War Without End

klaas17 · Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2003 4:20 pm Post subject: criminals, nutcases, or both ?

The story below gives a frightening description of Washington criminal and/or deluded nutcases.
I'm still studying how the Nazi's became able to perform their crimes, what is flabbergasting is the stupidity, and racism, of their ideas; what is vene more frightening is that they succeeded to a certain extent.
What is below does not seem much different in criminality and delusion.
Alas this is the nuclear era.

This article appears in the Oct. 26, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

`Wolfowitz Cabal' Is an Enemy Within U.S.
by Michele Steinberg

On Oct. 14, the London Observer published one of the now familiar—and totally false—propaganda scare stories, entitled "Iraq 'Behind U.S. Anthrax Outbreaks.' " The story gave credence to the ravings of "American hawks" who say there is "a growing mass of evidence that [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein was involved, possibly indirectly, with the Sept. 11 suicide hijacks." If confirmed, said the Observer, "the pressure now building ... for an attack [on Iraq] may be irresistible." One of these "hawks," an unnamed U.S. "administration official," told the Observer that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a "faithful ally" in the war against terrorism and that "if it means we are embarking on the next Hundred Years' War, then that's what we are doing" (emphasis added).

The "next Hundred Year's War"? Who are the U.S. maniacs who use such language, and are they not as dangerous as Osama bin Laden's jihad?

Here we will name the names of the fanatics in this anti-Iraq grouping who have become known as the "Wolfowitz cabal," named after Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. According to the New York Times, which published a leak about their activities on Oct. 12, this grouping wants an immediate war with Iraq, believing that the targetting of Afghanistan, already an impoverished wasteland, falls far short of the global war that they are hoping for. But Iraq is just another stepping stone to turning the anti-terrorist "war" into a full-blown "Clash of Civilizations," where the Islamic religion would become the "enemy image" in a "new Cold War."

The "Clash of Civilizations" theory, developed by Harvard professor-turned President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and his protégés, including Harvard Prof. Samuel Huntington, defined the Arab and Islamic world as an "arc of crisis" from the Middle East to the Islamic countries of Central Asia in the then-Soviet Union. Brzezinski wanted to use the "Islamic card" against the Soviet Union, and in so doing, began the policy of promoting Islamic fundamentalists against moderate and pro-Western Arab and Islamic governments. After the end of the Cold War, the Brzezinski/Huntington crowd updated their "arc of crisis," declaring that the Islamic religion is the enemy, in a new war in which religions, rather than political systems, inevitably battle each other. However, trained by British and U.S. special intelligence services and the CIA, and armed by Israeli military networks, the very terrorist drug-runners in the Islamic world who were launched by Brzezinski and "adopted" by the Iran-Contra networks run by Lt. Col. Oliver North, under the elder George Bush's Executive Order 12333, have become the main suspects in terrorist attacks against the United States.

A Network Throughout the Government
The adherents of the so-called "Wolfowitz cabal," pushing the "Clash of Civilizations" theory, are nothing less than "an enemy within" the United States, a network that cuts across the Defense Department, the State Department, the White House, and the National Security Council. This report is not a "good guys" versus "bad guys" description of the Bush Administration; rather it is a warning that this cabal is a close-knit rogue network that is trying to hijack U.S. policy, and turn the current Afghanistan mess into a global war. The cabal bears a dangerous resemblance to the "secret parallel government" of North and Gen. Richard Secord's "Project Democracy" operation that ran Iran-Contra. In fact, some of the cabal members now in the Bush Administration are convicted criminals as a result of their activity in North's "Enterprise"!

On Oct. 12, the New York Times revealed deep divisions in the Bush Administration, describing how the cabal plots policy behind the back of Cabinet officials, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the name of the U.S. government. The group wants to obliterate Iraq, put Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority on the terrorism list (if not the obituary list), and declare war on nation-states.

The Times revealed that a key section of the "Wolfowitz cabal," is the 18-member Defense Policy Board, which met for more than 19 hours on Sept. 19-20 to "make the case" against Saddam Hussein. The meeting pushed for a renewed war against Iraq as soon as the war against Afghanistan had concluded its initial phase. It discussed overthrowing Saddam Hussein, partitioning Iraq into mini-states led by U.S.-funded dissidents who would steal the proceeds from the Basra oil revenues for their quisling government. The meeting discussed how to manipulate information so as to pin the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States on Saddam Hussein.

According to the Times, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld attended the meetings for only "part" of both days, and on Sept. 22, President George Bush rejected the Policy Board's recommendation to declare war against Iraq. But to the "Wolfowitz cabal," Bush's decision didn't really matter—senior members of the Policy Board had been selected for their broad international connections, especially to the United Kingdom and Israel, allowing them to force changes in U.S. policy through an "outside-inside" operation. If unable to change policy through advising, the network could also run covert operations as a "government within a government," as they had maneuvered during Iran-Contra.

The chairman of the Defense Policy Board is Richard Perle, the former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, now based at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Perle, nicknamed "The Prince of Darkness" because of his nuclear Armageddon views during the Cold War, is, more importantly, an asset of Conrad Black's Hollinger International, Inc., which grew out of British Empire Security Coordinator William Stephenson's efforts to secure arms for Britain during World War II. At present, Hollinger owns the British Tory Party-linked Telegraph PLC, whose International Advisory Board is headed by former British Prime Minister, now Lady Margaret Thatcher. Hollinger also owns the Jerusalem Post, another war-mongering press outlet.

The "heavy hitters" on the Defense Policy Board are the worst of the Anglo-American-Israeli geopolitical fanatics from the last several decades, including: former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who is also a member of Hollinger's International Advisory Board; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Clinton Administration Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey; former Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. David E. Jeremiah; former Vice President Dan Quayle; former Defense and Energy Secretary James R. Schlesinger; and former President Carter's Defense Secretary Harold Brown.

Though Perle was only recently appointed to head the Defense Policy Board, he and Wolfowitz have been collaborators for more than two decades, as agents-of-influence of the right-wing Israeli war faction. In 1985, when it was clear that Jonathan Jay Pollard, an American convicted that year of spying for Israel, could not have been working alone in stealing such high-level U.S. secrets for Israel to sell to the Soviet Union, top-level intelligence officials told EIR that an entire "X Committee" of high-level U.S. officials, was being investigated. Wolfowitz and Perle were on the list of "X Committee" suspects, and Israeli spying against the United States was so thick that investigators told EIR they had found "not moles, but entire molehills." Pollard and his Israeli defenders later claimed that Pollard "had to" spy against the United States because the Americans were soft on Iraq and other Arab countries.

The "Wolfowitz cabal" is deterimined to push the United States in the direction of the most dangerous Israeli right-wing policy, including a possible Israeli nuclear attack on an Arab state. They are implementers of the very "breakaway ally" scenario about which 2004 Democratic Party Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche warned in his statement of Oct. 12 (see International).

Plan B: Wagging the Dog
The "Wolfowitz cabal" is out to destroy any potential for a Middle East peace, and simultaneously is determined to crush Eurasian economic development centered around cooperation among Europe, Russia, and China. After being rebuffed after the marathon Defense Policy Board meetings, the Wolfowitz cabal set various operations in motion to plant propaganda stories, falsify reports of U.S. policy, and carry out other maneuvers, whereby the tail would "wag the dog." Unapproved statements are made by cabal members, interviews misrepresenting U.S. policy are planted around the globe, and intelligence reports are altered or manufactured to further the policy goals.

The pattern is becoming crystal clear.

In the first such instance, shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, Wolfowitz declared that the United States will "end states harboring terrorism," and insisted that under the principle of self-defense, the United States could act alone, without the United Nations, or cooperation from any other country. He wanted to establish the "doctrine" that the United States would hit a country "anywhere, anytime" based on secret evidence. But, Wolfowitz was forced to retract his statements, in a visible rift with the White House. Some days later, NATO allies at its Brussels headquarters snubbed Wolfowitz, and refused to formalize cooperation with the United States under NATO agreements at a meeting where Wolfowitz represented the Bush Administration.

In the same vein, on Oct. 7, the day the Afghanistan bombings began, the cabal again attempted to provoke a rift between the United States and members of the UN Security Council, especially Russia and China, by altering the text of a letter from U.S. Ambassador to the UN John D. Negroponte. (Not coincidentally, Negroponte was a notorious insider in the Iran-Contra operation, who was accused of collaborating with narcotics-linked military death squads in Honduras in the 1980s.) The changes in the letter were made without notifying Negroponte's boss, Secretary of State Powell.

In the letter, Negroponte echoed Wolfowitz's so-called gaffe, writing, "We may find that our self-defense requires further action with respect to other organizations and states" (emphasis added). The statement implicitly targetted Iraq, Syria, and Sudan, all countries which are on the State Department's list of countries that support terrorism. The statement violated promises the United States had made, that it would limit "coalition" action to redressing the attack of Sept. 11. Upon learning of the statement, from the press, Powell reportedly "hit the roof." The insertion was drafted by Stephen J. Hadley, who is the Deputy Adviser to the National Security Council. The stunt may have been planned at the Defense Policy Board meetings.

