War Without End

Alpha

JINSA ZIONIST JEW FEITH AFTER IRAN AND SYRIA FOR ISRAEL

JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) Zionist extremist Jew Douglas Feith after Iran and Syria for Israel (in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda which he and fellow Zionist extremist Jews Richard Perle and David Wurmser wrote for incoming Israeli Likud prime minister Netanyahu as James Bamford conveys on pages 138-144 of his excellent new book ('A Pretext for War') - access the following URL to see a photo of Feith as his picture also appears at the top of www.nowarforisrael.com

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1102752565828&apage=2

Dec. 12, 2004 3:24 | Updated Dec. 12, 2004 3:39
Feith to 'Post': US action against Iran can't be ruled out

By CAROLINE GLICK

Douglas Feith
Photo: DOD

The Natanz nuclear facility in Iran is seen in this Aug. 29, 2002, satellite image taken by DigitalGlobe's high-resolution imaging satellite QuickBird.
Photo: AP (File)
Advertisement

The US hopes that Iran will follow Libya's lead in abandoning its nuclear program, but nobody should rule out the possibility of military action against Teheran's nuclear sites if it does not, US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith told The Jerusalem Post in an exclusive interview.
Feith stated that the US is now concentrating on "a process to try to get the existing international legal mechanisms – the nonproliferation treaty [and] the International Atomic Energy Agency – to work, to bring the kind of pressure to bear on Iran that would induce the Iranians to follow the path that Libya took in deciding that they were actually better off in abandoning their WMD [weapons of mass destruction] programs."
Feith stressed that the Americans are interested in seeing whether the suspension of uranium-enrichment activities that the Iranians agreed to last month in a deal with France, Germany and Britain "can get turned into a permanent abandonment."
But strikingly, whereas British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw last month ruled out any possibility of military action against Iranian nuclear sites should the diplomatic path lead to failure, Feith said that "I don't think that anybody should be ruling in or ruling out anything while we are conducting diplomacy."
In the wide-ranging interview conducted on Friday, Feith, who will be remaining in his position during US President George W. Bush's second term, told the Post that democratic reform of the Arab world, including in US-allied Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, will be the linchpin of Bush's foreign policy in the next four years.
He was speaking a day before outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell told a conference of Islamic leaders in Morocco that the Arab world had to implement political and economic reform and stop "pointing to the [deadlocked] Middle East peace process as a pretext for delay."
Feith recalled that "the president has said over and over again that he believes that the world will be a better place, there will be a better treatment of people [and] there will be a more secure international environment if there is a development of representative, democratic-type institutions in the Middle East."
The undersecretary said he saw signs that Bush's democratization platform was having an effect on the public discussion now taking place in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan about democracy, dialogue that barely existed before Bush began discussing the issue in 2002.
"The kinds of things that the president has been saying are stimulating talk about reform throughout the Middle East," said Feith. "There is more attention being paid to the subject. People who are aware of what's going on in the world at large cannot fail to see that the countries that have democratic governments and free economies have a greater degree of prosperity, of political stability [and] of peaceful politics as opposed to violent domestic politics, and they are happier. And that kind of observation, in part because the president is stressing it, is getting more and more play throughout the entire region."
As a principal architect of the US war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, Feith is one of the most controversial members of the Bush administration. Disliked in liberal circles in the US and internationally, Feith, a staunch supporter of Israel, began his government career in 1981 as an assistant to Soviet expert Richard Pipes at the US National Security Council in the Reagan administration. In that position, as he does today for the Middle East, Feith advocated the advancement of the cause of democracy and human rights in the former Soviet bloc as a means of bringing about the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

When asked about the failure thus far of the US to win the hearts and minds of the Arab world, where levels of anti-Americanism have risen sharply since September 11, 2001, Feith admitted, "There are a lot of things that need to be done to improve communications. Part of it is how we're organized: how the combatant commands relate back to headquarters here in the Pentagon; how the Pentagon relates to the State Department and the other agencies."
Feith argued that the media's need to grab the attention of viewers motivates news organizations to concentrate on violence at the expense of giving news consumers an accurate portrayal of what life is like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Comparing the news coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan to the news coverage of Israel, Feith said, "If you live in Israel and you see the way life is there and then you go abroad and see the way Israel is reported on, the way that Israel gets reported on night after night is simply pictures of bombings or military actions. And there are people who have an image that that's all that's going on in the country and people have similar images about Afghanistan or Iraq.
One of the problems is how do you communicate that, while there are things like that going on and they're a big problem, there's also an enormous amount of life going on that is commerce and culture and education and happy ordinary life."
Feith was highly critical of the role that Syria is playing in fueling the insurgency against Iraqi and coalition forces in Iraq. "Their role is unhelpful," he said. "We know that there are various activities important to the insurgents in Iraq that are occurring in Syria. There are people that have safe-havened there. There are people passing through Syria to join the insurgents [and] to supply them. And it's a bad thing."
One of the elements of prewar planning for which Feith has come under a barrage of criticism from US military commanders was his intention to train an exiled Iraqi military force to fight with the US during the March 2003 invasion. Feith continues to defend his recommendation.
"I did think it was important to do what we could to train up Iraqis as a security force in advance of our military operation. We saw lots of benefits of that – both with regard to the military operation itself and with regard to the post-major combat period. There were certain obvious benefits that trained Iraqis could bring, as people who know the language, who know the lay of the land who know the local culture, [and] work with our forces and help liberate their own country. And then afterward these would be people that we knew and whose views and whose leadership qualities we knew and who could help identify other Iraqis who could play a useful role in the building of a new Iraq.
"We saw lots of benefits in that effort," he continued. "We were hoping to get thousands of Iraqis trained before the war and as it turns out we were only able to train a few score and that was unfortunate. I think it would have been better if we had had thousands who were trained."
While Feith indicated that the US was doing nothing at present to encourage the Iraqis to end their enmity toward Israel, he dismissed the possibility of the post-Saddam Iraq going to war against it.
"If all goes well, the Iraqis are going to have a country that's going to have a representative government and will be at peace with its neighbors and in the region," said Feith. "And if that happens, the whole Middle East will be better off."

Alpha

Traitorous Feith has History of Leaking US Secrets to Israel:

You can read via the 'FBI Still Pursues AIPAC' message thread linked at the following URL that Feith was fired for leaking security secrets to Israel and then has been (incredibly) hired back to 'serve' (for Israel) in the current Bush Presidency (he is one of the traitorous Zionist Jew neocons the FBI was going after in the Franklin case as he has been leaking plans to Israel about the coming attack on Iran)

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/12/01/fbi-raids-traitorous-aipac-office.php

Alpha

Alpha

AIPAC: STILL SPYING, STILL TAX-EXEMPT
AND ACLU TO THE RESCUE

By: Ted Lang

Perhaps you will recall that the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, also known as the "Jewish lobby," was exposed once again in yet another revelation concerning an ongoing FBI investigation, which should have been tantamount to a blockbuster headline news event. It was virtually suppressed by our friends in the big media. The event was almost completely crushed by the Zionist-owned and operated corporate mainstream establishment "press." The initial and timely reports documenting this second incident relating to AIPAC spying were conspicuously posted in the real press: the Internet.

