| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:54 pm Post subject: How Zionist Neoconservative Perle hijacked foreign policy |
| From: "Couples Company"
Subject: How Perle hijacked foreign policy
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 13:44:51 -0700
The State Department's extreme makeover
A veteran Foreign Service officer warns that when Colin Powell departs in a second Bush term, America will lose its last bulwark against the radical ideologues who are planning more Iraqs.
Editor's note: "Anonymous" is a veteran Foreign Service officer currently serving as a State Department official. The views expressed are personal and not related to his official position.
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/salon39.html
By Anonymous
Oct. 4, 2004 | Secretary of State Colin Powell is not staying for a second Bush term. When he goes, the last bulwark against complete neoconservative control of U.S. foreign policy goes with him. The implications are enormous, yet the American electorate appears to be blinded by the Bush campaign's deliberate manipulations of 9/11.
Powell has served both as the reasoned voice of career diplomats and the experienced voice of career U.S. military in the Bush administration. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ignored military advice and excluded Department of State career professionals from Iraq planning. Power was concentrated in the hands of a clique of neocon ideologues he placed in key policy positions, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. In the first term of George W. Bush, protégés of now disgraced former Defense Policy Board member and neocon godfather Richard Perle achieved control or subordination of every executive branch foreign-policymaking body -- except the Department of State.
Career employees of the department enthusiastically greeted Colin Powell when he pulled up to the curb for the first time at Foggy Bottom in his PT Cruiser. They have supported him, and through him, have unfailingly supported the president through thick and thin over four years -- up to and including volunteering in record numbers to staff fully the highly dangerous positions in the new embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. Even after being dumped on by the Pentagon neocons and witnessing the debacle of the Pentagon's Jay Garner's post-conflict solution, the State Department's Civil and Foreign Service staff took up the slack when the Pentagon unceremoniously fled responsibility for Iraq reconstruction and stabilization. Now, Powell's departure is seen within the department as an invitation to a lynching.
The realization that the same neocons who dismissed State's accurate "Future of Iraq Project," prepared before the war, may now take over at State in the second term is widely viewed inside the department as a threat to the very integrity of the country's diplomatic first line of defense. Corridor discussion has turned desperate -- maybe former Secretary of State James Baker will intervene, maybe former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft will talk to someone, maybe 41 will talk to 43.
State personnel are used to comings and goings of Democratic and Republican administrations, serving all equally and fairly. Not since Vietnam, however, has the U.S. diplomatic establishment viewed the future with such a degree of alarm. Retired U.S. ambassadors and diplomats have raised their own public concerns in signed public statements about the direction of U.S. foreign policy -- but that concern pales compared with the quiet revolt brewing against a neocon takeover at Foggy Bottom.
After 9/11, Wolfowitz, Feith and his subordinate, Harold Rhode, recruited David Wurmser as a contractor from the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute to set up what became known internally as the "Wurmser-Maloof" project. F. Michael Maloof, neocon fellow traveler and former aide to Richard Perle, and Wurmser created a hidden intelligence unit, the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group, under Feith at the Pentagon. The purpose of the group was to end-run the CIA and create the rationale for invading Iraq. The parallel operations model was previously followed by Oliver North at the National Security Council and Elliott Abrams at State in their ill-fated Iran-Contra strategy. It should have come as no surprise that another neocon think-tank insider, Abram Shulsky, an Abrams colleague from their days as staffers to Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, would end up heading up what became the Office of Special Plans, the secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon under Feith. The weapons of mass destruction disinformation that was fed to the president and to the American public came directly from Shulsky's shop.
After setting up this operation at the Pentagon for Wolfowitz and Feith, Wurmser, with the help of Perle, was sent in early 2002 to burrow in at State as senior advisor to John Bolton, under secretary for arms control and international security.
In December 2002, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser and Vice President Cheney's national security advisor, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, acting together, maneuvered Condoleezza Rice into appointing Elliott Abrams to the position of special assistant to the president and senior director for the Middle East at the National Security Council. This appointment gave the neocons everything they wanted -- the NSC, Executive Office of the President, Office of the Vice President, the Pentagon, a cornered director in George Tenet at CIA, and Wurmser at State.
The neocons had control of the information reaching the president and a channel for their pseudo-intelligence product from Wolfowitz and Feith's secret Pentagon Office of Special Plans. The only wild card was Colin Powell and State's elite and independent Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR).
Neither Powell nor his deputy, Richard Armitage, who is also leaving with Powell, seems to have been fooled by Wurmser's desire to leave the Pentagon and join John Bolton's staff -- in effect, to come work for Powell. They cornered and then neutralized Wurmser. Wurmser's target was to get at the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, a thorn in the neocons' side and Powell's intelligence ace-in-the-hole against Tenet's "slam-dunk" sellout at the CIA.
INR kept telling Powell the truth about Saddam's nonexistent WMD. State's Future of Iraq project, led by a career Foreign Service officer, who was cold-shouldered by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, laid out what might happen if we took over control of Iraq. Unfortunately, even the sober minds of INR could not stop Powell from lending his credibility to the "unfortunate error" show at the U.N. Security Council. Modeled on Adlai Stevenson's Oct. 25, 1962, Cuban missile presentation to the Security Council, Powell's Feb. 5, 2003, presentation marks the low point of his tenure and, in retrospect, underscores how badly his credibility was needed and then was abused by Vice President Cheney and the president.
The whole time Wurmser was at State, career professionals around him saw someone acting more like an agent of influence than as a subordinate of the secretary of state. He was in constant contact with his Pentagon intelligence cell. Questions were asked -- but never answered -- as to how Wurmser got a full security clearance when he never registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for his 1996 policy work for Israel's incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (including advice on how to lobby the U.S. Congress) and as someone who was married to an Israeli citizen with close ties to Israel's Likud Party -- in theory, a party to U.S.-brokered Middle East peace negotiations.