Then there's the case of former CIA director R. James Woolsey, whose defined role is as the Policy Board member who is most public in demanding the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The Knight-Ridder newspaper chain reported on Oct. 11, that Woolsey had been authorized the prior month to fly to London on a U.S. government plane, accompanied by Justice and Defense Department officials, on a secret mission to gather evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attack. In a Sept. 18 press conference by Defense Week, Woolsey called for creating a "no-fly and no-drive zone" in the north and south of Iraq, so that the Kurds and the Shi'ites, respectively, could better fight Saddam. "The watchword of the day," Woolsey said, is, "It's the Regimes, Stupid!"

Since the Oct. 5 death from anthrax of Bob Stevens, the Sun tabloid photo editor, from anthrax, Woolsey has been the world's leading finger-pointer at Saddam as being behind the anthrax attack. His so-called evidence is dated, prejudiced, and completely unreliable.

It was no accident that Woolsey role-played a prominent character—CIA Director—in the New York Council on Foreign Relations 1999-2000 scenario the previous year, "The Next Financial Crisis: Warning Signs, Damage Control, and Impact," that acted out a virtual coup d'état coming on the heels of a combined financial crisis and terrorist attack. In the CFR war-game, the U.S. President would be taken out of the picture, leaving the country under the control of a crisis management dictatorship.

Also dispatched to London to propagandize for a "rolling war" that would attack Afghanistan, then Iraq, then country after country until revenge is exacted, was fellow Policy Board member Newt Gingrich. Talking to the London Times, owned by top British-Israeli propagandist Rupert Murdoch, Gingrich said that the United States is "at war" with "organized, systematic extensions of terror, supported by nation-states." He said that targetting the Afghan Taliban without defeating Iraq would be "like defeating Imperial Japan and leaving the Nazis alone." Gingrich threatened that countries judged not cooperative against terrorism would face the consequences: "The U.S. and the coalition forces will assist your own people in removing you."

Setting the pace for his team, Perle was the joint initiator with neo-con William Kristol of the Rupert Murdoch-funded Weekly Standard, of an open letter to President Bush, that, while ostensibly supporting the President in the war against terrorism, was, in fact, an ultimatum to support a "Clash of Civilizations" Thirty Years' War in the Middle East. Among the non-negotiable demands set forth in that letter was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [Sept. 11] attack."

There is no doubt that the Wolfowitz/Perle duo is at the heart of the network that can use Israel in the "breakaway ally scenario." Indeed, Wolfowitz is one of great hopes of right-wing extremists in Israel, including among the radical settlers movement, who are demanding the assassination of Arafat and the expulsion of all Palestinians from the Occupied Territories (see coverage in International). But, Wolfowitz and Perle are not "Israeli agents." Rather, they are second-generation operatives both mentored by the RAND Corp.'s Albert Wohlstetter, a former Trotskyite communist turned nuclear strategist. Nor are the cabal war-mongers Seven Days in May militarists.

A key member of the cabal is Richard Armitage, the number-two man in the U.S. State Department, who was investigated in the Iran-Contra scandal, and who is a longtime collaborator of Wolfowitz in the targetting of Iraq. The cabal also has high-level operatives at the National Security Council (NSC):

Gen. Wayne Downing, former Commander in Chief of the Special Operations Command, was just appointed as Director of Combatting Terrorism for the Homeland Defense Board, headed by former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge. In 1997-98, Downing drew up a military plan to overthrow Saddam, by assassination, if necessary. The plan hinged on heavily arming dissident gangs of Iraqi Shi'ites in the south of Iraq, and Kurdish fighters in the north. Invasion by U.S. Special Forces ground troops was not ruled out. The promoter of the neo-Conservative yahoos in Congress and the think-tanks was Wolfowitz, then head of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Unable to ram this plan through the Clinton Administration, Wolfowitz shopped the plan to Perle, an expert in "chain-letter" pressure politics, who garnered signatures. Now at the NSC, Downing has the ready-made plan to hit Iraq.

Richard Clarke, Adviser to the President for Cyberspace Warfare. Clarke, who was originally with the State Department during the elder Bush's Administration, was demoted for covering up Israeli violations of the Arms Exporting laws. In August 1998, Clarke was one of the key figures who planted false information about Sudan's involvement in the East Africa U.S. Embassy bombings, which led to U.S. cruise missile attacks on a Sudanese pharmaceutical company in Khartoum. Clarke shopped in disinformation from British-Israeli covert operations stringer Yosef Bodansky that targetted Sudan.

Elliott Abrams, NSC staff. Abrams, who was convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, was quietly placed on the NSC as a specialist in "religion and human rights." He is a longtime member of the right-wing Zionist networks that infiltrated the U.S. security establishment. He worked closely with Secord and North in Central America, also providing a link to the Israeli gun-running networks that delivered arms to Khomeini's Iran.

Alpha

US Vice President Dick Cheney a board member of "The Jewish
Institute of National Security Affairs" (JINSA)?

Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs

Basic Information

http://www.just-tzedakah.org/reports/JewishInstituteforNationalSecurityAffairs/basicinfo.html

1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW Suite 515
Washington DC 20036
(202) 667-3900; Fax (202) 667-0601
Internet: www.jinsa.org E-mal info@jinsa.org

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) was
founded in 1976 to educate Americans about the value of the US-Israel
security relationship.

OBSERVANCE

No JINSA activities are conducted on Shabbat or Jewish holidays.
Food is Kosher or dairy.

ENDORSEMENTS, SUPPORTERS, AND AWARDS

The JINSA Board of Advisers consists of

John Bolton M. Gen. Jarvis Lynch USMC (Ret.)
Dr. Stephen Bryen Hon. Dave McCurdy
Hon Dick Cheney Dr. Joshua Muravchik
Dr. Anthony Cordesman Hon. Richard Perle
Adm. Leon Edney USN (Ret.) Lt. Gen. John Pustay USAF (Ret.)
Gen. John Foss USA (Ret.) Prof. Eugene Rostow
Richard Fox Gen. Crosbie Saint USA (Ret.)
Hon. Frank Hoeber R. Adm. Sumner Shapiro USN (Ret.)
Adm. Jerome Johnson USN (Ret.) Prof. David Sidorsky
Phyllis Kaminsky Dr. John Silber
Amb. Max M. Kampleman Gen.. Lawrence A. Skantze USAF
(Ret.)
V. Adm. B. Kauderer USN (Ret.) Kenneth R. Timmerman
Lt. Gen. Robert Kelley USAF (Ret.) Jacques Torczyner
Hon. Jack Kemp Adm. Carlisle Trost USN (Ret.)
Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Col. Bruce Williams USA (Ret.)
Prof. Michael Ledeen Hon. James Woolsey

Tevet 5759; January 1999

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

Giving opportunities:

General:
Giving Certificates
eTzedakah: The Electronic Tzedakah Box

I would like to contribute $ to the Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs.

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

--
Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers ph +61 2 62475187
to unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject line

Alpha

[quote="klaas17"]The story below gives a frightening description of Washington criminal and/or deluded nutcases.
I'm still studying how the Nazi's became able to perform their crimes, what is flabbergasting is the stupidity, and racism, of their ideas; what is vene more frightening is that they succeeded to a certain extent.
What is below does not seem much different in criminality and delusion.
Alas this is the nuclear era.

Alpha

http://abbc.com/usa/granata.htm

Alpha

More on PNAC/JINSA:

http://www.dawn.com/2003/03/09/int11.htm

Family ties connect US right, Zionists

By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON: When Vice President Dick Cheney's national security adviser and fellow hawk Eric Edelman was promoted to become the new US ambassador to Turkey last month, it was hardly a surprise when Cheney tapped Victoria Nuland to take his place.

Nuland, whose last post was deputy US ambassador to Nato, is just as well known as the spouse of Robert Kagan, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which nine days after the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, published an open letter to President George W. Bush urging that the war on terrorism include the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack".

While Nuland enjoys a strong reputation as an independent thinker, the family connection to Kagan was typical of the extraordinarily tight-knit nature of the regime that has taken control of US foreign policy since 9/11.

When historians look back at the major backers of an aggressive US foreign policy vis-a-vis Iraq and the "war on terrorism", one of the more curious aspects they are likely to find is the degree to which key hawks both within and outside the administration not only affirmed each other's political views, but were actually related to one another, as well.

Consider Kagan's family: in addition to Robert, whose current book Of Paradise and Power, a meditation on the notion that Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus, there is his father, Donald, a Yale University historian who also signed the Sep. 20, 2001 letter, and his brother, Frederick, a military historian at the US Army Academy, both prominent in the neo-conservative cause.

On the eve of the 2000 presidential elections, Donald and Frederick published While America Sleeps, a clarion call on Washington - which was already spending more on arms than the 13 next biggest militaries combined - to increase its defence spending sharply lest it find itself, like Britain in the late 1930s, unable to face down a new Hitler. Since then, both men have published reams of columns warning that Washington must immediately increase military spending by at least 25 per cent to keep up with its global responsibilities.

Robert was also busy in 2000, preparing the groundwork for the neo-imperial policy of the post-9/11 period. In addition to writing columns for the Washington Post, he co-edited another book, Present Dangers, about US foreign policy - to which both Frederick and Donald contributed chapters - with his long-time collaborator and PNAC co-founder, William Kristol.