It is once again necessary to examine the extensive power and control AIPAC demonstrates in order to put matters in their proper perspective. Fortune magazine once listed AIPAC as the second most powerful lobby, right behind that of the millions and millions of Americans who belong to the American Association of Retired Persons and the National Rifle Association. These two huge lobbies are virtually ineffectual when compared to the unbelievable and massive power of AIPAC. It is therefore the position of this writer that AIPAC is, and has been for a very long time, the most powerful lobby on Earth!

What AIPAC lacks in strength as regards their paltry membership of only 60,000, not even enough members to fill an average NFL professional football stadium, it more than magnifies in unbelievable power due to its knack of applying the right political pressure at both the right time and the right place to astonishingly control all of American government. They follow this proven uncanny capability with lots and lots of cash for "our" representatives in Washington.

The recent Israeli spy activities involving Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin and AIPAC is a case in point. Generalizations are usually dangerous, so writing off the entire FBI, or for that matter, the CIA, is inviting, yet wrong. Not that either are necessary, or even constitutionally sanctioned; the intent here is to accept them only because they exist, not because they are in any way or form justified.

These alphabet agencies represent the most frightening aspect of Big Brother government, and are seen as such even the more due to their control by the politically appointed perfumed princes at the top who run them. Merit is not the basis for such appointments – it hardly ever is. It is political cronyism and patronage that establishes the leadership in such bureaucracies. Certain elements, usually at the lower "grunt" level desk analyst and agent echelon, operate at times in somewhat of a vacuum and are almost immune to the enforced deliberate incompetence from the top.

This lower level dedication on the part of some of the rank-and-file in these agencies explains why there are at times glitches and anomalies that buck the normal trend of political malfeasance. The Larry Franklin spy scandal is being covered up by the Bush administration in precisely the same fashion as that of the Johnson administration when it covered up Israel’s attack on the U.S.S. Liberty. The attack was initiated by the Israeli Air Force and Navy, which attempted to sink the vessel because our Navy spy ship’s crew caught and recorded the Israeli military murdering captive Egyptian POWs. The U.S.S. Liberty lost 34 crew members.

It may be recalled that the Franklin investigation was blown open by our Zionist mainstream press much to the chagrin of the FBI investigators who would have preferred continuing secrecy to complete a more in-depth investigation upon which to develop and present a much stronger case for federal prosecutors. It appears as though the press obtained information about the story from a sole source without corroboration from the FBI. Perhaps it is this that angered the FBI because the press releases effectively compromised the investigation. And if our Zionist press blew the lid off the investigation at the first hint of wrongdoing, then why are they avoiding and virtually spiking the story now?

To be sure, the best sources of information as to the latest development in the investigation are the Israeli newspapers Ha’aretz and The Jerusalem Post. The Associated Press also carried a watered-down account, which was briefly and inconspicuously carried on MSNBC.com. Ha’aretz’s Nathan Guttman in his article, "FBI raids AIPAC offices once again," offers: "For the second time in 13 weeks, FBI agents raided the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) offices yesterday [December 1st] searching for information against Larry Franklin, an analyst at the Middle East desk of the Pentagon."

Guttman continues: "Franklin is suspected of obtaining classified material from internal Bush administration discussions of policy on Iran and Iraq, and transmitting it to AIPAC staffers." The article points out, "The investigation into Franklin’s activities has been going on secretly for a year. [Steven] Rosen and another AIPAC employee, Keith Weissman, an Iran expert, have been the focus of U.S. media attention as Franklin’s alleged contacts. According to media reports, the FBI is investigating the possibility that AIPAC employees passed on the information to the Israeli Embassy. Classified information on Iran transmitted at this point could ostensibly have given Israel an opportunity to influence the administration’s decision-making process, because Israel would allegedly have been aware of the considerations guiding policy- makers."

Contrasting this observation, commentary originating at CounterPunch and carried on Prison Planet, entitled "The EU, US, Israel and Iran: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly and the ‘Mullahs,’" dated December 4th, begins with the comments made by Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom to the UN General Assembly on September 23, 2004: "The international community now realizes that Iran – with missiles that can reach London, Paris, Berlin and southern Russia – does not only pose a threat to the security of Israel, but to the security and stability of the whole world. Indeed, Iran has replaced Saddam Hussein as the world’s number one exporter of terror, hate and instability." This is the same propaganda hyped by Israel and Bush to involve US in the totally unnecessary war in Iraq. That war is costing US dearly, and was undertaken only because of pressure from Israel and AIPAC, and the resultant obedience of Bush.

Reporter Janine Zacharia, writing for The Jerusalem Post, has written a series of articles concerning the ongoing events involving Franklin, the FBI and AIPAC. In her December 2nd article, "Four AIPAC directors subpoenaed," she names the AIPAC officials targeted by the FBI: "The four subpoenaed officials are Executive Director Howard Kohr, Managing Director Richard Fishman, Communications Director Renee Rothstein, and Research Director Rafi Danziger, a source familiar with the investigation told The Jerusalem Post Wednesday night."

Zacharia continues: "The four AIPAC officials are slated to appear before the grand jury in late December in the Eastern District of Virginia, the source [said]. What precisely the FBI is investigating has been muddled since initial reports in late August and early September that investigators were investigating whether a mid-level Pentagon official, Larry Franklin, passed information from a secret administration planning document on Iran to the lobby. Since September, FBI officials have continued to quietly monitor AIPAC officials and have questioned Pentagon officials besides Franklin as part of its investigation."

In a December 5th follow-up article by Zacharia in the Post entitled, "‘Post’ exclusive: How the FBI set up AIPAC," Zacharia reports: "AIPAC, the powerhouse pro-Israel lobby currently embroiled in allegations of spying for Israel, was set up by the FBI, The Jerusalem Post has learned." Offering that when Pentagon analyst Franklin realized the FBI had determined that he had passed top secret Bush administration documents to AIPAC lobbyists who transferred documents and information to the Israeli Embassy in Washington, Franklin decided to cooperate with the FBI and helped to set up the AIPAC go-betweens. The article goes on: "Franklin, an Iran expert, was already under investigation by the FBI for allegedly passing classified information to AIPAC when, the Post's sources say, FBI counterintelligence agents approached him to play a central role in the setup operation this past summer."

This second revelation concerning the AIPAC affair was first exposed on December 1st. On December 2nd, the Jewish-Communist American Civil Liberties Union announced in a "press release," their "findings" in a coincidental "investigation," aggressively posted throughout the Internet and the mainstream media as well. And of course, it was to have been construed as totally "independent and coincidental" to the news concerning the latest development in the AIPAC spy scandal.

It seems the ACLU, the premier Jewish-Communist organization that has abolished Christmas from America and replaced it with "Happy Holidays!" has determined that the FBI has been targeting "religious groups." Of course, the ACLU targeting the overwhelming majority of Christians in America is viewed by them as totally acceptable!