In September 2003, Wurmser left the Department of State to become Vice President Cheney's principal deputy for national security affairs under "Scooter" Libby. He left before any questions were answered about his access to and use of classified information. His clearances were never questioned when he joined the vice president's staff, and his status under the Foreign Agents Registration Act has never been clarified.
Powell's early 2005 departure is the subject of intense jockeying among the neocons. A Perle neocon protégé, Michael Rubin, has been given the task of destroying the only competition -- L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority chief, not a neocon insider and the favorite of traditional Republican conservatives. The neocon plan is to make Bremer the scapegoat: It was not bad neocon policy, it was bad Bremer decisions that has led to the fiasco in Iraq. Rubin was sent to Baghdad to be Wolfowitz's man inside the CPA. Bremer dissed Rubin as a lightweight. Rubin tried to push neocon policy inside the CPA -- what he, Perle and Ahmed Chalabi had pushed from the American Enterprise Institute -- restoring the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq by placing Jordan's Crown Prince Hassan on the throne. Bremer would have none of it. Rubin is now tasked by Perle and Wolfowitz to trash Bremer -- which he is dutifully doing in print and media appearances arranged by neocon handler, lecture agent and media booker Eleana Benador. They intend to close the Foggy Bottom door to any aspirations Bremer, a former Foreign Service officer and Kissinger protégé, might have to take over from Powell.
Given the implosion of Iraq, Wolfowitz and his coterie have doubts that Wolfowitz can be confirmed as secretary (of either DOD or State) without a debilitating confirmation process, though State remains choice No. 1. A more complicated plan is to again play behind Condoleezza Rice. With Rice as secretary of state and Wolfowitz in as national security advisor, neocons would put David Wurmser or John Bolton in as Rice's deputy, replacing Armitage.
Wurmser, Perle and Feith were the principal authors of the 1996 100-day policy plan for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. None ever registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for this work.
That plan, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," published by Israel's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, has served as the guiding road map for the neocons both in Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office and in the Bush administration. No one should have been surprised by Iraq -- the neocons have not been coy in laying out their vision of Israel's security requirements. David Wurmser published a book-length version of his IASPS study at AEI. The introduction to that screed, "Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein," was written by Richard Perle. It lists as sources Ahmed Chalabi, Michael Ledeen, Douglas Feith and Harold Rhode.
Control at State would remove the last obstacle to the plan Perle, Wurmser and Feith laid long before 9/11. The neocons telegraphed their intentions clearly in President Bush's GOP convention acceptance speech in New York, in which the neocon hand was palpable in the ambitious agenda to remake the Middle East.
The president used political buzzwords to whip the crowd -- and the voting public -- into a noncomprehending patriotic frenzy of "four more years." Like Pope Urban at the 1095 Council of Clermont, who launched the First Crusade to cries of "God Wills It" from the frenzied Christians wanting to take back the Holy Land, Bush has decreed a crusade to bring enlightened Western democracy to the Muslim populations of the Middle East, left otherwise bereft in dysfunctional colonial-inspired states by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.
But Bush the Crusader is off to a rocky start in Iraq. The ongoing meltdown is awakening Americans to the reality of the neocon agenda. But is it too late? Neocons are not dissuaded by the problems in Iraq; on the contrary, they are arguing that the problem is "Bremerism" -- the U.S. has not gone far enough. In their view, we need to take out the Palestinians, Syria and Iran now.
The neocons, working in tandem with a similar staff in the office of Prime Minister Sharon of Israel, have a three-part agenda for the first part of Bush's second term: first, oust Yasser Arafat; second, overthrow the secular Baathist al-Assad dictatorship in Syria; and, third, eliminate, one way or another, Iran's nuclear facilities.
Nowhere has support for the neocon Middle East crusade resonated more than in the constituency of Rep. Tom DeLay, who is the top Christian Zionist handler in the Republican Party and poised to strike GOP gold with his gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts.
For the neocons, Sept. 11 and Israel's security policy under Sharon have morphed into a single concept, the kind of thinking typified by Secretary Rumsfeld's recent lapses mixing Saddam Hussein with 9/11 and Osama bin Laden with Iraq.
Working with direct input from Israeli intelligence, Feith's Pentagon office coordinated with Libby and Wurmser in the vice president's office to spread the story that the missing WMD are to be found hidden in Syria. Israeli agents have worked overtime to neutralize and undo Syrian cooperation with the CIA against al-Qaida. This comes on the heels of a similar highly successful destruction of CIA inroads with the Palestinian Authority. We are now light-years beyond the two-state solution focus of Middle East policy. Instead of chasing Laden, the neocons plan to put the U.S. on the road to Damascus -- and Tehran. The groundwork is laid.
While the FBI scrutinizes whether Pentagon neocon aide Larry Franklin and AIPAC passed secrets to Israel, the larger story of Richard Perle and the neocons' carefully orchestrated takeover of Bush foreign policy has yet to be fully comprehended by the electorate.
Powell is leaving. We need to repeat that. When this reality sinks in, we will finally understand what we are getting ourselves into in a second Bush term. A handful of conservative columnists, Republican senators and a few other GOP luminaries are trying to reclaim a traditional conservative Republican foreign policy approach. But it is clearly too late.
Comparing Bush's foreign policy views in 2000 with his New York convention acceptance speech, it is clear that since 2000, the neocons started with a blank foreign policy slate. Looking carefully at Bush's 2000 campaign and statements and comparing them with the current 2004 campaign, it is startling how far he has come from his traditional Republican base. He has become the "Neoconian Candidate."