Editor of the Rupert Murdoch-owned, neo-conservative Weekly Standard, PNAC chairman, Kristol, who first came to national prominence as a top aide to then-vice president Dan Quayle, is the son of Irving Kristol, the godfather of neo- conservatism who waged cultural wars against the Soviet Union in Europe in the 1950s, and who has been calling for a new US imperial role since the late 1960s.

Irving, whose wife Gertrude Himmelfarb, has also been a major neo-con heavyweight for decades, played a key role in steering the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal from a bland, business-oriented conservatism into a mouthpiece for the Israeli Likud Party and other far right causes.

Just last week the elder Kristol was honoured for his lifetime achievements at the annual dinner at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where Bush himself laid out the vision that tugs at the hearts of neo-cons today: a "liberated Iraq" and a transformed Arab Middle East prepared to make peace with Israel on Likud terms.

As godfather of the movement, Irving played mentor to Norman Podhoretz, the long-time but now-retired editor of Commentary, the influential monthly publication of the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Originally identified with the anti-war left in the mid-1960s, Podhoretz converted to neo-conservatism late in the decade and transformed the magazine into a main source of neo-conservative writing, despite the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community itself rejecting those positions.

Podhoretz and his spouse, Midge Decter, a polemical powerhouse in her own right, created a formidable political team in the 1970s as they deserted the Democratic Party, and then, as leaders of the Committee on the Present Danger - like PNAC a coalition of mainly Jewish, neo-conservatives and more traditional right-wing hawks like Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - helped lay the foreign-policy foundation for the rise of Ronald Reagan. After Reagan's victory, Decter and Rumsfeld co- chaired the international offshoot of the committee, called the Coalition for the Free World.

Podhoretz is the father of John Podhoretz, a columnist for the Murdoch-owned New York Post, who also acts as a ubiquitous booster of the hawks. And his son-in-law, Elliott Abrams, who held a number of controversial posts in Reagan's State Department and was eventually convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal for lying to Congress, now serves in Bush's National Security Council as his top Middle East adviser.

At Commentary, Podhoretz offered considerable space to such rising lights of the neo-conservative movement as future UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick (whose late husband Evron was a long-time collaborator of Irving Kristol); Richard Pipes, a Harvard University Soviet specialist and top Reagan adviser; Pipes' son, Daniel, a staunch Likud supporter who has long argued that Washington has been too complacent about the threat of Islamist radicalism both overseas and at home; and all of the Kristols and Kagans.

Another key Irving Kristol disciple has been Richard Perle, the influential and ultra-hawkish chairman of Rumsfeld's Defence Policy Board, whose main office is at AEI, where PNAC and William Kristol are also based. His spouse is the daughter of his teacher at the University of Chicago, another neo-con hero and strategic thinker who also favoured invading Iraq, the late Alfred Wohlstetter, for whom the AEI conference centre is named. Wohlstetter also taught Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

Perle has worked closely in the past with Douglas Feith, Wolfowitz's deputy as undersecretary of defence for policy under Rumsfeld and known as the administration's most ardent Likud supporter.

Feith's father, Dalck, a Philadelphia businessman and philanthropist, was a follower of Betar, the militant Zionist movement that became Likud in Poland in the 1930s.

Perle, Feith, and another AEI "scholar", David Wurmser, and his wife Meyrav, in 1996 co-authored a memorandum for Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu on breaking with the Oslo peace process and transforming the Middle East by working to oust Saddam Hussein, a paper which bears a remarkable resemblance to the ideas set forth in the Sept 20 PNAC letter.

David Wurmser is now a special adviser in the State Department planning for post-invasion Iraq, while Meyrav works with the Middle East Research Institute (MEMRI) that translates and distributes particularly virulent anti-US and anti-Israel articles appearing in the Arab press to key US media and policy- makers.

AEI has been a major nexus for these inter-familial relationships, having served as home to Michael Ledeen, a co- founder with Perle of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) whose wife Barbara is a major player in the rightwing Republican leadership on Capitol Hill; Jeane Kirkpatrick; and Joshua Muravchik, whose father, Emanuel, was also close to Podhoretz as he moved rightward through the 1970s.

Though she doesn't focus much on foreign-policy issues, Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, also hangs her hat at AEI, while the vice president's daughter Elizabeth is now serving as deputy secretary of state for near east affairs.

While the Cheneys, unlike the mostly Jewish neo-conservatives who began their political evolution on the left, have always been rock- ribbed, right wing, Rocky Mountain Republicans, it appears that they have joined the larger family or are at least tying their family fortunes together. -Dawn/InterPress News Service.

Alpha

A CABAL OF US OFFICIALS ARE COLLUDING WITH ISRAEL TO IGNITE A SERIES OF WARS...

Whose War?

A neoconservative (PNAC/JINSA) clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Robert Fisk: For centuries, we've been 'liberating' the Middle East. Why do we never learn?:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384799

Forwarded:

A CABAL OF US OFFICIALS ARE COLLUDING WITH ISRAEL TO IGNITE A SERIES OF WARS AND DESTROY OSLO ACCORDS..P.J. Buchanan

IN HIS ELOQUENT AND BRAVE ARTICLE BELOW FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE PATRICK BUCHANAN ASKS WHOSE WAR? ISRAEL'S OF COURSE THROUGH ZIONIST HIJACKING OF US FOREIGN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND BUSH' SUPPORT FOR SHARON'S TERROR TACTICS AGAINST PALESTINIAN POPULATIONS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES WHICH ARE EVEN MORE REPUGNANT THAN SADDAM'S TREATMENT OF HIS OWN PEOPLE.

THE RELENTLESS IRAQ WAR PROPAGANDA HAS DISTRACTED ATTENTION FROM SHARON'S ONGOING CRIMES AND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA (DENOUNCED BY ISRAELI MILITARY REFUSENIKS), AND THE CRIMINAL AGENDA OF SOME MEMBERS OF HIS OWN GOVERNMENT FOR ("TRANSFER") "ETHNIC CLEANSING" OF PALESTINIANS WHICH HAS BEEN DENOUNCED BY PRESTIGIOUS ISRAELI ACADEMICS AND JOURNALISTS!

THEREFORE THE US WAR ON IRAQ WILL IN REALITY BE ISRAEL'S WAR ACCORDING NOT ONLY TO ANY INTELLIGENT IMPARTIAL OBSERVER BUT ALSO ACCORDING TO STATEMENTS MADE RECENTLY BY A NUMBER OF HONOURABLE JEWS AND ISRAELIS!!

AJGY

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Copyright, The American Conservative. March 24, 2003

Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

by Patrick J. Buchanan

The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers ... that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’” Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.” (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: “Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. ... Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It’s just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left.”Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: “In London ... one finds Britain’s finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the ‘neoconservative’ (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy.”Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine “has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of ... Ariel Sharon and the ‘neoconservative war party.’”Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that “members of the Bush team have been doing Israel’s bidding and, by extension, exhibiting ‘dual loyalties.’” Kaplan thunders:The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be.What is going on here? Slate’s Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: “Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card.”What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.And this time the boys have cried “wolf” once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan’s own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus:And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. … These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation’s founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.“If Stanley Hoffman can say this,” asks Kaus, “why can’t Chris Matthews?” Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party.In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, “The Likudniks are really in charge now.” Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.)Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a “special closeness” to the Bushites, Kaiser writes, “For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies.” And a valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in Sharon’s interest, is it in America’s interest?This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, “Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.”We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America. …
(The entire article is available at bookstores.)
Copyright, The American Conservative. March 24, 2003

PNAC/JINSA Zionist Cabal (in Bush regime) on ABC's 'Nightline' Program on March 5th, 2003:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/03/11/pnac-jinsa-zionist-cabal-on-abc-s-nightline-prog.php

Midas Ears

By Israel Shamir

A new spectre haunts America. It enters the well-protected boardrooms of newspapers and banks, shakes the deep foundations of its towers. It is the spectre of glasnost: the dark secret of Jewish power is out. Just recently it was ‘third rail’, touch-and-die, deadly dangerous to mention, certain end to a career. Just recently, Joe Public snapped his TV from an eminence with an Israeli passport to a member of a Jewish think-tank, and muttered to himself: Surely it is just a coincidence that so many important and largely unelected people in our country happen to belong to this small minority group. Surely it is just a coincidence that they belong to different parties but reach the same conclusions. Surely it is just a coincidence that ninety per cent of American foreign aid goes to their cousins in prosperous Tel Aviv. Surely it is just a coincidence that they run our newspapers, television, cinema, universities. Anyway, we are not allowed to notice this elephant in our sitting room.

Only rare desperados comment, as Edgar Steele did on Rense.com: “The silence in America concerning Jews is simply deafening, isn't it? The old adage has it that, when visiting a foreign country, to ascertain who really runs things, one need determine only who is spoken about in whispers, if at all.” Judged by this measure, the Jews rule supreme. Indeed, when I referred to ‘Jewish media lords’ during a UNESCO conference in the summer of 2001, the audience’s hearts missed a beat.

