove Saddam Hussein.
(A) Summary.
(1) On February 1998, a 9-point strategy for “bringing down Saddam and his regime,” was endorsed by 10 former government officials and was published as an open letter. (cited in Everest 2001; Larouche 9-8-2002) Read Letter
(B) Signatories.
(1) Richard Perle, current chairman of the Defense Policy Board. [profile]
(2) Stephen Solarz, former Congressman
(3) Elliott Abrams, current senior director for democracy, human rights and international operations at the National Security Council. [more info]
(4) Richard Armitage, current deputy secretary of state.
(5) John Bolton, current undersecretary of arms control and international security.
(6) Doug Feith, current undersecretary of Defense for Policy
(7) Fred Ikle, former undersecretary of defense for policy
(8) Zalmay Khalilzad, current special assistant to the President and senior director for Gulf, southwest Asia and other regional issues, National Security Council.
(9) Peter Rodman, current assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs
(10) Donald Rumsfeld, current secretary of defense
(11) Paul Wolfowitz, current deputy secretary of defense.
(12) David Wurmser, current director of Middle East studies at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute
(13) Dov Zakheim, current under secretary of defense
(Comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense
c Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
i Building America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, September 2000
(A) Written For:
(a) Dick Cheney, vice president.
(b) Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense.
(c) Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense.
(d) Jeb Bush, governor of Florida.
(e) Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.
(B) People who attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report.
(1) Roger Barnett
(a) U.S. Naval War College
(2) Alvin Bernstein
(a) National Defense University
(3) Stephen Cambone
(a) National Defense University
(b) Currently heads the Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation at the Defense Department
(4) Eliot Cohen
(a) Nitze School of Advanced International
(b) Studies, Johns Hopkins University.
(c) Currently on the Defense Policy Board [profile]
(5) Devon Gaffney Cross
(a) Donors' Forum for International Affairs
(6) Thomas Donnelly
(a) Project for the New American Century
(7) David Epstein
(a) Office of Secretary of Defense,
(b) Net Assessment
(8) David Fautua
(a) Lt. Col., U.S. Army
(9) Dan Goure
(a) Center for Strategic and International Studies
(10) Donald Kagan
(a) Yale University
(11) Fred Kagan
(a) U. S. Military Academy at West Point
(12) Robert Kagan
(a) Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
(13) Robert Killebrew
(a) Col., USA (Ret.)
(14) William Kristol
(a) The Weekly Standard
(15) Mark Lagon
(a) Senate Foreign Relations Committee
(16) James Lasswell
(a) GAMA Corporation
(17) Lewis Libby
(a) Dechert Price & Rhoads
(b) Currently on the vice president's chief of staff.
(18) Robert Martinage
(a) Center for Strategic and Budgetary
(b) Assessment
(19) Phil Meilinger
(a) U.S. Naval War College
(20) Mackubin Owens
(a) U.S. Naval War College
(21) Steve Rosen
(a) Harvard University
(22) Gary Schmitt
(a) Project for the New American Century
(23) Abram Shulsky
(a) The RAND Corporation
(24) Michael Vickers
(a) Center for Strategic and Budgetary
(b) Assessment
(25) Barry Watts
(a) Northrop Grumman Corporation
(26) Paul Wolfowitz
(a) Nitze School of Advanced International
(b) Studies, Johns Hopkins University
(c) Current Deputy Secretary of Defense.
(27) Dov Zakheim
(a) System Planning Corporation
(b) Current undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Pentagon
(C) The Text. [Rebuilding America's Defenses]
(D) Excerpts.
(a) The report’s plan for US global domination included “a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure ‘regime change’ even before” George Bush “took power in January 2001.” (Mackay 9-15-2002)
c James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations
i Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, April 2001
(A) Summary.
(1) The report summarized an impending U.S. energy crisis and concluded that Saddam Hussein was a threat to “American interests” because of his control of Iraq’s enormous and high quality oil reserves. The report recommended a policy of using military force in order ensure US control of Middle Eastern oil. (Mackay 10-4-2002a; 10-4-2002b)
(B) People who were ‘behind’ the document.
(1) James Baker, who was advised by Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron; Luis Giusti, a Shell non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco; and Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister and a fellow of the Baker Institute. (Mackay 10-4-2002a)
(C) Submitted to:
(1) Vice-President Dick Cheney in April 2001.
(D) The report. [Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century]
(E) Excerpts.