George W. Bush has signed on to the neocon agenda with the unshakeable faith of the born again. At this point, we all need a reminder that Crusades 1 through 5 ended badly in the long run, not just for the Crusaders, but on the home front. In a new Bush crusade, in a second term, the first to fall may be the professionals at the State Department. | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 10:14 am Post subject: The Secret Relationship Between Israel and Oil |
| The Secret Relationship Between Israel and Oil: What the US Media Hides
By Wendy Campbell Al-Jazeerah, October 6, 2004
I have found that there is nothing more inspiring than taking a trip, especially to a foreign country where I leave behind my daily routine, including e-mails and the internet, to get to think outside the box and to get a chance to write down my thoughts. The moment of inspiration for me to start writing this article on my latest trip (to Baja Mexico) came moments after I stepped into the Alaska Airlines jet and picked up the complimentary issue of The Wall Street Journal. Generally I avoid mainstream media these days since I know it is mostly pro-Israel propaganda as well as blown-up sensationalist stories, such as the case of Scott Peterson, which are meant to distract people from the more important issues of our time, such as the US foreign policy, for example. The article in the Wall Street Journal, dated September 21, 2004, that rankled me into finally writing this article, which has been brewing in my mind for some time, was one by Jeffrey Ball entitled “As Prices Soar, Doomsayers Provoke Debate on Oil’s Future”. The sub-title was: “ In a 1970’s echo, Dr. Campbell (no relation to me!) Warns Supply Is Drying Up, but Industry Isn’t Worried”.
Now let me explain to you that I have already come to the conclusion a while ago that this controversy about the “shortage of oil” is being pushed forward by mostly pro-Israel forces for their own narrow agenda that has nothing to do with the vast majority of the American people’s interests. Even in this article, it is explained that: “Dr. Campbell is at the center of a small but suddenly influential band of contrarians known as the “peak oil movement”.
Their general thesis is that the world is running out of oil and quickly. They have been saying this for years, yet most experts believe that there is no need for panic, noting that new sources are constantly being discovered. Some experts even claim that oil supplies are self-renewing.
US MEDIA DETERMINES WHO WILL BE INFLUENTIAL
Is it a coincidence that Dr. Campbell is “suddenly influential”? No, it is not. Even the Wall Street Journal is playing into the game of making Dr. Campbell “suddenly influential” with this article. Why is the US media pushing Dr. Campbell, a man who lives in a tiny Irish village, into the limelight? Because the media, which is run by pro-Israel forces, want people like Dr. Campbell to be in the limelight is why. And you may ask, why is that? Well, because Dr. Campbell’s views help support the pro-Israel agenda of that other “suddenly influential band of contrarians”, known as the NeoConservatives. The NeoConservatives are mostly Zionist Jews, headed by Paul Wolfowitz, who qualify as Israeli-Americans, and who are now openly directing US foreign policy almost completely.
Christian Zionists such as Bush and Cheney have jumped on their bandwagon. Of course, it looks even more convincing when a non-Jew such as Dr. Campbell, puts forward claims that will lend support to the pro-Israel agenda. People whose voices the US media wants you to hear will be heard. Conversely, people whose voices and actions the US media want to hide, will go into the memory hole. It’s only an illusion that we have a free and democratic press here in the US. Personally, I think it’s about time to press for the right to vote for affirmative action laws with regards to specifically the US mass media and our US foreign policy department, both of which have a hugely disproportional percentage of Israeli-Americans in them. The over-representation of Israeli-Americans in US newsrooms tends to undermine journalistic integrity.
When the news media consistently manipulates public sensibilities with a bias favoring a foreign country such as Israel, American democratic values and institutions are compromised, as well as Americans’ ability to objectively and independently access the situation. America needs more non-Zionists (ie. people ineligible for Israeli citizenship) in high news and government positions to safeguard our own national interests against foreign interests. Whoever shapes public opinion has an unfair advantage politically. It serves as the government’s propaganda mouthpiece, but only when the government does as the media wants. Conversely, it has to power to bring politicians down who are not pro-Israel enough, often simply by ignoring them or by pulling out something unsavory from his or her dossier to suddenly put into the limelight. It’s works kind of like blackmail, actually.
The news establishment is termed by some to be “The Fourth Estate”, meaning the fourth branch of American government, after the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. This mighty, and in many ways, secretive, consolidated collection of media networks manages the American mind, shaping public opinion. American public opinion is the world’s second most powerful super-power, but it’s too bad that it is managed by the narrow interests of the elite controllers of the “free” and “democratic” media. Thank God for the internet, although “they” are franticly trying to control this last bastion of liberty as well.
LET’S DEBUNK SOME COMMON MYTHS ABOUT ISRAEL, OIL and U.S. SECURITY / INTERESTS
First of all, I’m sure many of you are aware of the notion put out there by political pundits (who are most likely pro-Israel) that the US somehow needs Israel in the Middle East to be its stationary “aircraft carrier” to act as the “tough cop” looking out for American interests in that region, specifically with regards to oil. Let me ask you these few revealing questions. When has Israel EVER sent any troops in to lend us a hand in ANY war the US has waged in the Middle East? Pretty amazing, especially when you consider that any wars the US has waged on the Middle East has been at the prodding of Israel and Israeli-Americans, particularly the NeoConservatives.
Have you ever noticed that bottled water is actually cheaper than gas?
Have you noticed or read the reports that the price of gas has not risen in keeping with inflation?
Adjusted for inflation, gasoline today would have to sell for around $3.50 a gallon to the match prices Americans paid in 1981. And this does not factor in the additional savings in consumption we enjoy since today’s cars get nearly twice the gas mileage of cars produced only 25 years ago.