The yet-unfought War on Iraq changed this. The American Ultimatum date was set on 17 March, the Jewish feast of Purim. Purim, 1991 saw destruction of Iraqi armies and death of 200,000 Iraqis. Too many coincidences for a purely American war. The Americans peeped into the bottomless abyss of World War Three and woke up from their generation-long stupor. Thus the first victim of the Iraqi War is not truth, but the strongest taboo in the West. A Democrat member of Congress, usually a most docile specimen, one James Moran, dared to tell his supporters: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this."

He was immediately slapped by a Jewish overseer: "It is simply stunning to hear Representative Moran make such accusations", said National Jewish Democratic Council Executive Director, Ira N. Forman. “First, a number of the current leaders of the anti-war movement are Jewish, and Jewish organizations have clearly not been at the forefront among those groups actively and stridently supporting a war in Iraq”. Forman had spoken, and the media reported and amplified his view, and Moran duly recanted, slapped. But he is not the only one.

The secret is out, and like the secret of King Midas and his long ears, it is being sung now from coast to coast, despite the frantic efforts of the organised Jewish community to clamp the lid back on the boiling cauldron. Kathleen and Bill Christison,[i] two ex-CIA experts, exposed the link between right-wing American Jews and the Bush Administration. Edward Said, the most celebrated American thinker of Palestinian origin, stated the cause: “An immensely wealthy and powerful republic has been hijacked by a small cabal of individuals, all of them unelected and therefore unresponsive to public pressure.”[ii]

He was seconded by courageous Herman, Neumann and Blankfort. These Americans of Jewish origin object to the un-elected, anti-democratic Jewish power as they would object to any disproportionate minority power. Their presence, as they were not afraid of the anti-Semitic label, was instrumental in turning the tide and saving the intimidated majority from its browbeating.

Edward Herman, the author of Manufacturing Consent (together with Noam Chomsky), wrote of “the powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States, which advances Israeli interests by pushing for U.S. aid and protection to Israel, and, currently, by pressing for a war against Iraq, which again will serve Israeli interests. This lobby has not only helped control media debate and made congress into `Israeli occupied territory’, it has seen to it that numerous officials with ‘dual loyalties’ occupy strategic decision-making positions in the Bush administration…”

Jeffrey Blankfort, the Californian who defeated ADL in court and made Foxman pay heaps of dollars for his espionage against activists, took an important next step and rejected the views upheld by Noam Chomsky, Joel Beinin and Stephen Zunes, for these older radicals play down the crucial importance of Jewish power. Jeff Blankfort noticed the roots of the Rupture Evangelicals’ meteoric rise in the US. This obscure sect would never have left its lair in remote Dixie, but for the Jewish media lords. Jeff noticed that when Black Entertainment Television was taken over by Viacom, whose owner, Sumner Redstone (né Murray Rothstein), was recently described in the New York Times as the world's biggest media owner, he eliminated BET's news program and began running evangelical Christian infomercials for Israel. Blankfort’s list of ‘Jews in media’[iii] enables an understanding of the secret of Jewish charm, and it can be compared with a similar extensive list by Prof. Kevin MacDonald of California State University.

The Iraqi War, and even more its linkage with Palestine, became the litmus test of Jewish power. Organised Jewry pushed for war and at the same time denied its involvement. Thus in New York City, the City Council rejected an anti-war resolution, and only 12 of its 51 members were for it. This is not strange for heavily Jewish New York. Indeed, a Democrat, Rep. Robert Jackson, said it in a most straightforward way: "New York City is the home away from home for most Jews; and many members of the Jewish community think [the war is] in the best interests of the state of Israel." According to Jackson, several of his council colleagues have been intimidated into silence by the pro-Israel crowd: “People are not talking about this."

Jackson was certainly right, but a Jewish newspaper[iv] (surprisingly or not, all newspapers in the New York area are Jewish) condemned him for … racism: “[He claimed that] not only do the Jews run New York City, but they've cowed their opponents into silence. Jackson could as well call New York Hymietown.”

This response is remarkable for its typically Jewish logic. First, the opponent’s rational argument is perverted and distorted, then it is aligned with opprobrium; and at the last stage, the opponent is destroyed forever. That is one of the secrets of Jewish might: the Jews enter a dialogue berserk-like, with great vehemence, quite foreign to the Socratic style. While sane people are satisfied with quoting their opponent and fighting his arguments, madmen (for berserk is a temporarily-mad individual) go for the jugular.

David Mamet, the Jewish American playwright, provides a good example of this vehemence as he notices a “Volvo of old, the vehicle of my brethren, the congenitally liberal. It was festooned, as are its kind, with every sort of correct exhortation: Save James Bay, Honour Diversity, and so on. A most interesting bumper sticker read: Israel Out of the Settlements … a slogan which could best be translated as Hook-nosed Jews Die”.

I wonder why Mamet stopped at this, for with equal adequacy the slogan can be translated as Torture Babies, Denounce America and Burn Apple Pie. Who cares for the form of the Jewish nose? Mel Brooks noticed long ago that Jewish girls have the cutest noses, made by the best plastic surgeons…

It is the racist Jewish policies in occupied Palestine that annoy good, ‘congenitally liberal’ people. But if Mamet were honest, he would not be Mamet
.

Now, Bill Keller of the NY Times read the Riot Act to the Americans. He kindly allows that ‘most of the big Jewish organizations and many donors are backing the war’ but insists that ‘the idea that Israel's interests are driving one of the most momentous shifts in America's foreign policy is simple-minded and offensive’. Well, Keller is certainly being paid for his convictions by a Jewish media lord, and one of the nastiest, Arthur Sulzberger Jr, the owner of the NY Times, the Boston Globe and a host of other publications. This undermines the possible veracity of Keller’s words. Let something similar be written in a thoroughly non-Jewish newspaper! But alas, there are no important media outlets in the US that are not owned or controlled by Jews …

Surely a coincidence? Do not bet on it. A few days ago, in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an important all-Jewish conference on anti-Semitism took place under the auspicious aegis of the Sasson Centre. The talk given by the French Jewish historian Simcha Epstein dealt with pre-war France but pertained more immediately to America. This is what Epstein said:

“The pre-war anti-Semites said that the Jews of France organized a syndicate secretly bankrolling and subverting the press. And what did the Jews say at that time? They said: ‘Of course not! No, it’s a lie, of course not! We are not engaged in conspiracies!’ And what did the historians and the Jewish historiography coming afterwards say? ‘Of course not! It is anti-Semitic drivel!’ But we know now from Jewish sources that before the WWII the Jews of France secretly financed the press.

“Since the end of 19th century, there was a secret Jewish organization, well financed, which bought and bankrolled newspapers. Sometimes it took over existing newspapers, which suddenly became pro-Dreifus because they received Jewish subsidies. New papers were created especially by the Jews. Two very important papers of the period, one was called Les Droits de l'Homme, the Rights of Man, was financed by the Jews, and L’Humanité, which was the Socialist and then the Communist newspaper of France, was also financed by Jews. I say this on the authority Jewish sources of course.

“And this brings us to a dramatic dilemma of historiography. Saying this, saying what I said, is something horrible and unacceptable, because it means that the Jews organized a conspiracy and secretly bought the media, or part of the media. That was precisely what the anti-Semites said at that time, and what they still say today. And we know now from Jewish sources that the allegations were true, that there was a Jewish clandestine activity of bankrolling the press.” End of quote.

Some people perceive every suggestion that Jews are able to act together as a mad conspiracy theory. Let them read and re-read this report by a Jewish historian made at a Jewish conference. If it is proven now beyond any reasonable doubt that the Jews of France secretly bought and subverted French media for many years in order to distort the national discourse and eventually push unprepared France into the horrible and unneeded World War Two, is it impossible to consider that the Jews of the US have secretly taken over their national media and are now pushing the US into a horrible and unneeded World War Three?

Actually there is no need for secrecy. One of the chief Zionist ideologists, Zeev Hefetz (ex-spokesman of PM Begin), wrote in an American daily: "Disarming Iraq is only a start in Middle East" as “the Arab and Iranian (sic!) cultures” are "irrational" and that nothing can be done, short of war, to "improve the collective mental health of Arab societies". [v]Certainly this massive ‘disarmament’ will be carried out by American soldiers, though the commands will be given by the Jewish chicken-hawks roosting in Pentagon. As for reasons for the war, they were eloquently stated by a keynote speaker at a conference on anti-Semitism by Yehuda Bauer, the director of the Holocaust Memorial Institute Yad va-Shem in Jerusalem:

The Jews are not a nation, neither a religion, he said. They are a civilisation, and they have their civilising mission. They cannot tolerate the competing civilisation of Islam, as they could not tolerate Christendom or Communism. That is why the war with Islam is unavoidable.

But the war is avoidable. Even today, at minutes before H-hour, the war is avoidable. And if fire is unavoidable, let the Jewish advisers of President Bush be fired. Let this Purim see the great Exodus of the "Wolfowitz Cabal" from the Pentagon. Excluding the clinical possibility of his actual zombification, G W Bush should be able to understand that he has been misled by this powerful, un-elected minority. They cannot deliver what they promised. Moreover, their own days at the helm of the Republic are numbered. They over-estimated their abilities, and pushed too hard. As the frog of La Fontaine, they can blow up. Bush still can do a U-turn, and save himself and his country.