(1) “[T]he United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma, suffering on a recurring basis from the negative consequences of sporadic energy shortages. These consequences can include recession, social dislocation of the poorest Americans, and at the extremes, a need for military intervention.” (pg. 34)
(2) “Iraq remains a destabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies…” (Pg. 42)
(3) “Iraqi [oil] reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade.” (Pg. 43)
2 Republican Party
a Platform
i Summary.
(A) During George W. Bush's campaign, the Republican Party called for “a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein.” (cited Everest 2001)
3 Media reports and opinion pieces suggesting that there were sentiments prior to 9-11 to invade Iraq.
a January 22, 2001. New York Times.
i The New York Times reported that according to unnamed U.S. officials, “Iraq has rebuilt a series of factories that the United States has long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.” The newspaper also quoted one soon-to-be member of the administration saying, “'The Iraq problem has changed a lot since the last Bush administration left office. It's become a lot more complex. That's beginning to dawn on them.” The Times noted, “Throughout the campaign and transition, Mr. Bush and his national security advisers pledged to confront Mr. Hussein more aggressively than Mr. Clinton had,” and “The new intelligence estimate could confront President Bush with an early test of his pledge to take a tougher stance against President Saddam Hussein than the Clinton administration did.” (Schmitt and Myers 1-22-2001)
b January 23, 2001. The Times.
i The Times of London quoted an unnamed U.S. official saying that if Bush were to attack Iraq, “It will not be a pinprick, it will be strong and decisive…..Bush may have no option but to act if he wants to contain Saddam.” (cited in Mirak-Weissbach 2-16-2001)
c January 23, 2001. Richard Butler, former head of the U.N. special commission. Daily Telegraph.
i In an op-ed piece titled, “Bush should start where his father left off: With Saddam,” Butler expressed his concern about France and Russia’s increasingly friendly relations towards Iraq. He criticized these countries for skirting the UN sanctions and suggested that the two countries’ actions were intended to diminish U.S. power. The implication was that if Russia and France continued this course, it would be harder for the U.S. to justify a war against Iraq, therefore according to Butler, Bush would have to act quickly. (cited in Mirak-Weissbach 2-16-2001) | | | | Guest-98a3 | | Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 6:45 am Post subject: The secret world of Dick Cheney |
| The secret world of Dick Cheney
by David Batstone
Consider it a sign of the times, the news that is deemed
fit to print. In the very last page of the front section of
Saturday's "The New York Times" (2/8/03) was squeezed a
short story on the betrayal of democracy. The General
Accounting Office (GAO) announced that it was abandoning
its efforts to get records of Vice President Dick Cheney's
energy task force. Kenneth Walker, the comptroller general,
suggests that congressional leaders had urged him to
give up the case. Why this story would not lead the news
(instead of tailing it) is beyond my comprehension.
Cheney, if you recall, had held extensive meetings with
executives among the corporate energy titans during his
early days at the White House. Then-Enron chairman
Kenneth Lay was present and active in these discussions
to retool U.S. energy policy. In my new book, "Saving the
Corporate Soul," I provide firsthand evidence that Lay and
other Enron executives clearly were aware (and even
condoned) as early as 1995 the misrepresentation of
Enron's business operations in order to boost the value
of its stock. By the time 2001 had rolled around - and
Cheney was choosing his trusted energy advisers - the
Enron corruption was operating at mammoth proportions.
Once Enron was exposed, the Cheney team ran for cover.
Investigations into the role of Lay and other private
energy chiefs met a wall of silence at the White House.
Fulfilling its dutiful role as an organ of accountability
in a democratic system, the GAO made a formal request
for the records of the Cheney summits. The vice president
of the United States refused to comply. To this day,
we still do not know how much influence the private
energy sector had in shaping the current administration's
national energy policy, and to benefit whose interests.
The fact that the Bush-Cheney administration today
prepares to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, and
the fact that a key objective in that military strategy is
to have a greater control over the world energy market,
makes a public disclosure of the record of the energy
summits all the more important.