Do you realize that the Arab world needs to sell its oil even more than we need to buy it from them? Did you know the US gets oil from many other countries including Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, etc. besides a few Middle Eastern countries? Actually, both Russia and Canada supply the US with quantities of oil comparable to Saudi Arabia. And what about the fact that there are more and more discoveries of new oil resources throughout the world? And that many geologists say that oil is actually a renewable resource? Even this Wall Street Journal article that sparked my writing this article gave many examples of how geologists scoff at Dr. Campbell’s prediction of an “oil crisis” looming ahead.
Even in Michael Moore’s Arab-bashing, misleading, “daring” documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11”, he made it clear that the Saudis are heavily invested in some sectors of American business, and that the Saudis are and always have been very cooperative with the US government, with the exception of the “oil crisis” of 1973, which I will discuss later in this article. It is well-known that the despotic Saudi government caters to the US government, so much in fact that the Saudi government is not popular with a vast majority of its own people, who see their government as selling out to the American government, which supports Israel’s brutal persecution of the Palestinian people.
In fact, the Saudi government risks being overthrown by its own people because of their government’s relationship with the US. Osama bin Laden was thrown out of his country Saudi Arabia, his assets frozen in banks there, and he was ex-communicated from his family, because he advocates the overthrowing of the Saudi government for cooperating with the imperialistic, materialistic, Zionist-dominated US government, which has thousands of American troops stationed on Saudi soil, a key sticking point with bin Laden.
By the way, did you notice how Michael Moore didn’t even mention the word “Israel”? Or “Zionism”? Or even “NeoConservatism” in his documentary?
Not surprising.
His agent is top Hollywood Jewish Zionist Ari Emmanuel whose brother is Rahm Emmanuel, who served in the Carter administration, and is currently a hyper pro-Israel senator in Illinois.
Another interesting note about Moore’s documentary: he even pointed out how none of the Saudis could reap any financial benefits from the war on Iraq, unlike American companies such as Halliburton.
So his whole Arab-bashing approach basically backfires. It shows how cowardly Moore is in the face of Zionist Hollywood, not to mention how greedy he obviously is to go for the big bucks, which toeing the Zionist line assures anyone in the worlds of US media and politics. It’s ever so convenient and “somehow” politically “acceptable” to scapegoat Arabs and Muslims in Zionist Hollywood and US media.
Consider this as well: does it make any sense whatsoever to spend over $200 BILLION on the war on Iraq to get control of Iraqi oil for US interests? Especially when we could easily buy it, if we needed to? Not to mention the war’s cost in human lives and alienating much of the world in the process? The “War for Oil (for US interests)” fable is a completely ridiculous and outrageous lie!
SO WHAT IS REALLY THE PRO-ISRAEL AGENDA WITH REGARDS TO OIL? What is the connection between Israel and Arab oil, and where does the US fit into this picture?
First of all, the ethno-centric Jewish state of Israel is a small, resource-poor country, with no natural oil resources, and is almost completely dependent on US support in the form of not only massive financial support (billions of US tax dollars yearly) but US military and political cover as well. Israel, quite simply, would not survive as the apartheid, imperialistic, war-mongering Jewish state that it is, without the massive support of the US government.
Israel is surrounded by well-deserved, self-made enemies thanks to the initial injustice of the UN unilaterally giving away Arab land that was not theirs to give away in the first place to Eastern European Zionist Jews who have been committing ethnic cleansing and persecution of the indigenous non-Jewish Palestinians ever since 1948. Since that time, Israel has continued to aggressively steal even more Arab land and has blatant ambitions to control the entire Middle East, using the power and might of the United States. If more Americans were truly aware of how racist and imperialistic Israel is, they would most likely demand that our government stop supporting Israel at all until it is transformed into a true democracy for all regardless of religion, race or gender, as the world pressured South Africa to transform from an apartheid country to a true democracy ten years ago.
If more Americans knew how support of Israel increases anti-American sentiment worldwide and ensures endless unjust wars, they might very well question their government’s support of Israel. There are many reasons for Americans to question their government’s support of Israel including first and foremost for real financial and security concerns as well as our country’s hard-won reputation as a democracy for all, regardless of religion, race or gender.
The fact is that the pro-Israel, Zionist-dominated US media very rarely even mentions the topic of Israel outside of incidents that involve Palestinian suicide bombers, which then make the screaming front page headlines. The footage of the aftermath of such an attack is played over and over again, back to back on ZNN (oops! I meant to write CNN!) and Fox News and all the other US media. These isolated attacks by Palestinian suicide bombers are thus over-reported while the context in which these desperate acts occur is usually completely ignored. The on-going brutal persecution of the non-Jewish Palestinian people, including the killing of innocent civilians and children, since 1948 by the Israeli army goes almost totally unreported and is generally veiled from view by the American public.
MOST AMERICANS DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT ZIONISM IS, US MEDIA LIKES TO KEEP IT THAT WAY
Most Americans don’t even know what Zionism is. In a nutshell, it is a racist, nationalistic, political ideology conceived by Theodor Hertzl, an Austrian Jew in the 1890s, that maintains that there must be a Jewish state in Palestine, although that means and always has meant policies of ethnic-cleansing, apartheid and general persecution of the indigenous non-Jews of that land, the Arab Muslim and Christian Palestinians. In a nutshell, advocates of this racist Zionist ideology are driving our US foreign policy. What ever happened to separation of synagogue/ church and state?
Isn’t it time to openly discuss this? Why are double standards allowed for Israel and for Zionists? However the US media does not want Americans to even think about these things, never mind discuss them! Certainly, the pro-Israel media does not want Americans to question our government’s support of Zionist Israel. That is why there is never any mention in mainstream US media of the Israeli connection to 9-11, to the war on Iraq, to the so-called “war on terror”, and to the subject of Israel’s quest for oil. This intentional covering up by the Zionized US media of the Israeli connection to anything that impacts the US negatively has been going on for decades.