In a way, today’s America reminds of Russia in 1986, at the beginning of glasnost. After the Soviet citizens were allowed to learn who rules them and how, the days of the Soviet regime were counted. Glasnost gave place to perestroika. Now, for the first time in a generation, Americans are allowed to see the men in power, the toxic combination of the Right-Wing Democrats of Lieberman, the Republican neo-liberals, the Neo-Cons and plain Con-men. The Iraqi War brought them forward and presented them in clear light. Now is the time to undo their hold.

It can’t be postponed for the divisive presidency of G W Bush is perceived as the period of ‘White’ Protestant Anglo-Saxon rule, despite the prevalence of his Jewish advisers. All available contenders for the next elections - Lieberman, Kelly and even Kuchinich – claim their Jewish connections and declare their undivided loyalty to Jewry and to the state of Israel. In the present political setup of America, there will be no real alternative to Jewish ascendancy. If Bush flops, it will be construed by the media as a WASP flop. If he succeeds, it will be seen as success of his Jewish advisers.

That is why American patriot forces should not wait for the next elections, or for the end of war. They must act now, by calling the war off. They have an enemy, but he is not in Iraq. What is called for is a new American revolution, on a par with the New Deal and abolition of slavery, with de-monopolisation of the discourse; that is of media and universities, for starters. In the beginning of the Twentieth Century, Americans undid the mighty Standard Oil. They created new anti-monopoly laws and terminated the threat to democracy. This achievement could be repeated now.

[i] Kathleen and Bill Christison, `A Rose By Another Name: The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties’, Counterpunch, Dec. 13, 2002).

[ii] http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/628/op2.htm

[iii] Here is enough sampling to indicate that it is not:

First of all, Sumner Redstone ( né Murray Rothstein) owns $8 billion dollars worth of Viacom, which gives him the controlling interest in CBS, Viacom, MTV worldwide (Brian Graden, president), and most recently he bought Black Entertainment Television and proceeded immediately to cut down its public-affairs programming. The president of CBS is Leslie Moonves, the great nephew of David Ben-Gurion.

Michael Eisner is the major owner of Disney-Capitol Cities, which owns ABC. David Westin is the president of ABC News. Although it has lost viewers, Nightline host Ted Koppel is a strong supporter of Israel. Lloyd Braun is chair of ABC Entertainment. And there is the perennial Barbara Walters.

Neil Shapiro is the president of NBC News. Jeffrey Zucker is the head of NBC Entertainment and Jack Myers has some important post there, as well.

Although Rupert Murdoch of Fox is not Jewish, Mel Karamazin, the president of the corporation is, as is Peter Chernin, the second in command at Murdoch's News Corps.

Sandy Grushow is chairman of Fox Entertainment, and Gail Berman is president. Murtdoch has received numerous awards from various Jewish charities.

Jamie Kellner is chair and CEO of Turner Broadcasting.

Walter Issacson is the News Director of CNN which also has Wolf Blitzer, host of Late Edition, Larry King of Larry King Live, Paula Zahn, and Andrea Koppel, Ted's daughter.

Jordan Levin is chairman of Warner Bros. Entertainment.

Howard Stringer is chair of Sony Corp. of America.

Robert Sillerman is the founder of Clear Channel Communications,

Ivan Seidenberg is chair of Verizon Communications

Terry Semel, former co-chair of Warners is CEO of Yahoo.

Barry Diller, former owner of Universal Entertainment, is the chair of USA Interactive.

Joel Klein is chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations, the largest publishing conglomerate in the world.

Mort Zuckerman, the Chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, owns US News and World Report and the NY Daily News.

Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. publishes the NY Times, the Boston Globe and a host of other publications.

Marty Peretz publishes the New Republic, which is unabashedly pro-Israel, as is

William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard.

Donald Graham, Jr. is the chair and CEO of Newsweek and the Washington Post.

Michael Ledeen, of Iran-Contra fame, edits National Review.

Ron Rosenthal is the Managing Editor of the SF Chronicle and Phil Bronstein is the Executive Editor.

David Schneiderman owns the Village Voice and a number of other "alternative" weeklies.

Columnist William Safire, Tom Freidman, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Cohen, Jeff Jacoby, are among the most widely syndicated columnists.

There are a number of widely syndicated talk show hosts such as Michael Savage (ABC) on more than 100 stations, Michael Medved, 124 stations, and Dennis Prager who has an Israeli flag on his website. Others include Ron Owens, Ben Wattenberg, and former ZOA official Jon Rothman, all in San Francisco on ABC.

In Hollywood, which was founded by Jews, there is of course, Stephen Spielberg, David Geffen, and Jeffrey Kranzberg of Dreamworks, Eisner of Disney, Amy Pascal, chair of Columbia, and many, many more.

For the intellectuals, we have NPR, with pundit Daniel Schorr and weekend hosts Scott Simon and Liane Hansen, Robert Segal, Susan Stanberg, Eric Weiner, Daniel Lev, Linda Gradstein (a well-known speaker at pro-Israel events) covering Jerusalem, Mike Schuster (whose soft-ball interview with Ariel Sharon after Sabra and Shatila should have brought him before the court of Hamarabi). Brook Gladstein.

And that's just for starters. From the boss to the delivery it's an impressive list. While they certainly can't be put in the same box when it comes to Israel, they more or less guarantee that there will be limits to any criticism they may make of Israel”.

[iv] NY Post 22.02.03

[v] November 12, 2002 The New Haven Register

Forwarded:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

Buchanan Charges Neocons (Zionist Extremists) With 'Warmongering'

Tue Mar 11 2003 11:53:48 ET

In this week's AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE (http://www.amconmag.com/), editor Pat Buchanan issues a controversial, 5000-word indictment of the (PNAC/JINSA) 'War Party' of Bennett, Kristol, Podhoretz and Richard Perle.

MORE

The magazine will hit newsstands and bookstores tomorrow. With quotes and citations, Buchanan alleges:

'War Party' ideas and plans for an attack on Iraq had been 'in preparation far in advance of 9/11, and when President Bush was looking for a new front,' the neocons 'put their precooked meal in front of him. And Bush dug into it.'

Richard Perle wrote a paper urging Israeli PM Netanyahu to dump the Oslo Peace Accords and target Iraq -- five years before 9/11.

Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith urged Israel to ditch the Oslo and take back the West Bank though 'the price in blood would be high,' three years before the Camp David talks.

Pentagon official David Wurmser urged the U.S. to act in concert with Israel to 'strike fatally...the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran and Gaza' -- nine months before 9/11.

Bennett, Kristol, Podhoretz 'seized on the horrific atrocity [of September 11] to steer America¹s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic Œrogue states that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.'

The neocon vision is 'to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel....[They] seek American empire and the Sharonites seem hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely.'

Buchanan charges Max Boot of the WSJ and Lawrence Kaplan of New Republic with 'playing the anti-Semitic card....to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.'

Developing....

Bush Sr. Warning (to Bush Jr.) Over Unilateral Action

Chirac Vows to Veto US/UK War Resolution:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=385926

Bush Sr. Warning Over Unilateral Action:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html

Stop Bush's Policies of Deceit and Greed to Justify War:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/03/11/stop-bush-s-politics-of-deceit-and-greed-to-justify-war.php

Congressman Moran Said Jews are Pushing War:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/03/11/congressman-moran-said-jews-are-pushing-war.php

For additional articles, access the 'Israel' and 'UK Involvement in War' message boards via the http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk, and click on 'War against Terror' after arriving...