The Reuters news release carried on Yahoo.com reports: "The American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday accused the FBI and local police of spying on political and faith-based groups and formally asked the government for information about such FBI surveillance. In Freedom of Information Act requests filed in 10 states and Washington, D.C., the ACLU sought information about the FBI’s use of Joint Terrorism Task Forces and local police for what it called political surveillance. It pointed to some documented examples of task forces’ involvement in the investigation of environmental activists and anti-war protesters."

Clearly, this was one group of organized Jews [a rabbi’s description to me] protecting yet another. This announcement coming on the heels of the FBI’s continuing investigation of AIPAC motivated the ACLU to smear the FBI to take the heat off the AIPAC investigation. Now combine that well-coordinated orchestration of news events with the fact that the entire American mainstream media is controlled by Zionists and Jews sympathetic to Israel, and suddenly it becomes crystal clear how AIPAC magnifies its power to control virtually all levels of American government. And this is how the ACLU easily abolishes the religion of the majority, and teams with the anti-Defamation League [ADL] to smear opponents with the epitaph "anti-Semitism."

Back in September, about a week or so after the first revelations involving AIPAC spying in order to provide intelligence to Israel to enable Mossad or another Israeli agency to manipulate the United States into a new war involving Iran, Zogby International conducted an opinion poll asking the question: "Should AIPAC Register as the Agent of a Foreign Government?" Can there be any modicum of remaining doubt that AIPAC represents the interests of Israel, and only those of Israel? What have we gained by launching our illegal, unjust, unnecessary war against Saddam and Iraq? How have we benefited? And now Israel is dictating to Bush and the Congress that we must illegally and without provocation also attack Iran? Oh, the results of the poll? Canvassing 1,004 voting Americans, 61 percent of Americans agree that AIPAC is the agent of a foreign government, and 12 percent disagree. Is Congress listening?

At the very least, the tax-exempt free ride of this lobbying organization representing a foreign state, one that has always proved extremely harmful to our own interests, should be made to pay taxes just like the NRA!