My declarations should not be tarnished as a wacko
conspiracy theory. If Vice President Cheney has nothing to
hide, then why doesn't he share these records with the
American people? If he is hiding something, on the other
hand, and is not forced to reveal what it is, then
conspiracy is the least of our worries. It marks a new
era in secret governance. | | | | Guest-c651 | | | | Guest-cdbc | | Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 12:22 pm Post subject: New York Times Forum; Distrust of Feith and Perle |
| Subject: New York Times Forum; Distrust of Feith and Perle
lfeiner1 - 06:39pm Feb 14, 2003 EST (# 16265 of 16343)
to Baikonur who says
(how can you say there) was an official plan to (transfer Palestinians), a plan approved by supposed zionist controllers of the government (you named them)--and in addition, that this plan was elicidated in a recent Time Magazine article
According to former CIA official Bill Christenson, when Douglas Feith and Richard Perle were advisors to Israeli PM Netanyahu they wrote up a plan for the US to invade Iraq and turn Iraq into a constitutional monarchy and Jordan into a Palestinian state. If you have any questions about this you can email Bill Christenson at christenson@counterpunch.org. Mr. Feith is on record has having stated that the Palestinians have no claims whatsover in "Judea and Samaria". Last Wednesday I called up the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Victoria Clarke in charge of public affairs, in order to express my concerns about Feith and Perle and also to express my concerns about reports in the Israeli media about Sharon's plans to expel Palestinians during a US invasion of Iraq. The woman who answered the phone said that she knew Mr. Feith and that his position had moderated considerably since then, that people change, and that he "wasn't Richard Perle". She seemed to be unaware the the Palestinian relief agency, UNRWA, upon which 1/3 of the Palestinians in the territories depend on for subsistence was about to run out of funds in a month. She seemed to imply that the statement by Powell at Davos about a contiguous Palestinian state was the US position. She also said that Rumsfeld was keeping a very close eye on Sharon and the Palestinians vs a vs transfer. She also seemed taken aback when I told her that Victoria Clarke had repeated Netanyahu's statement that the 9/11 attack on the WTC was really a "blessing in disguise" because it woke Americans up to the threat of terrorism. Ms. Clarke made that statement at a town hall meeting called by Congressman Moran of Virginia last Monday. It was on CSPAN. The woman I spoke to at the DOD Office of Public Affairs said the remark was disturbing and that she would look into it.
lfeiner1 - 06:57pm Feb 14, 2003 EST (# 16270 of 16343)
It seems also that I am not alone in my distrust of Mr. Feith and others in this administration in regards to Iraq. According to Albert Hunt in yesterday's Wall Street Journal
If it had been a prize fight the Senate Foreign relations committee hearing would have been a TKO. Two of the Bush administration's national security heavyweights - Marc Grossman and Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy - testified on plans for a post-Saddam Iraq. On the nature, scope, cost and duration they spent the entire morning on the ropes offering few specifics. The inescapable conclusion: The US has prepared brilliantly for the military operation and is frightfully ill-prepared for the difficult aftermath.(*) .Anthony Zinni (an outside expert) former commander in chief of the US central command.lamented the lack of a post-Saddam 'counterpart' in the military planning; he was dismissive of the high-level groups assembled at the Pentagon three weeks ago to consider the next state: 'That doesn't do it for me'.Sen Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam combat veteran angrily spoke of the dangers of a largely ad hoc policy once war starts and American forces are in harm's way: 'If you're having a problem now,' he lectured (Feith and Grossman) 'what the hell do you think you're going to do when you get in there?' Few accept Mr. Grossman's estimate that the American rebuilding effort in Iraq would last two years. A 10 year plan would be 'more realistic' suggested Zinni
lfeiner1 - 07:03pm Feb 14, 2003 EST (# 16271 of 16343)
Nor am I alone in my distrust of Richard Perle
(The Defense Policy Board) is chaired by Richard Perle - a Pentagon official whose hard-lined views won him the title "Prince of Darkness" - the board gives its 31 unpaid members, something every Washington player wants; unrivaled access without accountability. Perle uses his post as a springboard to for his unilateralist, attack-Iraq views to try to whip the Bush administration into action. But despite its name, the board does not make policy. As the Saudi episode shows, it can do something far scarier: give a false impression of it. In effect, the board has becomes Perle' podium. It rarely achieved any notice before he assumed the chairmanship last year, but now his position there lends weight to his public pronouncements. New York Times 8/21/2
* Which of course would lead to instabiity and opportunities for transfer.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Views are those of the owners. Views may not be construed as reflective of the Palestine Right to Return Coalition.
If you're Jewish please support the Jewish statement supporting Palestinian refugee rights especially the Right to Return. For details go to www.TheStruggle.org | | | | Guest-cdbc | | Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 1:27 pm Post subject: John Pilger: Urgency of Saving Lives |
| It is not possible to overstate the significance and urgency of the march and demonstration against an unprovoked British and American attack on Iraq, a nation with whom we have no quarrel and who offer us no threat. : John Pilger :14 Feb 2003
The urgency is the saving of lives. First, let us stop calling it a "war". The last time "war" was used in the Gulf was in 1991 when the truth was buried with more than 200,000 people. Attacking a 70-mile line of trenches, three American brigades, operating at night, used 60-ton armoured earthmovers to bury alive teenage Iraqi conscripts, including the wounded and those surrendering and retreating. Survivors were slaughtered from the air. The helicopter gunship pilots called it a "turkey shoot".