WHAT THE US MEDIA STILL HIDES ABOUT THE 1973 “OIL CRISIS” And nothing proves to me that the US media has been covering for Israel and still covers for Israel (refusing to show the negative effect for Americans of the US government’s “special relationship” with Israel) more than this article about the “oil crisis”. Here is a specific case in point: Does anyone remember that time during 1973 when there was such an “oil crisis” that there were really long lines at all the gas stations and when gas was actually rationed out at the gas stations so that you could only get gas every other day, depending on whether or not your license plate ended in an even or an odd number? I do remember that time vividly.
I didn’t know why it was happening at the time, but I know exactly why now. And it’s not because I got “enlightened” by the pro-Israel US media. Here is how this Sept. 21, 2004 Wall Street Journal article by Jeffrey Ball (who obviously passed the required litmus test of being pro-Israel enough to work in the US media) presented the “oil crisis” of 1973, in such a manner that still puts a veil of the Israeli connection to that event even today. Here is a direct quote: “Then in 1973, the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) tightened their spigots, and the world panicked. The result: high prices, long lines and frequent shortages at gas stations across the U.S. and Europe.” There was exactly no mention of the context of why OPEC “tightened their spigots” in 1973. No mention at all. Are you ready for the Israeli connection to this crisis that is almost uniformly covered up by the pro-Israel US media? Here it is: In 1973, Egypt went to war against Israel in order to win back the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had stolen six years earlier in Israel’s infamous pre-emptive “Six Day War” in 1967 against her neighboring countries. In that pre-emptive 1967 war, Israel not only stole the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, but also part of southern Lebanon, which Israel has since relinquished, and the Golan Heights from Syria, which is still being occupied to this day by Israeli forces, as well as The Palestinian Territories: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, now generally referred to as The Occupied Territories. Pro-Israel forces generally prefer to refer to the Occupied Territories as the “disputed territories”. Egypt appeared to be winning its retaliatory war against Israel in 1973, so Golda Meir, the American-Israeli Prime Minister of Israel at the time, worked with American-Israeli Henry Kissinger to pressure the US government to come to Israel’s rescue, which it did. Therefore in a show of solidarity with Egypt, the Arab countries of OPEC “tightened their spigots” of gas and oil for export to the U.S. There you have it: the real reason for the “oil crisis” of 1973. But the pro-Israel US media does not want Americans to realize that support for Israel has many negative effects on the lives of Americans, which includes potential politically induced “oil crises”, such as was obviously the case in 1973.
Pro-Israel forces in this country and around the world want to minimize the power of Arab countries which is mostly due to their oil resources. Therefore the pro-Israel forces are relying on the US government to directly control these resources primarily for Israel via wars, campaign contributions and a manipulative media. Pro-Israel people detest going to the gas station, because every time they pump gas into their cars, they angrily believe they are helping Arab Muslims (“terrorists”), whose land and resources Zionists view somehow as rightfully theirs. But of course, they don’t want the non-Zionist or unaware-of-it-all Americans to resent their US government’s support for Israel which can possibly mean paying more for gas in a future politically induced “oil crisis”, as it did in 1973. Another example of the Israelization of America: have you been to the airports lately?
The kinds of procedures at the US airports that you have been experiencing lately have always been the “norm” in Israel. This is a prime example of how Israel’s “war on terror” has SOMEHOW become America’s “war on terror” and how it directly impacts the lives of Americans. The “war on terror” is NOT about democracy. It’s an imperialistic war which will have no end if the Zionists (anyone who is pro-Israel) have their way, because it is unjust and breaks International Laws. There is another aspect of the Israeli connection to the war on Iraq, which many people wish to believe is all about oil for the US, rather than the Zionist ideology that is actually the driving force behind the push for a war on the entire Middle East, which began with Afghanistan, and moved onward to Iraq, and threatens to expand to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even Syria, which is not an oil exporting country (which just goes to show once again: it’s not just about the oil!)
PRO-ISRAEL FORCES WANT TO RE-OPEN A PIPELINE FROM IRAQ TO HAIFA, ISRAEL
The fact that American-Israelis in our government are endeavoring to use the war on Iraq as a way for Israel to gain control over oil in the Middle East is rarely reported in the Zionized mainstream US mass media, however it has been reported in Jewish newspapers with Jewish readership as well as in Israeli papers. A case in point is the fact that American-Israelis in our government want to “re-open” or re-instate, the pipeline that used to exist between Iraq and Palestine, which is now specifically Haifa, Israel. When Israel was created in 1948, that pipeline was re-directed by Iraq to Syria. Now pro-Israel forces are actively seeking to cut off the pipeline to Syria and re-direct it to Haifa, Israel. For more information on this, please do a Google-search using such keywords such as “Iraq oil pipeline to Haifa Israel” and see what you come up with. Just as Israel’s connection to the war on Iraq has been kept out of the US mainstream mass media (as you may have noticed, Israel has not even been mentioned as one of our “allies” in the war on Iraq !), this choice nugget of information with regards to Israel’s ambition to get a basically free supply of Iraqi oil is also kept out of view for the vast American public consumption.