Alpha

http://www.counterpunch.org

The Carnivores and the Ivy League Apologist

The Voices of Sharon's Little Helpers

By PAUL de ROOIJ

Ariel Sharon is surrounded by a coterie of "advisors" who step in to develop, perfect and sell plans for the continued and inexorable dispossession of the Palestinians. What is surprising is that these advisors, the intellectual progenitors of continuing mass crimes, are an outspoken bunch; they don't shy away from revealing their latest fiendish plans or their true intent. There is no need for conspiracy theories; their intent and plans are out in the open.
Despite lame denials by the Israeli government or their media surrogates, the public pronouncements of these latter day Dr. Strangeloves reveal the plans they have in store for the Palestinians, Iraqis, and for that matter, the United States. It is therefore instructive to analyze their latest statements.
Dovi
For the past few years, Dov Weisglass has been frequently in touch with Condoleezza Rice, the next Secretary of State, and they are even on an affectionate first name basis. Condi calls him "Dovi", and it would be rather quaint were it not for the issues they must have discussed. Furthermore, Dovi is doing the thinking for Sharon these days, and so, Dovi's public pronouncements assume canonical status.
On Oct. 6, 2004, Ari Shavit interviewed Dov Weisglass for Haaretz [1]. Any article by Shavit, "a loyal mouthpiece of any leader in power"[2], should alert one that these were not meant to be ordinary ruminations by a key political advisor. In fact, Dovi's revelations were shocking because they exposed the pretense that the US still supported the "road map", or realize Bush's "vision" of a Palestinians state. Dovi's brutal pronouncements made it clear that there was no longer any prospect for a negotiated solution.
"The significance of our disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. It supplies the formaldehyde necessary so there is no political process with the Palestinians."
-- Ha'aretz, Oct. 6, 2004.
Dovi's apt use of "formaldehyde", the morticians' essential fluid, was revelatory. While morticians are concerned with masking the unpleasant sight of death, Dovi, a grand mortician, seeks to push a stake through the heart of the already dead negotiations. He continues:
"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."
"What I effectively agreed to with the Americans [in talks leading to Bush's endorsement of disengagement] was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns."
-- Ha'aretz, Oct. 6, 2004.
Just in case the previous shocking statement was not blatant enough, Dovi spells it out clearly for an American audience--always a bit interpretation-challenged. With US official connivance, the Israelis are blocking meaningful negotiations indefinitely.
Some further context is necessary to understand these statements. The Haaretz interview was published about a month before the US elections, a date that ranks in the Israeli calendar as super Xmas. While during other election years Israeli politicians would be busy drawing up wish lists of goodies like F16s, loan guarantees, loan forgiveness, this year with the Americans fighting Israel's war in Iraq, such demands would be construed as a bit too crass. This year Dovi had only one item on his list: he wanted US agreement to terminate negotiations forever [3]. By making such a radical demand, Dovi was daring any US politician to object in the middle of an election campaign, and of course, no US politician did. Yet again, the failure of the US government to protest indicated that it would neither confront Israel nor encourage negotiations. So much for the self-designated "honest broker" label.
One must also remember the April 14, 2004 Washington meeting where Bush blessed Israel's so-called disengagement plan. Prior to his departure to Washington, Sharon waited on the airport tarmac in Tel Aviv until a deal could be struck on his terms. Surely during this unnerving wait Dovi must have been talking to Condi. Within an hour the US government capitulated giving Sharon everything on his wish list, i.e., anointing the "disengagement plan". So, what more would they want? Dovi's revealing statements provide the answer: embalming the negotiations with the Palestinians, implying that annexation of the West Bank could continue apace, the construction of the wall would continue, and the creation of two Bantustan-prisons would be unilaterally imposed. When on May 19, 2004 an AIPAC audience applauded president Bush's statement about his vision for a "viable Palestinian state", this revealed exactly what is intended: an open air concentration camp will be imposed [4].
Dovi's statements and their implicit endorsement by the US will create a few public relations complications. For years, Israel refused to enter into negotiations because supposedly there was "no one to negotiate with". Now, after Dovi's revelations we know that no matter who represents the Palestinians, the Israelis will sabotage negotiations. In the past, they played along with the "road map" charade, especially if such a gambit would force the Palestine "Authority" to repress its own people, but now even this pretense will be dispensed with. Arafat could now be dispensed with too; and he proved to have had a timely death. All the appearances and US assurances that the Quartet "road map" negotiations would culminate in a Palestinian state were clearly undermined. The US will once again bear some consequences for this, but never mind.
Zionism for Carnivores
Arnon Soffer, a professor of geography/demography at Haifa University, is another of Sharon's advisors, advisor to the army's top brass, and is reputed to be the "intellectual father of the disengagement plan". In addition, Soffer is also known as a demographic prophet and someone who considers that the "Palestinian womb is a biological weapon". Taking as much land with as few Palestinians has been a key preoccupation of demographers in Israel and those drawing the path of the wall. This means that a recent Jerusalem Post interview with Soffer is of particular importance. Soffer provided some brutal and revealing answers [5]:
Ruthie Blum: How will the region look the day after unilateral separation?
Arnon Soffer: The Palestinians will bombard us with artillery fire--and we will have to retaliate. But at least the war will be at the fence--not in kindergartens in Tel Aviv and Haifa.
RB: Will Israel be prepared to fight this war?
AS: First of all, the fence is not built like the Berlin Wall. It's a fence that we will be guarding on either side. Instead of entering Gaza, the way we did last week, we will tell the Palestinians that if a single missile is fired over the fence, we will fire 10 in response. And women and children will be killed, and houses will be destroyed. After the fifth such incident, Palestinian mothers won't allow their husbands to shoot Kassams, because they will know what's waiting for them.
Second of all, when 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it's going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It's going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.
RB: While CNN has its cameras at the wall?
AS: If we don't kill, we will cease to exist. The only thing that concerns me is how to ensure that the boys and men who are going to have to do the killing will be able to return home to their families and be normal human beings.
RB: What will the end result of all this killing be?
AS: The Palestinians will be forced to realize that demography is no longer significant, because we're here and they're there. And then they will begin to ask for "conflict management" talks--not that dirty word "peace." Peace is a word for believers, and I have no tolerance for believers--neither those who wear yarmulkes nor those who pray to the God of peace. [] Both are dangerous.
Unilateral separation doesn't guarantee "peace"--it guarantees a Zionist-Jewish state with an overwhelming majority of Jews; it guarantees the kind of safety that will return tourists to the country; and it guarantees one other important thing. Between 1948 and 1967, the fence was a fence, and 400,000 people left the West Bank voluntarily. This is what will happen after separation. If a Palestinian cannot come into Tel Aviv for work, he will look in Iraq, or Kuwait, or London. I believe that there will be movement out of the area.
It would be difficult to find a clearer exposition of what the Palestinians can expect, and what type of society Israel will become. It also becomes clear why Dovi was so determined to remove any prospect of negotiations, i.e., he sought to forestall any externally imposed solution. He knew that any intervention by a World Court or any assertion of the Palestinian right not to be expelled would interfere with Soffer's plans. Besides, "peace" is for the moist eyed liberals, and not for hard-nosed realists.
Drang nach East [6]
Zionist plans are not confined within the borders of Israel and the occupied territories, but they extend broadly into the region. Strong Arab nations operating with a unified voice would be able to stand up to Israel. In the Zionist calculus, to avoid the possibility of resistance, the countries in the region have to be brought to their knees, and included in an Israeli controlled sphere of influence. In this scenario, countries with large armies and with a potential to interfere have to be demolished. Arab nationalists who seek to forge unity or to develop the area have to be undermined, and in their place, atavistic Islamic religious forces have to be fostered. Weaken, divide and rule. Does this sound far-fetched? One only has to read Oded Yinon's ruminations [7]:
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shiite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.
Oded Yinon was formerly a senior Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry official. Although not currently one of Sharon's advisors, his comments made in 1982 have a prescient ring to them. One can find recent expositions of the same plan, and all indicate that the United States is currently fighting Israel's wars. Creating an Israeli sphere of influence in the area is emerging as a key motive behind the latest US-Iraq war [8].
Jamboree of the Carnivores
Every year a conference in Herzliya attracts Israeli state planners, think-tankers, and cheerleaders. It is a jamboree for the carnivores; Zionists of a vegetarian stripe need not apply. Here, plans are made on how Palestinians can be further dispossessed, how to handle the propaganda, or reveal the latest sadistic fantasy. Plans for the entire region are also proposed and discussed. Out in the open one can hear what the likes of Soffer, Dovi and Yinon are currently proposing. Of course, these plans are not presented in "Western" media; here one will continue hearing about Israel's peaceful intent, and the "only democracy in the Middle East".
Also present in Herzliya are wannabe advisors, and the only way for them to be noticed is to present ever more extreme plans. There is a dynamic among these operators to propose plans that veer ever more to the right. Whereas the likes of Soffer would have seemed extreme twenty years ago, now his position is centrist. Today's extremists may become the common ground in a few years time.
The Ivy League Apologist
One of the attendees at the 2003 Herzliya conference was Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law School professor and legal contortionist extraordinaire. He has a bit of a misplaced liberal reputation since he is keen to justify torture, compulsory ID cards, and overturning international law. Dershowitz is always eager to dispense advice, and it is of interest to listen to his ruminations at the conference.
"We have a joint project between Israel and the US, which lawyers must lead. Our project is to propose new rules of international law. Israelis are obliged to follow the rules of law in the democracy called Israel, as I am within the US. Your moral obligation to comply with international law is voluntary. You are not represented in the making or implementing of those laws. International law lives or dies by its credibility, not by the democracy by which it has been constructed. I am suggesting the change of the rule of law. Democracy should not have to justify its actions and show how the rule of human rights has become a weapon in promoting human wrongs... You are the lab for that process. You are contributing greatly. Do not allow the world to bully you into believing that you are the human rights violators..."
-- Alan Dershowitz, Dec. 2003. [9]
To implement plans like those advocated by Soffer requires perpetrating crimes against humanity, and this obviously clashes with international law. The legal profession in Israel has long justified Israel's actions by contorted arguments as those made by Dershowitz [10]. Israeli lawyers have always been selective on which laws apply to it, and of course, the core humanitarian law has been excluded. Furthermore, it will use bits of law that are useful for its purposes, e.g., British Mandate period military law, or Jordanian law, and if all else fails specific military orders are passed [11]. The veneer of legality is kept, but, as the recent International Court of Justice ruling pertaining to the wall indicates, it is increasingly difficult for them to cover up the mass crimes that the Zionist project requires. Dershowitz recommendation: don't worry about it and ignore international law. The same argument will be made for US actions in the war in Iraq, the torture of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisoners, the US military deaths squads, the use of depleted uranium munitions, etc.
The Consequences
The consequences of the Zionist project are stark and they are clear for all involved. The Palestinians are at the receiving end of a genocidal plan. Of course, any act of resistance will elicit hollers about "terrorism", and they can expect to be blamed for the cruelty dispensed to them by the Israelis. Negotiations will amount to "conflict management" between military rulers and Palestinian collaborators.
Israelis must decide if they want to become a nation of prison wardens, a fate that awaits them, their children, and their grandchildren. A permanent state of simmering war is very costly, and is only tenable thanks to America's largesse and diplomatic cover. The Zionist project also entails interfering in all the countries in the area. This project raises further questions about what type of society it wants to become, and whether the US will continue supporting them. Israel cannot escape the consequences of a fundamentally unjust system; while this persists there will be continued strife, and all aspects of its society will be grotesquely distorted [12].
The costs for the United States are also high and the implications stark. The US is expected to continue funding Israel in ever increasing amounts, without a peep of gratitude from the recipient. The US also has to tarnish its international reputation by having to cover for Israel. And now the US has to pay a cost in blood; the war in Iraq is another contribution to Israel. Are Iran, Syria, <fill in the blank> next?
The US's relation with Israel is also having distorting effects on American society. The fact that AIPAC is the most powerful lobby (aka, "the Lobby") in Washington and that most politicians genuflect when the word Israel is mentioned indicates that the US political system may not represent the interests of the American people. Certainly, US foreign policy is not open to democratic debate, and currently it is the exclusive preserve of an unaccountable and reactionary elite. The debate about the US's place in the world and hence what type of society it wants to become must urgently be brought out into the open. A simple issue must be addressed: whose interests is US foreign policy supposed to foster, and is it in the US's interests to support a malevolent apartheid state in the Middle East?
Pariah state and ideology
In the 1990s, the United Nations attempted to condemn Zionism as a racist ideology. Alas, with US connivance and massive manipulation, this mild UN rebuke was not adopted. However, the manifest sadism to which Palestinians have been subjected indicates that there is a much deeper and serious objection to this ideology, i.e., the Zionist project, is inherently genocidal, and the plans of Sharon's advisors and Israel's history of ethnic cleansing make this abundantly clear. Zionism has to be considered a pariah ideology. Furthermore, the combination of pernicious ideologues with a dangerous war criminal requires that we treat Israel as a pariah state.
Endnotes
[1] Ari Shavit, Top PM aide: Gaza plan aims to freeze the peace process, Haaretz, Oct. 6, 2004.
[2] Ran HaCohen Mid-Eastern Terms, DissidentVoice, June 19, 2003.
[3] In reality, Israel received quite a few more goodies this year. First, an increase in aid and forgiven loans. Second, it also received thousands of J-Dam bombs, the type that could demolish Iran's nuclear power plants. NB: This comes after the delivery of more than 100 special F16s capable of flying all the way to Iran.
[4] Bush's policy speech in front of AIPAC in 2004 was frequently interrupted by applause. It is curious that the word "viable" elicited applause. Key words and phrases are used that have a special meaning for US officials and this crowd. Analyzing where the AIPAC audience applauded will reveal the true meaning of many such terms.
[5] Ruthie Blum, "ONE on ONE: It's the demography, stupid", Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2004.
[6] Nazi ideologues referred to the national imperative for expansion towards the Eastern Europe as "drang nach Osten".
[7] Oded Yinon, "Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" Feb. 1982. Available online here: [http://www.corkpsc.org/db.php?aid=5345] This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in Kivunim (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; February 1982. The Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization in Jerusalem publishes the journal. Yinon's article was translated by Dr. Israel Shahak and appeared in his Translations of the Hebrew press. Invariably statements about plans are more elaborate and open when written in Hebrew; it is also rare to see them translated in their entirety into English.
NB: One could easily imagine the hysterics and indignation if any Arab ideologue were to publish designs for the region that would include an emasculated Israel. However, when Israeli ideologues discuss subjugating the region to its interest, then this is considered par for the course.
[8] It is wrong to suggest that there is a single motive for wars. It is when there is a confluence of interests in fostering wars that opinion can be mobilized in favor of a war. Control of oil, armaments, post-war slices of the cake, all have constituencies who favored the war. The centrality of the Israeli motivation is made clear by the statement by the main actors pushing the war. See also Kathleen and Bill Christison's "Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore: Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq", CounterPunch, January 25, 2003.
[9] Quoted in Azmi Bishara, "Chutzpah: an avoidance strategy", Al Ahram, Dec. 25, 2003, Issue 670. [http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/print/2003/670/op41.htm],
[10] Azmi Bishara observes that Dershowitz isn't stating anything new. What is reassuring to the Israeli legal profession is that even a Harvard professor is telling them to go on doing what they do at present, i.e., flout international law.
[11] A good account of the legal sophistry can be found in Raja Shehadeh's Occupier's Law, IPS, 1985. Alternatively, Lisa Hajjar's Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza, University of California Press, 2005.
[12] Take one example: the construction of the wall is Israel's largest infrastructure project. It will cost billions. Are they spending all this money and effort to imprison another people? The wall is compounding the unjust situation, and thus making matters worse.
Paul de Rooij is a writer living in London. He can be reached at proox@hotmail.com
(NB: all emails with attachments will be automatically deleted.)
Paul de Rooij © 2004