Alpha

http://www.gooff.com/NM/templates/Breaking_News.asp?articleid=305&zoneid=2

Expatriate Richard Perle

By Kurt Nimmo
March 10, 2003

"Richard Perle is a traitor. There's no other way to put it."
Seymour Hersh is a rarity in America these days -- an investigative journalist.
"Hersh is not a nice man in the Washington sense," writes Eric Alterman of Salon, "he does not know how to make small talk, flatter his bosses, spin his defeats and conceal his fierce competitiveness. He is simply the best investigative reporter alive and expects his work to speak for itself."
Because Hersh does what he does so well, the chicken hawk Richard Perle called him a terrorist on CNN the other day.
That's right. Perle equated Hersh with Osama bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. "Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist," Perle told Wolf Blitzer.
Perle slandered Hersh because the award winning journalist wrote in the March 17th issue of the New Yorker: "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war."
I have not read the New Yorker article, so I can't comment on it. I don't know if Perle set up a company situated to profit from his boss' plan to mass murder possibly a half million Iraqis or not. But if Hersh said it, there must be something to it. Hersh is known for his meticulous research. He conducts interviews, double checks facts. Seymour Hersh does not make things up. Due to his professionalism Hersh has won more than a dozen major journalism prizes, including the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting and four George Polk Awards.
On the other hand, Perle and the neocons are liars.
One big lie is that Mohammed Atta met with Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, an official at Baghdad's embassy in Prague. US intelligence agencies went over records of Atta,s travels and concluded that during the period in question he was in Virginia Beach, not in Prague. Perle knew this was a fabrication. He attempted to pass it off on the American people as truth. There are many other lies, as well, but I will not bother you with enumeration.
That's how the neocons make their case before the American people -- through deceit, half-truth, fabrications, and outright lies. It should be considered treason. It should be a crime. Maybe one day Richard Perle will be prosecuted for his crimes. For now he is allowed to bend the ear of George W. Bush and prod the half-wit dictator into destroying America.
When Perle was working for Senator Scoop Jackson, he was investigated by the Justice Department and found to have violated US policies relating to unlawful transmission of sensitive classified US information to Israel.
"An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy," writes Paul Findley (They Dare To Speak Out, Chicago, Ill, Lawrence Hill Books 1989)."He came under fire in 1983 when newspapers reported he received substantial payments to represent the interests of an Israeli weapons company. Perle denied conflict of interest, insisting that, although he received payment for these services after he had assumed his position in the Defense Department, he was between government jobs when he worked for the Israeli firm."
In other words, Richard Perle is an Israeli spy.
Perle should be expatriated immediately -- or made to share a cell with Jonathan Pollard, the spy who spent 18 months collecting and selling classified American intelligence to Israel from his position in U.S. Naval Intelligence. So pleased were the Israelis with the information passed on to them, two of the four government officials who had dealt with Pollard were promoted (Col. Aviem Sella, Pollard,s primary contact, was given full control of a major Israeli Air Force base). So arrogant are the Israelis that Sharon asked Bush to pardon and release Pollard.
If these are our friends, who needs enemies?
Okay, I'm going to use a word that will upset some of you -- Zionist. These days if you use the word Zionist you're going to be immediately accused of anti-Semitism. I receive hate email for using this word on occasion. You'd think I'm making excuses for the Holocaust (which is another subject that can get you in hot water, especially in France where you can go to prison for questioning the official verson of historical events). I'm not slandering Jews, I'm simply reporting the facts. Here's an indisputable fact:
Richard Perle is a Zionist.
Now what exactly does this mean? It means Richard Perle -- and Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and others in the Bush administration -- are Israeli nationalists. "Wolfowitz and fellow Jewish neo-cons Richard Perle and Douglas Feith have emerged as the Pentagon's Paladins," writes Ann Pettifer, "their aim being to subdue the Islamic world through decisive, pre-emptive use of American military superiority."
"Only in Washington does one get a true sense of the obsession of these Pentagon civilians," writes Hugo Young, a Guardian columnist. "Conversationally, it is common talk that some of them, not including Rumsfeld, are as much Israeli as American nationalists. Behind nervous, confiding hands come sardonic whispers of an American outpost of Likud. Most striking of all, however, is how unmentionable this is in the liberal press."
Ain't that the truth.
But then the corporate press in America rarely criticizes the Zionists. Notice how Perle can jump from one TV news show to another and nobody mentions his spying for the Israelis or working for an Israeli arms manufacturer. Nobody mentions his "dual loyalties," which are common knowledge in Washington. Nobody calls him a traitor. Nobody in the corporate media dares -- that is if they want to keep their jobs.
Perle can insult the Germans and French at the same time and the corporate media looks the other way. In fact, he is allowed to denigrate the whole of Europe. "I think Europe has lost its moral compass. Many Europeans have become so obsessed by the prospect of violence they have failed to notice who we are dealing with," he told the Guardian.
Gee, Richard. Maybe the Germans remember the horror of American Flying Fortresses dumping gasoline bombs on Dresden in 1945, an act of barbarity that resulted in the murder of 100,000 people. Maybe the French recall the Nazi occupation. Maybe there's still thousands of Dutch, Italians, Poles, and other Europeans alive who remember none too fondly the systematic and engineered mass murder of the Second World War. No doubt, as well, there's plenty of Jews who remember the monstrosity of Hitler's concentration camps.
I bet if you asked them if Saddam Hussein is Hitler reborn they would laugh in your face.
Actually, Saddam is not a threat to a single person in the United States. Perle and the Zionist neocons know this, of course. They also know that Iraq is not a serious threat to Israel, especially after a decade of war and sanctions have reduced Iraq to one of the poorest countries in the world. "We don't lose sleep over Iraq's military threat to us," Lt Gen. Moshe Yaalon, Israel,s Chief of Staff, told the New York Times.
So why are the Zionists pushing for a US invasion of Iraq?
First, the Zionists believe that bad relations between the US and Arab nations is good for Israel. It's no mistake Iraq and Iran were specifically fingered as part of an "axis of evil," nations the Bushites have singled out for invasion and "democratization." Sharon told fellow Zionist and U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton last month he wants Syria and Libya attacked next. As if to make sure he received the correct marching orders, Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and Construction Minister Natan Sharansky.
The Israeli Zionists don't care if perpetual war destroys the American economy. It does not bother them if Americans will die in the thousands.
Second, the Zionists are itching to "transfer" -- i.e., to ethnically cleanse -- as many Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza as possible. Israel will do this while the US is busy slaughtering Iraqis. "Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories," Netanyahu told students at Bar-Ilan University in 1989. Americans may be clueless about the intentions of Zionists toward the Palestinians, but in Israel ethnic cleansing is a popular subject of discussion. Fifty percent or more of Israelis think ethnic cleansing is a good idea. This from a nation that supposedly remembers the Holocaust.
"The idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century," remarks Israeli historian Benny Morris. Moreover, the Palestinian "demographic threat" was something that "once left Golda Meir sleepless at night and now serves as the subject of obsession for Israeli conferences and nervous policy analysts," notes Will Youmans.
Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, and their fellow travelers from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Hudson Institute -- as well as defense contractors and conservative foundations bankrolled by far-right American Zionists -- are calling the shots on Bush's invasion of Iraq.
It has nothing to do with the security of the American people. It has everything to do with Israel and the Likudites.
The Zionists in the Bush administration are pulling a fast one on the American people. It's criminal behavior. It should not be tolerated. The Zionist plan to bomb and kill Arabs across the Middle East will result in dismal failure and pointless mass murder. It will destroy America. It will wreck our economy and kill our sons. Perle and his cronies are mountebanks, swindlers, hypocrites. They are war criminals.
Richard Perle is a traitor. There's no other way to put it.
If Richard Perle -- and Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, and all the other Zionists embedded in the Bush administration -- love Israel so much, they should pack their bags and go there.
If they won't go on their own, they should be forced to leave.
In the meantime, their treacherous crimes need to be exposed.
nimmo@zianet.com Kurt Nimmo's Another Day in the Empire
http://nimmo.blogspot.com/

Alpha

Moran's remarks on Jews stoke debate

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/printer1244.shtml

EI in the Press
Moran's remarks on Jews stoke debate
David R. Sands, Washington Times, 12 March 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. James P. Moran's remarks on the influence of American Jews on the Bush administration's hard line against Iraq have put a public face on a bitter and intensely personal debate among policy-makers and pundits over the motivations of those pushing a new war in the Middle East.

The Alexandria Democrat has apologized profusely for his March 3 comment that there would be no military strike against Saddam Hussein "if it were not for the strong support of the [American] Jewish community." But some argue that Mr. Moran did not go far enough with his apology.

Both the White House and senior Democratic leaders in Congress were swift to condemn Mr. Moran's comments. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called the remarks "shocking. They are wrong, and they should not have been said."

Charges of "dual loyalty" and countercharges of anti-Semitism have become common in the feud, with some war opponents even asserting that Mr. Bush's most hawkish advisers — many of them Jewish — are putting Israel's interests ahead of those of the United States in provoking a war with Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.

"A stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war," said Richard Stengel, a columnist with Time magazine's online edition. "It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neoconservative faction in the Bush administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish community."

MSNBC talk-show host Chris Matthews said war supporters in the Bush Pentagon were "in bed" with Israeli hawks eager to take out Saddam.

That line of argument has spurred a furious counterattack, with many saying that some of the criticism has crossed the line from legitimate policy debate to classic anti-Semitism.

"The Moran argument is outrageous on its face," said Mitchell G. Bard, executive director of Bethesda-based American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and a former editor for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

"President Bush has always said he is pursuing his policy to protect American lives, not to aid Israel," he said. "The idea that Israel or its American supporters can convince a president of the United States to go to war when he doesn't want to is ridiculous."

Sometimes the line between legitimate and illegitimate criticism is difficult to see, said Shoshana Bryen, special projects director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a small but influential Washington think tank. "Any policy is subject to legitimate criticism, and you can even debate whether America's interests and Israel's interests are the same or different in a given situation.

"Where you cross the line, as Moran did, is when you make a blanket statement ascribing a view or a motivation to an entire group of people. It is not legitimate when you impute hidden motives to someone or some group, when you don't address their arguments but attack them for who they are."

JINSA's advisory board in recent years has boasted such prominent Iraq hawks as Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Pentagon adviser Richard Perle.

Ms. Bryen said JINSA, which was founded in 1976, attracted such people as Mr. Perle and Mr. Wolfowitz because the organization dealt with issues they already cared about deeply. "It's not as if they were waiting for JINSA to come along and tell them how to think about the problems of the Middle East," she said.

The leading U.S. Jewish groups have not taken a formal stand on war with Iraq, and polls indicate that American Jews' views on the war mirror those of the U.S. population as a whole — with 59 percent of American Jews backing military action compared with 58 percent of the population.