Of the 148 Americans who died, a quarter of them were killed by Americans. Most of the British were killed by Americans. This was known as "friendly fire". The civilians who were killed, whose deaths were never recorded by the American military because it was "not policy", were "collateral damage".
Today, after 13 years of an economic blockade that has been compared with a medieval siege, Iraq is defenceless, no matter the discovery of an odd missile that can reach barely 90 miles. Its ragtag army is woefully under-equipped and awaiting its fate, along with a civilian population of whom 42 per cent are children. They are stricken. Even the export of British manufactured vaccines meant to protect Iraqi infants from diphtheria and yellow fever has been restricted. The vaccines, say the Blair government, are "capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction".
This is the nation upon which the Bush gang says it will rain down 800 missiles within the space of two days. "Shock and awe" the Pentagon calls its "strategy". Meanwhile the weapons inspectors and their morose Swedish leader go about their treasure hunt and a cartoon show is hosted in the UN by General Colin Powell (who rose to the top by covering up the notorious My Lai massacre in Vietnam).
It is all a charade. The Americans want Iraq because they want to control and reorder the Middle East. Their once-favourite dictator, Saddam Hussein, made the mistake of misreading the signals from Washington in 1990 and invading another favourite American oil tyranny, Kuwait. So belatedly, Saddam must be replaced, preferably by another Saddam, though more reliable and less uppity. There is no issue of "weapons of mass destruction". That is a distraction for us and the media.
The wider significance of the promised attack is the rapacious nature of the American state. As Tony Blair has confirmed, North Korea is likely to be "next". I think he is wrong and that Iran will be next. That is what the Israeli regime wants and Israel's wishes are as important to influential members of the Bush gang as oil. Thereafter, there is China. Says Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Institute in Washington: "What radical US nationalists have in mind is either to 'contain' China by overwhelming military force or to destroy the Chinese Communist state."
ONE of the Bush gang's planners, Richard Perle, has said: "If we 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."
September 11 2001 was their big opportunity. On September 12 Donald Rumsfeld wanted to use the Twin Towers tragedy as an excuse to attack Iraq, which was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell argued that "public opinion has to be prepared". Afghanistan was the easier option and they were planning to attack it anyway.
The subsequent American endeavour to encircle al-Qaeda in the eastern mountains of Afghanistan was a fiasco and more than 20,000 people, estimates Jonathan Steele in the Guardian, paid the price of that country's "liberation".
Since September 11 America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has repudiated the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, with 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" - incredibly Geoffrey Hoon, on Blair's behalf, has said exactly the same.
Assassination is now legal. Virtually before our eyes, prisoners have been tortured to the point of suicide in an American concentration camp in Cuba. Under Donald Rumsfeld a secret group with the Orwellian name of the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group has the job of provoking terrorist attacks, which would then require "counter-attack" by the United States. You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that the enemy to all our security is not a regional tyrant - there are plenty of those, many created by America and Britain.
And what of Blair? Do he and his craven Ministers understand any of this? It is difficult to know. Such is Blair's evangelical obsession with Iraq, and perhaps his desperation in the face of overwhelming public opposition, that he is prepared to mislead and deceive not only the public but the armed forces he has sent to pursue his and the mad Perle's "vision".
Does anyone believe the Prime Minister any more? During his interview last Thursday with the BBC's Jeremy Paxman, Blair lied once again that UN weapons inspectors were "thrown out" of Iraq by the regime in 1998. He knows the truth: that they were withdrawn when it was discovered the CIA had planted spies among them in order to gather intelligence for the subsequent Anglo-American bombing of Iraq in December 1998.
I MEAN," said Blair last week, "(the threat of Iraq's undiscovered weapons of mass destruction) is what our intelligence services are telling us and it's difficult because, you know, either they're simply making the whole thing up ..."