Alpha

Forwarded:

http://www.independent.co.uk

Death, Delusion and Democracy

by Robert Fisk

"He who would do good" wrote William Blake, "must do so in minute particulars. General good is the plea of the scoundrel, the hypocrite and the liar."

So the death of Yasser Arafat is a great new opportunity for the Palestinians, is it? The man who personified the Palestinian struggle - "Mr Palestine" - is dead. So things can only get better for the Palestinians. Death means democracy. Death means statehood. That the final demise of the corrupt old guerrilla leader should be a sign of optimism demonstrates just how catastrophic the conflict in the Middle East has now become. It's a bit like Fallujah. The more we destroy it, the crueler we are, the brighter the chances of Iraqi democracy. The more successful we are, the worse things are going to get. That's what George Bush said on Friday: that violence will increase as Iraqi elections grow closer - a total mind warp since the more violent Iraq becomes, the less the chances of any election ever being held.

Note how Bush could not even bring himself to mention Arafat's name. It's the same old agenda. The Palestinians have to have a democracy. They have to prove themselves; they - not the Israelis - have to show that they are a worthy "negotiating partner". And any new leader - the colorless Ahmad Qureia or the equally colorless and undemocratic Abu Mazen - must "control his own people". That was what Arafat failed to do even though he thought his job was to represent his own people, which is what democracy is supposed to be all about.

It's worth noting how this narrative has been written. The Israelis, with their continued occupation, their continued illegal construction of colonies for Jews and Jews only on Arab land, their air strikes and helicopter executions and live-fire shooting at stone-throwing children, are not part of this equation. They are just innocently waiting to find a new "negotiating partner" now that Arafat is in his grave. Ariel Sharon, held "personally responsible" for the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre by the Kahan commission report, remains, in George Bush's words, "a man of peace". No one asks whether he can control his own army. Or whether he can control his own settlers. He wants to close down the colonies in Gaza - even though his spokesman has told us that this will put Palestinian statehood into "formaldehyde".

So let's just take a look back at those tragic years of the Oslo accord. In 1993, we are supposed to believe, the Palestinians were offered statehood and a capital in Jerusalem if they accepted the right of Israel to exist. Oslo said nothing of the kind. It did set down a complex system of Israeli withdrawals from occupied Palestinian land and a timetable that the Israelis were supposed to meet. We all knew that any failure to do so would humiliate Arafat - and make him less able to "control" his own people.

And what happened? It's important, at this supposedly "optimistic" moment, to reflect on the facts of the previous "peace process" in which Europe as well as the United States spent so much time, energy and - in the EU's case - money. Under the Oslo agreement, the occupied West Bank would be divided into three zones. Zone A would come under exclusive Palestinian control, Zone B under Israeli military occupation in participation with the Palestinian Authority, and Zone C under total Israeli occupation. In the West Bank, Zone A comprised only 1.1 per cent of the land whereas in Gaza - overpopulated, rebellious, insurrectionary - almost all the territory was to come under Arafat's control. He, after all, was to be the policeman of Gaza. Zone C in the West Bank comprised 60 per cent of the land, which allowed Israel to continue the rapid expansion of settlements on Arab land.