Patrick J. Buchanan writes, in the American Conservative magazine, which he edits, that it is "a cabal of polemicists and public officials" who "seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests."

Mr. Buchanan raised the question before, in the run-up to the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

But both sides say the debate has substantially broadened this time, in part because of the strong influence of neoconservative hawks on the security policies of the Bush administration and in part because many leftist protesters in the anti-war movement have raised the same issue.

Critics such as Mr. Buchanan and many peace activists say that Israel and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will be the prime beneficiary of any move to oust Saddam. From Israel's perspective, they say, a successful war would cripple a regional rival and military threat, destabilize regimes such as Iran and Syria that are hostile to Israel, ease the pressure to make concessions in the conflict with the Palestinians, and leave Mr. Sharon as the sole remaining worthwhile U.S. ally in the region.

"For some of Israel's supporters both within the U.S. administration and the think tanks that feed it ideas, catastrophic developments ... and the instability, chaos and violence that would ensue, fit into a broader plan to completely remake an unruly Middle East with Israel as the dominant local power under overall American hegemony," wrote columnist Ali Abunimah for the Electronic Intifada, an Internet news service that covers Middle East events "from a Palestinian perspective."

Mr. Buchanan says his opposition is to war, not to Jews. "[Neoconservatives] say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not," he writes. "We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon."

The U.S. debate has presented a delicate dilemma for Israel, which has tried to keep a low profile even though an Iraq war is frequently referred to by many in the Sharon government who believe it would help solve many of Israel's economic and strategic problems.

Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States, said in a speech earlier this week that his country was "trying to be very low-profile here because Iraq is not our business. Iraq is not an Israeli problem. It's an international problem, it's a problem for the region, it's a problem for its own population. ... For anyone to suggest that the road to Baghdad runs through Jerusalem, nothing could be further from the truth."

Alpha · Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2003 12:04 am Post subject: JINSA, US Media's Blindspot

"Our media, our sheltering parents"
Date: Friday, March 14, 2003 @ 01:17:05 EST
Topic: Gabriel Ash
By Gabriel Ash
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) Suppose you were a journalist and there were elections. Suppose that the new government administration decided to wage a war of choice on another country for reasons that the whole world finds perplexing. Suppose that another journalist finds out the decision to start a war was not even reviewed according to standard procedures in the State Department, but was based on Pentagon recommendations alone. What would you do?

Would you perhaps make a list of the top Pentagon people? Would you perhaps look at their biographies, their public statements and affiliations, in order to figure out their world views and motivations?

Suppose you found out that the third-highest ranking officer in the Pentagon was one of a tightly knit group of people with strong connections to a political party in another country? This officer, for example, was a board member of an organization called JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Wouldn't you be intrigued? Wouldn't you want to know what obscure connection could possibly exist between Judaism and national security -- perhaps a lost biblical theory of nuclear deterrence?

And wouldn't you want to know who else is in JINSA, what JINSA does, where JINSA's budget comes from? Wouldn't your curiosity be piqued if you knew that JINSA was brimming with senior employees of top military contractors, or that the CEO of JINSA also managed a "charity" that funded Jewish settlements on Syrian territory? Wouldn't you want to know if the Pentagon people also supported blatant violations of Security Council resolutions?

Suppose you discovered that JINSA lobbies on behalf of Israel (not a secret -- it takes a few mouse clicks on JINSA's website to find out). Wouldn't you find it noteworthy that Israel is the only country in the world whose leaders actually want a war against Iraq? Wouldn't you want to know why?

What if you discovered that this officer -- his name, by the way, is Douglas Feith -- while in office, gave Israel advice designed to undermine U.S. influence abroad? Would you publish an article about all these troubling discoveries?

I bet you would.

But the New York Times wouldn't. Not, as you might think, because the Times is careful with people's reputations. The Times had no problem wrapping itself in the flag when it published half-baked lies about the Chinese-American nuclear physicist Wen Ho Lee. Of course, Lee was just a racially challenged immigrant. The Times has different standards for Washington insiders.

You'd think newspapers exist to keep the public informed. The Times, however, sees itself the guardian of our peace of mind. Like a protective parent, it shelters us from the disturbing world of adulthood -- questioning the loyalties of Washington insiders is just too traumatic for our tender minds.

It's hard being a parent in the age of the Internet. Information flows faster than ever. Others have dug up the stories the Times finds too unsettling. People communicate across the globe in the blink of an eye. The news about the Zionist connection in Washington keep circulating, with or without the Times' parental consent.

Finally, when the story is too big to ignore, the Times switches strategy.

On March 8, we were treated to one of those serious parental conversations about life an op-ed by Bill Keller. The subtext of his condescending article was to remind us that we shouldn't be talking to strangers because only information vetted by "mainstream discussion," i.e. by Keller's boss, is safe and healthy for us.

Keller's arguments are bunk. His power lies in magnifying and manipulating the insecurity of his readers by the threat of ridicule and rejection. His strategy is to label the diligent work of journalists such as Jason Westas as a "conspiracy theory."

In a trivial sense, every decision taken behind closed doors is a conspiracy. Every explanation that deduces such a decision from circumstantial evidence is a conspiracy theory. The theory that the leadership of the Third Reich conspired to exterminate Europe's Jews is a conspiracy theory, and so is the theory that eleven bearded men from Afghanistan took down the Twin Towers. I assume Keller believes both theories, and so do I.

The term "conspiracy theory" used to be reserved to describe a paranoid mode of explanation that does not allow falsification. In this paranoid mode, positive evidence proves the thesis, but so does contradictory evidence, which "shows" that evidence has been suppressed or planted. A conspiracy theory used to be a theory that postulates a secret and all-powerful conspiracy, while manipulating the rules of inference so as to always reach the same conclusion, whatever the evidence.

The White House's theory that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons even when all evidence suggests that it doesn't (not including the forged documents provided by the Pentagon) is a classic example of the conspiracy theorist's way of thinking. In Rumsfeld's words, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but evidence of effort to suppress evidence.

For Keller, however, "conspiracy theory" is merely an insult one hurls against those who question the motives of people in power. If you believe that there is a difference between rhetoric and reality, that understanding politics requires more than quoting official speech, if you believe people are often motivated by things other than noble ideals, or that politicians do say behind closed doors things they don't say publicly, Keller thinks you're a "conspiracy theorist."

Keller never bothers to quote a credible opponent. Instead of grappling with serious and deeply troubling issues, such as the unwholesome synergies between Zionism and the U.S. military industry, Keller ridicules "the notion that we are about to send a quarter of a million American soldiers to war for the sake of Israel." To phrase it that way is simplistic and wrong. The Times, however, has so far not allowed its readers to be exposed to a cogent analysis of the role of Zionists in Washington.

Keller's major "argument" is a non sequitur. Keller dismisses the relevance of the strategic document in which Perle, Feith and Wurmser, three Pentagon insiders, advised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 to seek the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. The document, called "Clean Break," is supposedly irrelevant because the authors "did not call for an American conquest of Saddam," but suggested Israel act on its own. Ignore for a moment the Bushist dislexicality that took over Keller's pen -- the "conquest of Saddam" sounds like the title of an XXX-rated film I'd rather not see. Keller wants us to believe that the advice Perle, Feith and Wurmser gave Israel in 1996, to seek the overthrow of the government of Iraq, has nothing to do with the current drive towards war, which just happens to have exactly the same goal. But then Keller admits that the authors could not expect the U.S. to attack Iraq in 1996 only because Clinton was in office and they were not. Keller obviously believes most of his readers are too dumb to notice that he has nothing to say.

The Clean Break document does show that three Zionist neo-cons with strong ties to Israel's right-wing saw the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as a strategic goal for Israel in 1996. The document also reveals how strongly the authors identify with Israel, sharing fanatic beliefs about Israel's "right to the land," the legitimacy of building settlements in the Occupied Territories, etc. The three are now implementing the same "regime change" strategy as American policy. This doesn't prove that Israel controls U.S. policy. But it does suggest that Zionism plays an important role, arguably too important, in shaping American policy.

Keller points out that Clean Break calls for a more independent Israel that would "re-arrange" the Middle East to suit itself. Indeed, according to a March 20, 2002 article in Haaretz, only last year Douglas Feith visited Israel and privately advised the Sharon government to phase out U.S. military aid in order to be less dependent on Washington. The Pentagon Zionists are so zealous in their support for an ultra-militant Israel that they consider U.S. influence too moderating. Their beliefs put them not only to the right of Colin Powell, but also to the right of Ariel Sharon; they are at home among the most fanatic settlers. It is often said that the goal of the pro-war neo-cons is an American empire that imposes its will on the whole world. At least for Feith, there is one exception. Feith clearly prefers to see U.S. ability to influence Israel weakened rather than strengthened!

The rest of Keller's op-ed piece is no better. He practically admits that Israel want war in Iraq so that they are better able to "dig in their heels" and refuse to compromise with Palestinians. But he still sees no evil and hopes George Bush will force Israel to dismantle settlements. Namely, Keller expects the same president who got his 60 seconds of geopolitical education from a cabal of extreme right-wing Zionists to get really tough with the Golden Calf his top advisers worship. Let's get real. If Keller truly wants peace for Israel, I suggest that he join me in calling for impeaching Emperor Bush and prosecuting all his senior advisers for attempted crimes against humanity.