Making it up, indeed. On February 7 Downing Street had to apologise when it was revealed that its latest dossier seeking to justify war - "Iraq: its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation" - was lifted word for word, including the grammatical and spelling mistakes, from an article written by an American student 10 years ago. As David Edwards of Media Lens has pointed out, "the only changes involved the doctoring of passages to make the report more ominous: a claim that Iraq was 'aiding opposition groups' was changed to a claim that Iraq was 'supporting terrorist organisations'." Like Bush, Blair lies that "we do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq". An investigation by America's National Security Council, which advises Bush, "found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda. On February 5 a Ministry of Defence document, leaked to the BBC, revealed that British intelligence had told Blair there was "no current link" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Blair has even denied seeing this crucial report.
As a Christian, Blair says be is helping to build a "secure and hopeful world for all our children".
The Labour MP Llew Smith recently asked the Education Secretary to explain "how we can find billions of pounds to increase our defence budget and go to war with Iraq but cannot find the money to scrap tuition fees?"
There was no intelligible reply.
LAST November a report by the School of Public Policy, University of College London, disclosed that "53 per cent of children in inner London are living in income poverty". Yet Chancellor Gordon Brown puts aside "at least a billion pounds" as "a war chest" with which to attack not poverty but an impoverished people half a world away.
A peaceful solution in the Middle East is only possible when the threat of an attack is lifted and a total ban on so-called weapons of mass destruction and arms sales is imposed throughout the region, on Israel as well as Iraq. The economic blockade on the people of Iraq should end immediately and justice for the Palestinians become a priority.
The power of public opinion, both moral and political power, is far greater than many people realise. That's why Blair fears it and why, through the inept Tessa Jowell, he tried to ban tomorrow's demonstration. He fears it because if the voice of the people threatens the house of cards he has built on his obsession with Iraq and America, it may well threaten his political life and make mockery of the Anglo-American "coalition" and deny the Bush gang its fig leaf.
Should that happen, American public opinion, now stirring heroically after the most sustained brainwashing campaign for half a century, may even stop the Bush gang in its tracks. As of yesterday 42 American cities had passed resolutions condemning an attack.
Is all that a cause for optimism? Yes it is. Look at how this week's French and German "rebellion" almost seemed to change everything; and remember that those governments are speaking out only because of overwhelming pressure from their people.
Now that has to happen in Britain. Tomorrow | | | | Guest-cdbc | | Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:17 pm Post subject: Robert Fisk: The case against war |
| Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the self-interest of America
15 February 2003
In the end, I think we are just tired of being lied to. Tired of being talked down to, of being bombarded with Second World War jingoism and scare stories and false information and student essays dressed up as "intelligence". We are sick of being insulted by little men, by Tony Blair and Jack Straw and the likes of George Bush and his cabal of neo-conservative henchmen who have plotted for years to change the map of the Middle East to their advantage.
No wonder, then, that Hans Blix's blunt refutation of America's "intelligence" at the UN yesterday warmed so many hearts. Suddenly, the Hans Blixes of this world could show up the Americans for the untrustworthy "allies" they have become.
The British don't like Hussein any more than they liked Nasser. But millions of Britons remember, as Blair does not, the Second World War; they are not conned by childish parables of Hitler, Churchill, Chamberlain and appeasement. They do not like being lectured and whined at by men whose experience of war is Hollywood and television.
Still less do they wish to embark on endless wars with a Texas governor-executioner who dodged the Vietnam draft and who, with his oil buddies, is now sending America's poor to destroy a Muslim nation that has nothing at all to do with the crimes against humanity of 11 September. Jack Straw, the public school Trot-turned-warrior, ignores all this, with Blair. He brays at us about the dangers of nuclear weapons that Iraq does not have, of the torture and aggression of a dictatorship that America and Britain sustained when Saddam was "one of ours". But he and Blair cannot discuss the dark political agenda behind George Bush's government, nor the "sinister men" (the words of a very senior UN official) around the President.
Those who oppose war are not cowards. Brits rather like fighting; they've biffed Arabs, Afghans, Muslims, Nazis, Italian Fascists and Japanese imperialists for generations, Iraqis included – though we play down the RAF's use of gas on Kurdish rebels in the 1930s. But when the British are asked to go to war, patriotism is not enough. Faced with the horror stories, Britons – and many Americans – are a lot braver than Blair and Bush. They do not like, as Thomas More told Cromwell in A Man for All Seasons, tales to frighten children.
Perhaps Henry VIII's exasperation in that play better expresses the British view of Blair and Bush: "Do they take me for a simpleton?" The British, like other Europeans, are an educated people. Ironically, their opposition to this obscene war may make them feel more, not less, European.