But a detailed investigation shows that not a single one of these withdrawal agreements was honored by the Israelis. And in the meantime, the number of settlers illegally living on Palestinians' land rose after Oslo from 80,000 to 150,000 - even though the Israelis, as well as the Palestinians, were forbidden from taking "unilateral steps" under the terms of the agreement. The Palestinians saw this, not without reason, as proof of bad faith.

Since facts are sometimes elusive in the Middle East, let's remind ourselves of what happened after Oslo. The Oslo II (Taba) agreement, concluded by Yitzhak Rabin in September 1995 - the month before he was assassinated - promised three Israeli withdrawals: from Zone A (under Palestinian control), Zone B (under Israeli military occupation in co-operation with the Palestinians) and Zone C (exclusive Israeli occupation). These were to be completed by October 1997. Final-status agreement covering Jerusalem, refugees, water and settlements were to have been completed by October 1999, by which time the occupation was supposed to have ended. In January 1997, however, a handful of Jewish settlers were granted 20 per cent of Hebron, despite Israel's obligation under Oslo to leave all West Bank towns. By October 1998, a year late, Israel had not carried out the Taba accords.

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, negotiated a new agreement at Wye River, dividing the second redeployment promised at Taba into two phases - but he only honored the first of them. Netanyahu had promised to reduce the percentage of West Bank land under exclusively Israeli occupation from 72 per cent to 59 per cent, transferring 41 per cent of the West Bank to Zones A and B. But at Sharm el-Sheikh in 1999, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, reneged on the agreement Netanyahu had made at Wye River, fragmenting the latter's two phases into three, the first of which would transfer 7 per cent from Zone C to Zone B. All implementation of the agreements stopped there.

When Arafat finally went to Camp David to meet Barak, he was allegedly offered 95 per cent of the West Bank and Gaza but turned it down and went to war with the second intifada. A study of the maps, however, shows that - with the exclusion of Jerusalem and its extended boundaries, with the exclusion of existing major Jewish colonies and with the inclusion of an Israeli cordon sanitaire, Arafat was offered nearer to 64 per cent of the 22 per cent of mandate Palestine that was left to him. Then a new explosion of Palestinian suicide bombings, usually aimed at Israeli civilians, destroyed Israel's patience with Arafat. Sharon, who had provoked the second intifada by strolling on to the Temple Mount with a thousand policeman, decided that Arafat was a Bin Laden-style "terrorist" and all further contact ended.

This is not to excuse the PLO or Arafat himself. His arrogance and corruption, and his little dictatorship - initially encouraged by the Israelis and Americans who lent Arafat their CIA boys to "train" the Palestinian security services - ensured that no democracy could thrive in "Palestine". And I suspect that while he personally disapproved of suicide bombings, Arafat cynically realized that they had their uses; they proved that Sharon could not provide Israel with the security he promised at his election, at least until he built the new wall - which is stealing further Palestinian land. But that was only one side of the story - and last week Bush and Blair went back to the old game of seeing only the other side. The Palestinians - the victims of 39 years of occupation - must prove themselves worthy of peace with their occupiers. The death of their leader is therefore billed as a glorious occasion that provides hope. All this is part of the self-delusion of Bush and Blair. The reality is that the outlook in the Middle East is bleaker than ever.

Oh yes, and - since we'd be asking this question today if Sharon had gone to meet his maker in an equally mysterious way - just what did Arafat die of?

Robert Fisk is The Independent's award-winning Middle East correspondent.

© 2004 lndependent Newspapers, Ltd.
_________________
“War is just a racket"

Maj Gen Smedley Butler

Read on....

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/war_is_a_racket_033103.htm

Alpha · Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 11:42 pm Post subject: The Neo-Con Coup

----- Original Message -----

From: moderator@portside.org
To: portside@lists.portside.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:52 AM
Subject: The Neo-Con Coup

The Neo-Con Coup

* The Peter Principle and the Neocon Coup
by Robert Scheer (Los Angeles Times - Nov. 16, 2004)

* Neo-cons: Around the world in seven steps
By Jim Lobe (Asia Times - Nov. 16, 2004)

=========

The Peter Principle and the Neocon Coup
by Robert Scheer

Los Angeles Times - November 16, 2004
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer16nov16,1,375135.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

The bloodletting has begun.

I'm not referring to the latest attempt to reconquer
Iraq, but rather the wholesale political revenge
campaign being waged by the hard-liners in the Bush
administration against anybody and everybody inside the
government who challenged the way the second Persian
Gulf war in a decade was marketed and run.

Out: Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose political
epitaph should now read, "You break it, you own it" for
his prescient but unwanted warning to the president on
the danger of imperial overreach in Iraq.

Out: Top CIA officials who dared challenge, behind the
scenes, the White House's unprecedented exploitation of
raw intelligence data in order to sell a war to a
Congress and a public hungry for revenge after 9/11.

Out: Veteran CIA counterterrorism expert and Osama bin
Laden hunter Michael Scheuer, better known as the best-
selling author "Anonymous," whose balanced and
devastating critiques of the Iraq war, the CIA and the
way President Bush is handling the war on terror have
been a welcome counterpoint to the "it's true if we say
it's true" idiocy of the White House PR machine.

Meanwhile, incompetence begat by ideological blindness
has been rewarded. The neoconservatives who created the
ongoing Iraq mess have more than survived the failure
of their impossibly rosy scenarios for a peaceful and
democratic Iraq under U.S. rule. In fact, despite calls
for their resignations - from the former head of the
U.S. Central Command, Gen. Anthony Zinni, among others
- the neocon gang is thriving. They have not been held
responsible for the "16 words" about yellowcake, the
rise and fall of Ahmad Chalabi, the Abu Ghraib scandal,
the post-invasion looting of Iraq's munitions stores
and the disastrous elimination of the Iraqi armed
forces.

As of today, the neocons on Zinni's list of losers -
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz; the vice
president's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby; National
Security Council staffer Elliott Abrams; Undersecretary
of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld - are all still employed
even as Bush's new director of central intelligence,
Porter J. Goss, is eviscerating the CIA's leadership.

This is the culmination of a three-year campaign by the
president's men to scapegoat the CIA for the fact that
9/11 occurred on Bush's watch.

So far, half a dozen of the nation's top spymasters
have been forced out abruptly - a strange way to
handle things at a time when Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are
still seeking to attack the U.S. Ironically, this all
comes as Goss is suppressing a lengthy study, prepared
for Congress by the CIA's inspector general, that,
according to an intelligence official who has read it,
names individuals in the government responsible for
failures that paved the way for the 9/11 attacks.

Thus Bush, with Goss as his hatchet man, is having it
both ways: He can be seen to be cleaning house at the
CIA - when he is simply punishing independent voices
- while denying Congress access to an independent
audit of actual intelligence failures.