I could go on about all this (and, yes, there is much more) but I will stop here. You get the picture, I hope. You won’t get it from the Zionized US mainstream media. *********** Wendy Campbell is a California-based producer and distributor of political documentaries. For more information, please check out her websites www.marwenmedia.com <http://www.marwenmedia.com/> and www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com <http://www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com/> . MarWen Media...ahead of the curve! Note: Ms. Campbell’s latest documentary “Rosa Remembers Palestine”, featuring an interview with a Palestinian woman who became a refugee when the Jewish state of Israel was created in 1948, will premiere at La Pena Cultural Center on Thurs. Oct. 28 at 8pm. For more information on this and other ground-breaking documentaries, please visit www.marwenmedia.com.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/October/6o/The%20Secret%20Relationship%20Between%20Israel%20and%20Oil%20What%20the%20US%20Media%20Hides%20By%20Wendy%20Campbell.htm | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:18 am Post subject: Israeli AIPAC Spy Scandal - Update |
| Upcoming from MER:
The Secrets of U.S.-imposed Debt Relief for Iraq
Israeli AIPAC Spy Scandal - Update
MIDDLEEAST.ORG - MER - Washington - 7 October: It was just a month ago that the latest Washington spy scandal involving the very heart of the Israeli-Jewish Lobby had everyone buzzing. Then it faded from view as the corporate media moved on, as CBS News which originally broke the story found itself under assault, and as the election campaign and debates took center stage. Interesting, not one question from the PBS moderators about Israeli spying, nor even about the U.S. veto of the Security Council resolution condemning Israel, nor the International Court of Justice decision doing the same. Here's an update -- however inadequate -- from yesterday's L.A.Times. Though the real heart of the story should be AIPAC and the influence, tactics, and status of the Israeli-Jewish lobby; instead they focus on just the individual and not as they should on the large group of support persons and organizations. This should especially include, of course, the current cabal of largely Jewish neocons in top positions...including the one who hired Larry Franklin (Douglas Feith), and the ones who hired him (Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle).
THE NATION
Policy Analyst Is Said to Have Rejected Plea Deal
Larry Franklin, who is accused of passing secrets
on Iran, also has replaced his attorney.
By Richard B. Schmitt
Los Angeles Times - October 6, 2004 WASHINGTON — A Pentagon analyst being investigated for allegedly helping pass secrets to Israel has stopped cooperating with authorities and retained a new lawyer to fight possible espionage charges, sources familiar with the case said Tuesday.
The analyst, Larry Franklin, has been a key witness in a continuing FBI investigation looking into whether classified intelligence was passed to Israel by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential Washington lobbying firm.
Franklin has been accused of passing the contents of a classified document about U.S. policy on Iran to two AIPAC officials, who in turn may have given the information to Israeli officials in Washington, sources have said.
Federal prosecutors had proposed an agreement under which Franklin would plead guilty to some of the charges. Such agreements usually are done in exchange for leniency and are accompanied by a pledge of cooperation.
But sources said Franklin had rejected a proposed deal because he believed the terms were too onerous. He recently replaced his court-appointed lawyer. "It looks like there is going to be a battle," a source familiar with the case said.
FBI officials have not yet sought charges against Franklin or anyone else in the case, although the breakdown of plea negotiations would appear to raise the odds that he could be charged soon.
The scope of the investigation is believed to encompass a top diplomat at the Israeli Embassy in Washington; two high-ranking analysts at AIPAC; and the Pentagon office in which Franklin works as an Iran analyst, which is headed by Defense Undersecretary Douglas J. Feith.
The case has attracted widespread attention because it spotlights U.S. relations with a longtime ally and raises questions about whether those relations have become too close in recent years. Israel has become acutely sensitive to the growing nuclear capabilities of Iran, which it considers to be its most worrisome and deadly foe.
Both the Israeli government and AIPAC have denied that they engaged in any wrongdoing or were given unauthorized access to secrets.
A spokesman for Paul McNulty, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, whose office has been assigned the case, declined to comment.
A prominent Washington defense lawyer, Plato Cacheris, confirmed this week that he recently had been retained by Franklin.
"We consider him a loyal American who did not engage in any espionage activities," said Cacheris, the first person representing Franklin to speak on his behalf since the investigation surfaced a month ago. "Any charge of espionage will be met with fierce resistance."
Cacheris has represented a number of accused turncoats, including CIA operative Aldrich H. Ames, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1994 after confessing to years of spying for the Soviet Union. Cacheris also represented former FBI counterintelligence agent Robert P. Hanssen, also convicted of passing secrets to the Soviets, who received a life sentence in 2002.
Cacheris' other clients have included former Clinton White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky and Nixon administration Atty. Gen. John Mitchell.
Some U.S. officials familiar with the investigation have said there was little hard evidence that Franklin intended to commit espionage and no hint that he was paid for any role he might have played.
U.S. officials believe there is more evidence that Franklin — described by colleagues and friends as diligent and thoughtful yet periodically unreliable and disorganized — might have handed over information without understanding the gravity of his actions.
During two decades at the Pentagon spent tracking threats, he was considered a journeyman analyst and an absent-minded professor who often could be found in his office buried behind huge stacks of documents.
The classified information he is suspected of sharing includes the contents of a draft version of a national security presidential directive, or NSPD, on Iran. The draft advocated measures the United States could take to help destabilize the regime in Tehran, a subject of intense interest to the Israelis.
But officials also have said that the draft, which originated at the Pentagon's Near East and South Asian Affairs office, where Franklin worked, contained little in the way of sensitive secrets that had not been reported by the media already. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:23 am Post subject: Kerry is Worse than Bush |
| Forwarded:
The big question is why are greens sacrificing themselves to ensure a kerry victory? The greens argue that kerry is more likely to bring peace than bush but many naderites have suggested there is little difference between the two candidates. If anything nader has underestimated the situation. There is an increasing difference between bush and kerry – kerry is worse than bush. There is increasing evidence that kerry is more hardline in support of military action against iraq and iran than bush.