Palestine has much to do with it. Brits have no love for Arabs but they smell injustice fast enough and are outraged at the colonial war being used to crush the Palestinians by a nation that is now in effect running US policy in the Middle East. We are told that our invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a burning, fearsome wound to which Bush devoted just 18 words in his meretricious State of the Union speech – but even Blair can't get away with that one; hence his "conference" for Palestinian reform at which the Palestinians had to take part via video-link because Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, refused to let them travel to London.
So much for Blair's influence over Washington – the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, "regretted" that he couldn't persuade Sharon to change his mind. But at least one has to acknowledge that Sharon – war criminal though he may be for the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacres – treated Blair with the contempt he deserves. Nor can the Americans hide the link between Iraq and Israel and Palestine. In his devious address to the UN Security Council last week, Powell linked the three when he complained that Hamas, whose suicide bombings so cruelly afflict Israelis, keeps an office in Baghdad.
Just as he told us about the mysterious al-Qa'ida men who support violence in Chechnya and in the "Pankisi gorge". This was America's way of giving Vladimir Putin a free hand again in his campaign of rape and murder against the Chechens, just as Bush's odd remark to the UN General Assembly last 12 September about the need to protect Iraq's Turkomans only becomes clear when one realises that Turkomans make up two thirds of the population of Kirkuk, one of Iraq's largest oil fields.
The men driving Bush to war are mostly former or still active pro-Israeli lobbyists. For years, they have advocated destroying the most powerful Arab nation. Richard Perle, one of Bush's most influential advisers, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld were all campaigning for the overthrow of Iraq long before George W Bush was elected – if he was elected – US President. And they weren't doing so for the benefit of Americans or Britons. A 1996 report, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm) called for war on Iraq. It was written not for the US but for the incoming Israeli Likud prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and produced by a group headed by – yes, Richard Perle. The destruction of Iraq will, of course, protect Israel's monopoly of nuclear weapons and allow it to defeat the Palestinians and impose whatever colonial settlement Sharon has in store.
Although Bush and Blair dare not discuss this with us – a war for Israel is not going to have our boys lining up at the recruiting offices – Jewish American leaders talk about the advantages of an Iraqi war with enthusiasm. Indeed, those very courageous Jewish American groups who so bravely oppose this madness have been the first to point out how pro-Israeli organisations foresee Iraq not only as a new source of oil but of water, too; why should canals not link the Tigris river to the parched Levant? No wonder, then, that any discussion of this topic must be censored, as Professor Eliot Cohen, of Johns Hopkins University, tried to do in the Wall Street Journal the day after Powell's UN speech. Cohen suggested that European nations' objections to the war might – yet again – be ascribed to "anti-Semitism of a type long thought dead in the West, a loathing that ascribes to Jews a malignant intent." This nonsense, it must be said, is opposed by many Israeli intellectuals who, like Uri Avnery, argue that an Iraq war will leave Israel with even more Arab enemies, especially if Iraq attacks Israel and Sharon then joins the US battle against the Arabs.
The slur of "anti-Semitism" also lies behind Rumsfeld's snotty remarks about "old Europe". He was talking about the "old" Germany of Nazism and the "old" France of collaboration. But the France and Germany that oppose this war are the "new" Europe, the continent which refuses, ever again, to slaughter the innocent. It is Rumsfeld and Bush who represent the "old" America; not the "new" America of freedom, the America of F D Roosevelt. Rumsfeld and Bush symbolise the old America that killed its native Indians and embarked on imperial adventures. It is "old" America we are being asked to fight for – linked to a new form of colonialism – an America that first threatens the United Nations with irrelevancy and then does the same to Nato. This is not the last chance for the UN, nor for Nato. But it may well be the last chance for America to be taken seriously by her friends as well as her enemies.
In these last days of peace the British should not be tripped by the oh-so-sought-after second UN resolution. UN permission for America's war will not make the war legitimate; it merely proves that the Council can be controlled with bribes, threats or abstentions. It was the Soviet Union's abstention, after all, which allowed America to fight the savage Korean war under the UN flag. And we should not doubt that – after a quick US military conquest of Iraq and providing 'they" die more than we die – there will be plenty of anti-war protesters who will claim they were pro-war all along. The first pictures of "liberated" Baghdad will show Iraqi children making victory signs to American tank crews. But the real cruelty and cynicism of this conflict will become evident as soon as the "war" ends, when our colonial occupation of a Muslim nation for the US and Israel begins.