We should remember that as flawed as its performance
was under former Director George J. Tenet, the CIA at
least sometimes tried to be a counterweight to the
fraudulent claims of Rumsfeld's and Dick Cheney's
neoconservative staffs. All of the nation's traditional
intelligence centers were bypassed by a rogue operation
based in Feith's Office of Special Plans. Feith was
given broad access to raw intelligence streams - the
better to cherry-pick factoids and fabrications that
found their way into even the president's crucial
prewar State of the Union address.

Now, by successfully discarding those who won't buy
into the administration's ideological fantasies of
remaking the world in our image, the neoconservatives
have consolidated control of the United States' vast
military power.

With the ravaging of the CIA and the ousting of Powell
- instead of the more-deserving Rumsfeld - the coup
of the neoconservatives is complete. They have achieved
a remarkable political victory by failing upward.

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
==========

Neo-cons: Around the world in seven steps
By Jim Lobe

Asia Times - November 16, 2004
Front Page
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK16Aa01.html

WASHINGTON - An influential foreign-policy neo-
conservative with long-standing ties to top hawks in
the administration of US President George W Bush has
laid out what he calls "a checklist of the work the
world will demand of this president and his
subordinates in a second term".

The list, which begins with the destruction of Fallujah
in Iraq and ends with the development of "appropriate
strategies" for dealing with threats posed by China,
Russia and "the emergence of a number of aggressively
anti-American regimes in Latin America", also calls for
"regime change" in Iran and North Korea.

The list's author, Frank Gaffney, the founder and
president of the Center for Security Policy (CSP), also
warns that Bush should resist any pressure arising from
the (then) anticipated demise of Palestinian leader
Yasser Arafat to resume peace talks that could result
in Israel giving up "defensible boundaries".

While all seven steps listed by Gaffney in an article
published late last week in the National Review Online
have long been favored by prominent neo-cons, the
article itself, Worldwide Value, is the first
comprehensive compilation to emerge since Bush's re-
election on November 2.

It is also sure to be contested, not just by Democrats
who, with the election behind them, are poised to take
a more anti-war position on Iraq, but by many
conservative Republicans in Congress. They blame the
neo-cons for failing to anticipate the quagmire in Iraq
and worry that their grander ambitions, such as those
expounded by Gaffney, will bankrupt the Treasury and
break an already overextended military.

Yet its importance as a roadmap of where neo-
conservatives - who, with the critical help of Vice
President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, dominated Bush's foreign policy after the
September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the
Pentagon - want US policy to go was underlined by
Gaffney's listing of the names of his friends in the
administration who he said "helped the president
imprint moral values on American security policy in a
way and to an extent not seen since Ronald Reagan's
first term".

In addition to Cheney and Rumsfeld, he cited the most
clearly identified - and controversial - neo-
conservatives serving in the administration: Cheney's
chief of staff, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby; his top Middle
East advisers, John Hannah and David Wurmser; weapons-
proliferation specialist Robert Joseph; and top Mideast
aide Elliott Abrams, on the National Security Council.

Also on the roster are: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz; Under Secretary for Policy Douglas Feith;
Feith's top Mideast aide William Luti, in the Pentagon;
Under Secretary for Arms Control and International
Security John Bolton; and for global issues, Paula
Dobriansky at the State Department.

Virtually all of the same individuals have been cited
by critics of the Iraq war, including Democratic
lawmakers and retired senior foreign-service and
military officials, as responsible for hijacking the
policy and intelligence process that led to the US
invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Indeed, in a lengthy interview about the war on the
most-watched US public-affairs TV program, 60 Minutes,
last May, the former head of the US Central Command and
Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief Middle East
envoy until 2003, retired General Anthony Zinni, called
for the resignation of Libby, Abrams, Wolfowitz and
Feith, as well as Rumsfeld, for their roles in the
attack.

Zinni also cited former Defense Policy Board chairman
Richard Perle, who has been close to Gaffney since both
of them served, along with Abrams, in the office of
Washington state senator Henry M Jackson in the early
1970s.

When Perle became an assistant secretary of defense
under Reagan he brought Gaffney along as his deputy.
When Perle left in 1987, Gaffney succeeded him before
setting up CSP in 1989.

As Perle's longtime protege and associate, Gaffney sits
at the center of a network of interlocking think-tanks,
foundations, lobby groups, arms manufacturers and
individuals that constitute the coalition of neo-
conservatives, aggressive nationalists such as Cheney
and Rumsfeld and Christian Right activists responsible
for the unilateralist trajectory of US foreign policy
since September 11.

Included among CSP's board of advisers over the years
have been Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith, Christian moralist
William Bennett, Abrams, Feith, Joseph, former United
Nations ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former navy under
secretary John Lehman and former Central Intelligence
Agency director James Woolsey.

Woolsey also co-chairs the new Committee on the Present
Danger (CPD), another prominent neo-con-led lobby group
that argues Washington is now engaged in "World War IV"
against "Islamo-fascism".

Also serving on its advisory council are executives
from some of the country's largest military
contractors, which - along with wealthy individuals
sympathetic to Israel's governing Likud Party, such as
prominent New York investor Lawrence Kadish and
California casino king Irving Moskowitz, and right-wing
bodies, such as the Bradley, Sarah Scaife and Olin
Foundations - finance CSP's work.

Gaffney, a ubiquitous "talking head" on TV in the run-
up to the war in Iraq, sits on the boards of CPD's
parent organizations, the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies and Americans for Victory Over Terrorism.
He was a charter associate, with Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Perle, Wolfowitz and Abrams, of the Project for the New
American Century, another prominent neo-conservative-
led group that offered up a similar checklist of what
Bush should do in the "war on terrorism" just nine days
after the September 11 attacks.

His article opens by trying to preempt an argument that
is already being heard on the right against expanding
Bush's "war on terrorism": that since a plurality of
Bush voters identified "moral values" as their chief
concern, the president should stick to his social
conservative agenda rather than expand the war.

"The reality is that the same moral principles that
underpinned the Bush appeal on 'values' issues like gay
marriage, stem-cell research and the right to life were
central to his vision of US war aims and foreign
policy," according to Gaffney. "Indeed, the president
laid claim squarely to the ultimate moral value -
freedom - as the cornerstone of his strategy for
defeating our Islamofascist enemies and their state
sponsors, for whom that concept is utterly [sic]
anathema."

To be true to that commitment, policy in the second
administration must be directed toward seven
priorities, according to Gaffney, beginning with the
"reduction in detail of Fallujah and other safe havens
utilized by freedom's enemies in Iraq"; followed by
"regime change - one way or another - in Iran and North
Korea, the only hope for preventing these remaining
'axis of evil' states from fully realizing their
terrorist and nuclear ambitions".

Third, the administration must provide "the
substantially increased resources needed to re-equip a
transforming military and rebuild human-intelligence
capabilities (minus, if at all possible, the sorts of
intelligence 'reforms' contemplated pre-election that
would make matters worse on this and other scores)
while we fight World War IV, followed by enhancing
protection of our homeland, including deploying
effective missile defenses at sea and in space, as well
as ashore".