The first person to point this out was william safire, "As the Democratic Whoopee Brigade hailed Senator Kerry's edge in debating technique, nobody noticed his foreign policy sea change. On both military tactics and grand strategy, the newest neoconservative announced doctrines more hawkish than President Bush. His abandoned antiwar supporters celebrate the Kerry personality makeover. They shut their eyes to Kerry's hard-line, right-wing, unilateral, pre-election policy epiphany." (William Safire ‘America's newest neocon’ http://www.iht.com/articles/541895.htm October 5, 2004).
Justin raimondo was quick to confirm safire’s analysis, "The idea that John Kerry is some kind of peacenik, who will get us out of Iraq and drive the neocons out of the Temple of Democracy, is a myth that will die a hard death, but die it must." (Justin Raimondo ‘Kerry, the Hawk’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3713 October 6, 2004).
Raimondo highlights kerry’s latest political advertisements, "Safire, of course, is absolutely right about the hawkish bona fides of the Democratic nominee, and, if more proof were needed, the Kerry camp promptly provided it in a disgusting series of new ads linking those damn Ay-rabs. If warmongering hysteria works, then the Democrats are more than eager to try it: anything to capture the White House. And you'd better believe that behind this display of Saudi-bashing is the implicit threat of war."
Kerry’s warmongering has gone beyond the point where it might seem to be merely spin designed to reassure floating voters that he would make a reliable commander in chief.
Firstly, during the first presidential debate with bush he stated he is not going to back down over the levelling of falluja, "What I want to do is to change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off Fallujas and other places and send the wrong message to the terrorists."
Secondly, he decries those who believe it is not possible for america to win in iraq, "I’m not talking about leaving. I’m talking about winning."
Thirdly, he has now become a supporter of pre-emptive war and even pretends this is a doctrine that has a long american tradition seemingly forgetting about MAD.
Fourthly, he promises to "double the number of special forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect fighting the terrorists around the world." Kerry's words indicate that he is prepared to launch an expanded, global counter-insurgency war against "terrorists," modeled on the covert wars the U.S. waged in Latin America, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, and Afghanistan during the Cold War." (Sean Donahue ‘Outsourcing Terror? John Kerry and the US Special Forces’ http://counterpunch.org/donahue10042004.html October 4, 2004).
Fifthly, he wants to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Other leading members of the kerry campaign are beginning to drive home the same message. On september 26th, barack obama demanded that president kerry should wage war on iran and pakistan. "In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of "surgical" missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal. Obama, the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention, is being hailed as a "rising star" in the Democratic Party." (Tom Mackaman ‘Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran’ http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml October 1st 2004).
Then, senator edwards, in the october 6th vice presidential debate, called iran the biggest source of terrorism in the world implying that kerry will take america to war against iran.
The utterly naïve greens who’ve decided to sacrifice their own party, and nader, for the sake of a kerry victory are going to have to take responsibility for their part in kerry’s serial military adventures against iraq, iran, saudi arabia, and pakistan. As carl mayer has stated, "When the dust settles on November 2, Green party members should remember who worked with the Democrats to diminish America’s most vibrant third party: Cobb, LaMarche, Benjamin, Ben Manski, Marnie Glickman and Ted Glick, the supposed champion of independent politics who actually takes money from Democrats." (Carl Mayer ‘Cobb's Cool-Aid: Why the Green Party Will Implode if the Green Party Doesn't Dump Cobb Now’ http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Mayer0824.htm August 24, 2004).But then again perhaps that’s just what the zionists in the green party have been hoping for all along.
This presidential election is turning out to be less of a contest in which candidates try to win the votes of ordinary american people than an attempt to prove to ariel sharon how much they will implement his policies for the benefit of the zionist state in palestine. This is the first american presidential election which is almost solely about who is the best at implementing the policies of the zionists controlling american politics. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 6:24 pm Post subject: Sharon Aide Says U.S.-Backed Settlement Policy |
| Of course the racist Zionist extremist Jews (like Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Richard Perle, etc.) in the Bush regime backed the settlement policy (one only needs to read James Bamford's new 'A Pretext for War' book to find out about such in detail as Douglas Feith's law partner Zell lives in an illegal Israeli settlement - Jewish colony on Palestinian land against UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 which is why Zionist Jews hate the UN - in the West Bank and has been helping to sell/steal Palestinian land for these illegal settlements for years which is why Bush's mention of being for a 'Two State' solution for Israel/Palestine is a sham - see the Likud dream of a 'greater Israel' which American soldiers/marines are dying for in Iraq by scrolling down to it on the left side after arriving at http://www.nowarforisrael.com )
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/08/1530244
Support of the above is the root cause of the US terror problem as Bamford conveys in 'A Pretext for War' (see how many BILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars flow to the rogue state of Israel - via the link at www.wrmea.com - while US states go broke as such vast financial aid is used to help build those illegal Jewish colonies on Palestinian land as well (nothing short of Jewish Apartheid in Israel/Palestine). | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:44 am Post subject: Sidelined (Zionist) neo-cons stoke future fires |
| http://www.atimes.com
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ09Ak01.html
Middle East
Sidelined neo-cons stoke future fires
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - Sidelined by their failed predictions for Iraq and US President George W Bush's efforts to reassure voters he is not a warmonger, prominent neo-conservatives and their Christian Right allies are nonetheless trying hard to prepare the ground for future US adventures in the Middle East.
Echoing increasingly threatening noises from the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon about preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, neo-cons are calling for Washington to undertake covert action, at the very least, to oust what some of them call the "terror masters" in Tehran as part of a more general "World War IV" against alleged Arab and Islamic extremism. (The Cold War is widely considered as World War III.)