There lies the rub. Bush calls Sharon a "man of peace". But Sharon fears he may yet face trial over Sabra and Chatila, which is why Israel has just withdrawn its ambassador to Belgium. I'd like to see Saddam in the same court. And Rifaat Assad for his 1982 massacre in the Syrian city of Hama. And all the torturers of Israel and the Arab dictatorships.
Israeli and US ambitions in the region are now entwined, almost synonymous. This war is about oil and regional control. It is being cheer-led by a draft-dodger who is treacherously telling us that this is part of an eternal war against "terror". And the British and most Europeans don't believe him. It's not that Britons wouldn't fight for America. They just don't want to fight for Bush or his friends. And if that includes the Prime Minister, they don't want to fight for Blair either.
15 February 2003 23:08 | | | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 5:59 am Post subject: JINSA Zionist Extremist John Bolton Confirms JINSA Agenda in |
| JINSA Zionist Extremist John Bolton Confirms JINSA Agenda in Israel Today:
HISTORY MADE AS MORE THAN A MILLION MARCH FOR PEACE:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12646938&method=full&siteid=50143
Kurdish Leaders Enraged by 'Undemocratic' American Plan to Occupy Iraq:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060
The JINSA Zionist extremist cabal (of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Elliott Abrams, and John Bolton) has hijacked the Bush regime and is pushing US to its coming war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) for greater Israel and oil (Robert Fisk of the London Independent mentions in the following article that Dick Cheney was on the board of advisors for JINSA before becoming Vice President and helped put the other JINSA Zionist extremists into power in the current Bush regime):
Zionist JINSA Group in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
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]
This Zionist extremist agenda of JINSA (which is pushing for the US to attack Iraq and then Iran, Syria and North Korea) is confirmed by what JINSAN John Bolton mentioned in Israel today (according to what is mentioned in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper article which can be accessed via the following URL):
We'll deal with Syria, Iran after Iraq war - John Bolton:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/17/we-ll-deal-with-syria-iran-after-iraq-war-john-bolton.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists at Pentagon to Control Iraq:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/04/radical-jinsa-zionists-at-pentagon-to-control-iraq.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists (in Bush Regime) Pushing US to War for Israel and Oil:
Recent polling is showing that 59 percent of the US public would like the UN weapons inspectors to continue with their work in Iraq (instead of having the US launch an invasion of Iraq for greater Israel and oil), and 2/3 of the US public are against the coming invasion of Iraq (if it is to occur without UN approval). I have the Constitutional right as an American patriot to expose Israel firsters (in the US government) who are associated with the JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist extremist cabal of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith and Dick Cheney (who was on the board of directors for JINSA before becoming Vice President and helped put fellow JINSA Zionist extremists Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle into power in the current Bush regime as conveyed by Robert Fisk in his London Independent newspaper articles which are referenced below).
This JINSA cabal (which has basically hijacked the current Bush regime) is pushing US to initiate a war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) which has the potential to inflame the Middle East (as well as increase the risk of US experiencing further tragic terrorism). The Israel firster perspective may suit Likudite cronies in Israel (like General Sharon and Mr. Netanyahu as so eloquently conveyed by Mr. Fisk in his most recent article for the London Independent which is referenced first below), but it is not in the best interest of America:
Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the self-interest of America
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=378428
Cabinet Rallies to Blair as War Revolt Looms:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=379088
Zionist JINSA Group in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
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
Washington's Zionist Chicken 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
JINSA Zionist Extremist Richard Perle Does Not Speak for the Majority of Americans:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/05/every-patriotic-american-needs-to-access-this.php
War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/10/the-war-on-iraq-conceived-in-israel.php
Israeli sources say war imminent; Iran and Syria next:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/15/israeli-sources-say-war-imminent-iran-and-syria-next.php
The Threat of "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) in Israel and Palestine:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/15/the-threat-of-transfer-in-israel-and-palestine.php
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
UN REMARKS by Foreign Affairs Ministers of Syria and France (especially comments by Syria about US/UN double standard in not enforcing paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 against Israeli weapons of mass destruction as well):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/14/un-remarks-by-foreign-affairs-ministers-of-syria-and-france.php
Iraqi Ambassador: UN/US Double Standard with Israeli Nuclear Weapons:
The UN (US) double standard for Israel with paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 against Iraq (which calls for the Middle East to be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction as mentioned below by the Iraqi UN Ambassador) is completely unjust (especially when it comes to Israeli weapons of mass destruction):
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
The Return of Zionist Extremist Elliott Abrams:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/04/return-of-zionist-extremist-elliott-abrams.php
We'll give UN inspectors more time, says Blair:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=378501
Israeli Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth with 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/israeli-spy-rumors-fly-on-gusts-of-truth-with-9-11.php
The following also appeared in the Daily Mirror in the UK:
HYSTERICAL? WE'VE ONLY JUST BEGUN
WHEN the Daily Mirror launched its campaign against the war on Iraq we were dismissed as lefty peaceniks, just opposing military action for the sake of it.