Fifth, Washington must keep "faith with Israel, whose
destruction remains a priority for the same people who
want to destroy us (and ... for our shared 'moral
values') especially in the face of Yasser Arafat's
demise and the inevitable, post-election pressure to
'solve' the Middle East problem by forcing the Israelis
to abandon defensible boundaries".

Sixth, the administration must deal with France and
Germany and the dynamic that made them "so problematic
in the first term: namely, their willingness to make
common cause with our enemies for profit and their
desire to employ a united Europe and its new
constitution - as well as other international
institutions and mechanisms - to thwart the expansion
and application of American power where deemed
necessary by Washington".

Finally, writes Gaffney, Bush must adapt "appropriate
strategies for contending with China's increasingly
fascistic trade and military policies, [Russian
President] Vladimir Putin's accelerating
authoritarianism at home and aggressiveness toward the
former Soviet republics, the worldwide spread of
Islamofascism, and the emergence of a number of
aggressively anti-American regimes in Latin America",
which he does not identify.

"These items do not represent some sort of neo-con
'imperialist' game plan," Gaffney stressed. "Rather,
they constitute a checklist of the work the world will
demand of this president and his subordinates in a
second term."

(Inter Press Service)

===========
_______________________________________________________

portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news,
discussion and debate service of the Committees of
Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to
provide varied material of interest to people on the
left.

For answers to frequently asked questions:
<http://www.portside.org/faq>

To subscribe, unsubscribe or change settings:
<http://lists.portside.org/mailman/listinfo/portside>

To submit material, paste into an email and send to:
<moderator@portside.org> (postings are moderated)

For assistance with your account:
<support@portside.org>

To search the portside archive:
<http://people-link5.inch.com/pipermail/portside/>

Alpha

VDARE.COM - http://www.vdare.com/roberts/041307_iran.htm

December 13, 2004

U.S. Invasion Of Iran Draws Closer
By Paul Craig Roberts

Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith is the neocon Likudnik who was tasked with cooking up the false "intelligence" that President Bush used to deceive the US public into supporting an illegal invasion of Iraq.

With the US military now trapped in the Iraqi quagmire, Feith wants the US to attack Iran.

President Bush falsely claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was linked to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, and that Iraq would give weapons of mass destruction to anti-American terrorists. Senior members of the Bush administration terrified the US public with prospects of mushroom clouds going up over US cities.

Having been proved 100% wrong about Iraq, the Bush administration now claims that the nonexistent WMD are in Iran, or maybe Syria. During recent weeks the Bush administration worked overtime to terrify the US public into believing that Iran is building nuclear weapons and missiles with which to destroy American cities.

To ward off yet another gratuitous and illegal US attack on a Muslim country, Europe, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and US experts such as Gordon Prather have exposed the Bush administration’s false claims.

But the Bush administration ignores factual truth. Bush has his own "truth," a delusional "truth" independent of all evidence.

Israel’s rightwing Likud Party regards Feith as one of its own. The Jerusalem Post described Feith as "a staunch supporter of Israel" (Dec. 12). In an exclusive interview Feith told that paper that despite the intercession of Britain, France, Germany and the IAEA against a US attack on Iran, the Bush administration has not ruled out taking military action against Iran. [Feith to 'Post': US action against Iran can't be ruled out, By Caroline Glick]

In other words, the neocon Bush administration has already decided to attack Iran and Syria. The only question is what kind of lie can Bush use to get away with it.

But first Bush has to take over the IAEA, which has steadfastly refused to go along with Bush’s propaganda against Iran. According to the Washington Post (Dec. 12), the Bush administration has been tapping the telephones of the head of the IAEA, M. ElBaradei, hoping to find damaging information with which to frame, blackmail, or taint him as an Iranian ally.

Unable to find or to manufacture any evidence against ElBaradei, the Bush administration is using an orchestrated campaign of anonymous accusations in an effort to oust the IAEA director and to replace him with a US puppet.

The problem is that ElBaradei is more highly regarded than any member of the tainted Bush administration, including President Bush himself. So far Bush cannot find anyone anywhere in the world, including our British puppet, who is willing to be associated with the Bush administration’s disgraceful intentions.

The important unanswered question is: why do the neocons with their proven record of duplicity and delusion still hold the reigns of power in the Bush administration?

Why isn’t Feith in prison?

Martha Stewart is in prison for "lying" about a noncrime. Feith’s lies have killed thousands. The Iraq war is based entirely on neocon lies. The war is costing the US a fortune it does not have. The war is producing US casualties comparable to those of the Vietnam War and has killed a minimum of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

The neocons have destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure, alienated the entire Muslim world and made the US the most hated country on the planet.

What does Douglas Feith think the effect would be on Shi’ite Iraq of a US attack on Shi’ite Iran? The only reason the US army in Iraq has not been totally destroyed is the wait-and-see attitude of the majority Shi’ites, who expect to take control of Iraq once there is an election. If the US attacks Iran, the Iraqi Shi’ite clerics will not be able to maintain their neutrality toward the US occupation of Iraq.

The current Iraqi insurgency is drawn from Sunni ranks. Sunnis comprise only 20% of Iraq’s population. Yet, Sunnis have tied down 8 US divisions while inflicting horrendous casualties on US troops. If Bush escalates US aggression in the Middle East, he will create a larger insurgency.

Imagine the US casualty rate if the Iraqi insurgency was drawn from 80% of the population. The temporary Shi’ite insurgency of the minor cleric, Al Sadr, caused tremendous US consternation. What would be the US casualty rate if, instead of sitting on their hands, all the Shi’ites had joined the insurgency?

Iran covers almost four times the area of Iraq and has more than 2.5 times the population. If Bush attacks Iran, he will create an insurgency there as well, one that could spill over into Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

Bush’s war is achieving a Shi’ite unity that will redraw Middle Eastern boundaries and eliminate secular Muslim governments. Shi’ite unity will merge with the anti-American terrorists and drive all Western expatriates out of the Middle East. Indeed, the departures are already underway. Israel will be isolated, exposed to the consequences of its aggression against the Palestinians.

Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio crazies misinform us that we are kicking terrorist butt, but in non-delusional reality, we are unifying Islam and ending forever Western influence in the Middle East.

Alpha

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/december/12_13_1.html

U.S. STAGES SIMULATED ATTACK ON IRAN

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The U.S. Defense Department was said to have completed simulated war games to determine the feasibility of destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program.

The Atlantic Monthly magazine reported in its latest issue that the Pentagon held simulations of a U.S. military strike on Iranian bases and nuclear facilities. The magazine said the recent war games also included a ground invasion of Iran.

The simulation envisioned a three-phase war against the Islamic republic. The first phase was composed of air strikes against bases of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, believed to control Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

U.S. intelligence sources were quoted as saying that such a strike would require one day and comprised the easiest part of any military campaign.

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

NOTE: The above is not the full item.

Alpha

The Lie Factory:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/18/1734209

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.

JINSA ZIONIST JEW FEITH AFTER IRAN AND SYRIA FOR ISRAEL