For all its pretentious claptrap, Keller's article is a small victory for those working to inform Americans about the Zionist connection to the war on Iraq. The op-ed column is a measure of our success in disseminating the information the Times wants suppressed.

In a couple of months, when the role of the Zionists in the war will become widely known, the Times will publish an editorial sheepishly bemoaning the way some Pentagon officials have let their personal views influence U.S. policy. If Keller is lucky, his article might even be proof that the Times broke the news in time, but nobody listened. This is how the public record is written.

Gandhi said "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." We've just been promoted.

[Gabriel Ash was born in Romania and grew up in Israel. He is an unabashed "opssimist." He writes his columns because the pen is sometimes mightier than the sword - and sometimes not. Gabriel is the Middle East Editor of YellowTimes.org's News From the Front, located at the following URL: http://www.YellowTimes.org/nftf.html. He lives in the United States.]

Gabriel Ash encourages your comments: gash@YellowTimes.org

YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.

This article comes from YellowTimes.org
http://www.yellowtimes.org

The URL for this article is:
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1155

Alpha

Robert Kagan is a PNAC Zionist Jew who for the invasion of Iraq:

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=387187

Robert Kagan: Paradox and power: the philosopher of a world in turmoil

By Paul Vallely

15 March 2003Come the hour, come the book. So wrote the former US ambassador to London, Raymond Seitz, in a review of the slim volume that has become the most talked-about thesis of the past year. For Of Paradise and Power, by Robert Kagan, offers a prescient insight into why such a chasm of mutual incomprehension has opened up between Europe and America over the issue of war on Iraq.

In recent days it has been almost impossible to pick up any of the endless think-pieces written on the looming conflict without seeing in it a reference to Kagan's theory. It has only been published a couple of weeks and already it looks set to take its place alongside Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations as a landmark text for our times. Henry Kissinger has described it as "a seminal treatise" and the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, has distributed a copy to every European ambassador – with orders to read it as a primer to the thinking of the Bush administration. It is already a bestseller.

Kagan's message is that what faces us is not a George Bush problem, but something far more deep-seated. Here are the opening sentences of the essay from which his book was developed. It appeared last year in the influential US quarterly, Policy Review: "It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power – the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power – American and European perspectives are diverging.

"Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post- historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant's 'Perpetual Peace'.

"The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might."

All this grows from a simple contrast: militarily the US is strong and Europe is weak. Once the European nations were great military powers, but the terrible wars of the 20th century bred a determination on the continent that war should be no more. It was one of the founding impulses for the European Union.

But the weak and the strong see the world through different eyes. The weak want a world where strength doesn't matter, where international law and international institutions predominate, where unilateral action by powerful nations is forbidden, where all nations have equal rights and are equally protected by commonly agreed rules of behaviour. They place emphasis on negotiation, diplomacy and commercial ties.

By contrast, America has the characteristics of the strong. It has the power to force quick solutions so it prefers coercion to persuasion, punitive sanctions over inducements, the stick over the carrot. Americans tend to seek finality in international affairs: they want problems solved, threats eliminated. They are less inclined to work through institutions such as the United Nations or international courts, which they fear are traps set by the weak to constrain them.

Americans also resent that it is the external security which they provided for the free world during the Cold War that enabled Europe to proceed with its internal programme of building a peaceful "paradise" – and the huge cuts in defence spending that allowed.

Kagan has a vivid way of putting things. On major strategic and international questions, he says: "Americans are from Mars and Europeans from Venus" – leaving the British, one assumes, stuck in an interplanetary void somewhere in between. On "the psychology of weakness," he suggests that a man armed only with a knife may decide that a bear prowling the forest is a tolerable danger since "hunting the bear armed only with a knife is actually riskier than lying low and hoping the bear never attacks," whereas a man with a rifle will likely make a different calculation of what constitutes a tolerable risk.

On those critics who damn George Bush as a cowboy, he concedes that the US does act as an international sheriff – "self-appointed but welcomed nevertheless" – but says that Europe, by the same Wild West analogy, is the saloon keeper: "Outlaws shoot sheriffs, not saloon keepers. In fact, from the saloon keeper's point of view, the sheriff trying to impose order by force can sometimes be more threatening than the outlaws."

All of which explains why, since the end of the Cold War, the US made interventions pretty much wherever it chose – Panama, the Gulf War, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, several of them under Bill Clinton. This tendency has only been reinforced by 11 September. "America did not change on 9/11," says Kagan. "It only became more itself." And more open in embracing Bismarck's "Might goes before Right" maxim.

Obviously, a good deal of truth resides in Kagan's central observation. Americans continue to play by the old rules while the Europeans have taught themselves new ones, arguing bitterly over agricultural subsidies rather than invading one another. But Kagan's demand that the rest of us must "readjust to the reality of American hegemony" has a new brutalism about it.

You get some inkling of why when you consider his career. After college in Yale, and then a master's in public policy and international relations from Harvard, Robert Kagan went straight into Republican politics. After a start in journalism, as assistant editor at the right-wing journal Public Interest, he became foreign policy advisor to the conservative Republican Congressman, Jack Kemp. Next he joined the State Department's policy planning staff and became principal speechwriter to Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State, George Schultz.

In 1997 he teamed up with the doyen of neo-conservatism, William Kristol, and joined the Carnegie Endowment think-tank to direct the US Leadership Project, which aims to shape America's role as the world's lone superpower. It was a hard-right circle, which the US liberal Gore Vidal has characterised as "living in a world that never really existed outside the movies or American political rhetoric".

Tracking the emergence of Kagan's political opinions throws some light on the crucible in which his current thesis was forged. Among the opinions his writings reveal are that, in Nicaragua, the Contras were the good guys after all, that Arafat is a terrorist and that China needs to be contained not mollified. On the morning after 11 September, he declared in The Washington Post: "We are at war now." Indeed, he has endorsed the US defence doctrine that America must remain prepared to fight two wars at once, and has listed as possible targets: Iran, North Korea, China and terrorists in central Asia and the Philippines.

On Iraq, he states: "Whether or not we remove Saddam Hussein from power will shape the contours of the emerging world order, perhaps for decades to come. Either it will be a world order conducive to our liberal democratic principles and our safety, or it will be one where brutal, well-armed tyrants are allowed to hold democracy and international security hostage."

Kagan admits: "I've been arguing for removing Saddam from power for seven years now." And elsewhere adds: "It is a tough and dangerous decision to send American soldiers to fight and possibly die in Iraq. But it is more horrible to watch men and women leap to their deaths from flaming skyscrapers."

There is a clue in all this. For all the sophistication of his breadth of analysis, something crude underlies his thinking. It is evident in the way he uses Hobbes and Kant to polarise the world. Hobbes, it is true, thought that the state of nature was a state of war in which everyone has a natural right to whatever he can get and keep. But he tried to hold rationalism and fear in balance; he insisted it was reason not might which defined morality and spoke of the necessity of "modesty, equity, trust, humanity, mercy", and suggested that it was by consent that individuals gave up these "natural rights" to a sovereign who maintains order by force. Likewise, Kagan oversimplifies Kant, who certainly advocated a federation of free states bound by a covenant forbidding war, but also recognised the possibility that this could produce the most horrible despotism.

Kagan's thinking omits those things that do not fit his thesis. There is the sense of "manifest destiny", which another important book, Chosen People, by Clifford Longley, traces to a certain kind of American messianic born-again Christianity, which brings a Manichean quality to the political debate. There is the objection of the East European scholar Timothy Garton Ash, who has asked Kagan: "Do Europeans dislike war because they do not have enough guns, or do they not have enough guns because they dislike war?" There is the question as to why the Europeans, in particular the British, were more eager than the US to deploy ground troops in Kosovo? There are questions about other kinds of power than the military – economic and cultural.

At the end of his book Kagan tries for an emollient conclusion. American power need not just be the handmaiden of naked US national interests. Instead, it can be "a means of advancing the principles of a liberal civilisation and a liberal world order".

It is a line of argument that may convince Americans. But then he adds: "American power, even deployed under a double standard, may be the best means of advancing human progress". When those of us in Europe, not to mention the rest of the world, hear things like that, a shiver down the spine is, understandably, the immediate response.

Life story

Born

28 September 1958 in Athens, Greece

Family

Married to Victoria Nuland. Two children, Elena, 7, and David, 5. Lives in Brussels

Education

Yale and Harvard

Career

Foreign policy advisor to Congressman Jack Kemp, 1983; Policy Planning Staff at US State Department and principal speechwriter to Secretary of State George P Schultz, 1984-88; senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace since 1997, where he directs the US Leadership Project

Writings

A Twilight Struggle: American Power and Nicaragua, 1977-1990 (1996); edited, with William Kristol, Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy (2000); Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (2003); columnist for The Washington Post

He says

"American hegemony is the only reliable defence against a breakdown of peace and international order."

They say

"One of those seminal treatises ... which will shape discussion of European-American relations for years to come."
Henry Kissinger

"[He's] in the grip of a most unseemly megalomania... and speaks for no one except energetic political hustlers within the Washington Beltway."
Gore Vidal

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 - page 6