As the campaign continued the abuse intensified - we were accused of being 'hysterical, of "cynically chasing new readers, of over-reacting".
The crescendo of negativity reached a nadir with our BLOOD ON HIS HANDS front page, powerfully illustrating John Pilger's ferocious attack on Tony Blair for the impending slaughter of Iraqi civilians.
This was crass, offensive and way too personal, our critics said. Yet it was the exact same phrase Mr Blair used to denigrate the 1.5 million people who protested in London on Saturday.
What is now absolutely clear is that the Daily Mirror is right about this war. And Tony Blair is wrong. The Prime Minister is not a stupid man so he must realise in his astute head that he is beaten logically, politically and democratically.
The only support he has in this country is from a few lapdogs in the Cabinet - take a bow, John Prescott - the Tory leadership and newspapers owned by George W Bush admirers living in America.
Those one and a half million people who marched on Saturday are not the only ones who feel war would be wrong, needless and a total disaster. Each of them represents many more.
It was the biggest demonstration this country has ever seen. It rivalled the magnificent anti-Vietnam marches in the United States in the 70s.
In the past, protesters have been sneered at as long-haired hippies. That couldn't be said about Saturday's demonstrators. Young and old, working, middle, and upper class... Countless thousands of ordinary people united on one fundamental principle - war against Iraq at this time is wrong, wrong, wrong.
It is because Mr Blair knows he has lost the argument that he is lashing out. He claims to have scaled the moral high ground and accuses those who oppose his views of being as guilty as Saddam of murdering his victims.
Had the Prime Minister talked to the demonstrators, he would have found hardly any who supported the Iraqi tyrant - and the Mirror has no time for those who do.
Being against Saddam - or any other terrible regime - is a moral position to take. Sending in bombers to obliterate them, wiping out thousands of innocents in the process, is not part of most people's definition of morality.
If this sounds like hysteria, the Daily Mirror doesn't mind. If it takes obsessional, hysterical, head-banging to get over the message that this war must not happen, so be it. The option - though you wouldn't know this to listen to Mr Blair - is not between waging war and being obliterated by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. There is a real, workable alternative - to control him through tough use of UN weapons inspectors. Which is the alternative backed by most countries and the vast majority of people in Britain.
Having lost the argument, it is Tony Blair who is plunging down the road of hysteria. Playing the morality card is not just offensive and ridiculous, but dangerous.
Where would it end? Having taken out Saddam, where would the US-British axis turn to next? Which other objectionable, tyrannical regimes would become targets for our bombs and invasion forces?
Will they be sent in to remove Zimbabwe's President Mugabe for driving his people into starvation? How about the terrible anti-human-rights record of the Chinese government - would we take on their immense population? Or what about the attitude of the Saudis to women and human rights? Or Israel's defiance of UN resolutions? It all smacks of one rule for Iraq and another for everyone else.
We should be told if we have just heard the Blair Doctrine - coming second-hand from the dangerous men who run today's White House - which will become our foreign and military policy at the start of the 21st century.
The world has one omnipotent power, whose military spending outstrips every other nation put together. That country, unlike those in Europe, has hardly suffered from attack. Yet this White House wants to bombard Iraq and then who-knows-where next. And it wishes to take the United Kingdom along on its coat-tails, a conspirator to mass slaughter.
If we are talking morality, perhaps Tony Blair could explain the morality in rigging reports of "evidence" to justify military invasion? Both America and the British government have done that in the past few days. Or maybe the Prime Minister could debate morality with some of the fundamentalists who threaten this country because they believe we live an immoral lifestyle.
Morality is the last refuge of a discredited politician. The final desperate hiding place of those who have lost the argument but refuse to accept defeat.
Tony Blair should ask himself if he is Prime Minister of a nation so steeped in immorality that one and a half million of its people will march to support their views.
Or whether the people of this country are desperately worried at the prospect of being dragged into a divisive, dangerous and murderous war.
There will not be blood on the hands of those who seek peace with strength. And we don't want there to be on Tony Blair's, either.
The Mirror will go on shouting that loudly, clearly, and if necessarily hysterically, until Mr Blair listens. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