Some neo-cons are even complaining that if Bush had been serious about the "war on terrorism", he should have taken on Iran after Afghanistan, rather than Iraq.
"Had we seen the war for what it was, we would not have started with Iraq, but with Iran, the mother of modern Islamic terrorism, the creator of Hezbollah, the ally of al-Qaeda, the sponsor of [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi, the longtime sponsor of Fatah and the backbone of Hamas," wrote part-time Pentagon consultant Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) this week.
His article also reprised an argument he first made three years ago - that the Iranian people were already rising up against the mullahs and needed only a little nudge from Washington to succeed.
Neo-conservatives are also busy stoking tensions with Syria, even amid indications that Washington and Damascus are feeling their way toward some kind of "modus vivendi" that may even include joint military patrols along the latter's porous border with Iraq.
Last week they heard from a Syrian exile, Farid Ghadry, who apparently aspires to become the Ahmed Chalabi - the neo-con boosted leader of the exiled Iraqi National Congress whose standing in Washington plummeted after it was alleged he passed secrets to Iran - of his homeland.
In addition to lobbying for the pending Syria Liberation Act, which would commit the US government to "regime change" in Damascus, Ghadry charged that the government of President Bashir Assad was building "a new colony of terrorism" for youths in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.
The neo-conservatives, who led the charge to war in Iraq, have steadily lost influence over US policy in Baghdad since a year ago, when US troops found themselves welcomed by a serious and growing insurgency rather than the flowers and sweets the neo-cons had predicted.
At the same time, Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was reported to have told unhappy war hawks in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office, the two neo-con strongholds, that Bush's re-election prospects would be greatly enhanced if there was "no war in '04".
Led by arch-realists Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage, the State Department gradually wrested control over policy towards Syria and Iran. With US troops bogged down next door, a policy of confrontation, as advocated by neo-cons, not only risked another war, the realists argued, but could also invite more damaging efforts by both Damascus and Tehran to destabilize Iraq.
Wary engagement with both countries has thus become official policy. The recent visit by a high-level US delegation to Damascus and the invitation of European and Arab allies and Iraq's neighbors to attend a US-sponsored meeting on Iraq in Tehran later this fall mark hard-fought advances in the State Department's agenda.
But while the neo-cons may be down, they are by no means out. As more than one foreign-policy analyst has noted, no neo-con within the administration has resigned or been fired, despite their responsibility for the Iraqi quagmire and public calls by even some senior Republican lawmakers and retired military officers that they be ousted.
Some analysts have argued the neo-cons remain in place only because their departure now would amount to an admission by the administration - and thus Bush himself - that serious mistakes had been made. In this view, Bush would purge them in a second term, as he continued along the State Department's "realist" line.
But a growing number of observers, particularly in the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), are coming to the conclusion that the neo-cons may actually enjoy greater influence if Bush wins re-election.
In just the past few days, for example, an article, The State Department's Extreme Makeover, published by online magazine Slate and attributed to an "anonymous" veteran foreign service officer, made precisely this argument.
It is in this context that neo-cons' recent efforts to focus their fire on Syria and Iran, in particular, should be seen.
Ghadry spoke at an all-day symposium co-sponsored by the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), a predominantly neo-conservative lobby group set up in August, and by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a group created two days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the US, whose views largely mirror those of Israel's ruling Likud Party.
On FDD's board of advisers are prominent neo-cons and Iraq war boosters, including former Defense Policy Board chairman and Ledeen's sidekick at AEI, Richard Perle; AEI fellow Jeane Kirkpatrick; and former CIA director James Woolsey, who also co-chairs the CPD.
Joining them are Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, whose own Project for the New American Century first named Iran and Syria - as well as Iraq and the Palestinian Authority - as targets of the "war on terrorism", in an open letter published just 10 days after September 11.
The conference was addressed briefly by telephone by former secretary of state George Shultz, the group's new co-chair, while Woolsey announced that former Czech Republic president Vaclav Havel and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar had agreed to head an international chapter.
Keynoters for the symposium, titled "World War IV: Why We're Fighting, Whom We're Fighting, How We're Fighting", included Woolsey, who has long spoken of the fight against "Islamo-fascism" - defined as including "the mullahs of Iran", the Ba'athist parties of Iraq and Syria, and "the Wahhabis", of which the al-Qaeda terrorist group is a part - as the equivalent of a world war.
On hand was Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, whose participation appeared not only to provide an official sanction of the radical agenda, but also to confirm that the neo-con faction within the Bush administration is alive, kicking and unashamed despite the quagmire in Iraq.
Neo-conservative godfather Norman Podhoretz, who has also used "World War IV" as his favored description for the challenges Washington faces in the Near East, in particular, made a rare public appearance.
He called Israeli tactics in the occupied territories a "model for how to fight this kind of war", and asserted that "Iran is unquestionably on the agenda" of a second Bush administration.
"I have no doubt that we're going to have to do it and do it fast," he declared, noting there were "many different instrumentalities" at Washington's disposal for dealing with the mullahs and their nuclear program.
Podhoretz, whose son-in-law Elliott Abrams is the Middle East director on the National Security Council staff, also offered a sweeping vision of what the region might look like when the US triumphed.
Stressing the long-held Likud view that the nations of the region were artificial creations forged out of the defeated Ottoman Empire, he suggested, 'What was done in the aftermath of World War I can be undone in World War IV."
Two days later, the FDD helped convene the Middle Eastern American Convention for Freedom and Democracy to elaborate a foreign policy towards the region by several dozen mostly sectarian groups, including the American Coptic Association, the American Maronite Union, the Southern Sudanese Voice for Freedom, the Assyrian American National Federation, the Chaldean National Congress, the American Middle East Christian Association, Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa and the Washington Kurdish Institute.
(Inter Press Service) | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
