Nothing Personal, But...

Bush About Face

Americans have lost their country

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:03:57

by Paul Craig Roberts The Bush-Cheney regime is America's first neoconservative regime. In a few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, and the remains of America's moral reputation along with the infrastructures of two Muslim countries and countless thousands of Islamic civilians. Plans have been prepared, and forces moved into place, for an attack on a third Islamic country, Iran, and perhaps Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon as well. This extraordinary aggressiveness toward the U.S. Constitution, international law, and the Islamic world is the work, not of a vast movement, but of a handful of ideologues – principally Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Philip Zelikow, and Attorney General Gonzales. These are the main operatives who have controlled policy. They have been supported by their media shills at the Weekly Standard, National Review, Fox News, New York Times, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and by "scholars" in assorted think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute. The entirety of their success in miring the United States in what could become permanent conflict in the Middle East is based on the power of propaganda and the big lie. Initially, the 9/11 attack was blamed on Osama bin Laden, but the blame for 9/11 was later shifted to Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who was said to have weapons of mass destruction that would be used against America. The regime sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to tell the lie to the UN that the Bush-Cheney regime had conclusive proof of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Having conned the UN, Congress, and the American people, the regime invaded Iraq under totally false pretenses and with totally false expectations. The regime's occupation of Iraq has failed in a military sense, but the neoconservatives are turning their failure into a strategic advantage. At the beginning of this year President Bush began blaming Iran for America's embarrassing defeat by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents in Iraq. Bush accuses Iran of arming the Iraqi insurgents, a charge that experts regard as improbable. Bush's accusation requires us to believe that Iran is arming the enemies of its allies. On the basis of this absurd accusation – a pure invention – Bush has ordered a heavy concentration of aircraft carrier attack forces off Iran's coast, and he has moved U.S. attack planes to Turkish bases and other U.S. bases in countries contingent to Iran. In testimony before Congress on February 1 of this year, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said that he expected the regime to orchestrate a "head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large." He said a plausible scenario was "a terrorist act blamed on Iran, culminating in a 'defensive' U.S. military action against Iran." He said that the neoconservative propaganda machine was already articulating a "mythical historical narrative" for widening their war against Islam. Why is the U.S. spending one trillion dollars on wars, the reasons for which are patently false. What is going on? There are several parts to the answer. Like their forebears among the Jacobins of the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks of the communist revolution, and the National Socialists of Hitler's revolution, neoconservatives believe that they have a monopoly on virtue and the right to impose hegemony on the rest of the world. Neoconservative conquests began in the Middle East because oil and Israel, with which neocons are closely allied, are both in the Middle East. The American oil giant, UNOCAL, had plans for an oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan, but the Taliban were not sufficiently cooperative. U.S. neoconservative Zalmay Khalilzad, who also had been on UNOCAL's payroll, was installed as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. Two years later Khalilzad was appointed U.S. ambassador to Iraq. American oil companies have been given control over the exploitation of Iraq's oil resources. The Israeli relationship is perhaps even more important. In 1996 Richard Perle and the usual collection of neocons proposed that all of Israel's enemies in the Middle East be overthrown. "Israel's enemies" consist of the Muslim countries not in the hands of U.S. puppets or allies. For decades Israel has been stealing Palestine from the Palestinians such that today there is not enough of Palestine left to comprise an independent country. The U.S. and Israeli governments blame Iran, Iraq, and Syria for aiding and abetting Palestinian resistance to Israel's theft of Palestine. The Bush-Cheney regime came to power with the plans drawn to attack the remaining independent countries in the Middle East and with neoconservatives in office to implement the plans. However, an excuse was required. Neoconservatives had called for "a new Pearl Harbor," and 9/11 provided the propaganda event needed in order to stampede the public and Congress into war. Neoconservative Philip Zelikow was put in charge of the 9/11 Commission Report to make certain no uncomfortable facts emerged. The neoconservatives have had enormous help from the corporate media, from Christian evangelicals, particularly from the "Rapture Evangelicals," from flag-waving superpatriots, and from the military-industrial complex whose profits have prospered. But the fact remains that the dozen men named in the second paragraph above were able to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and launch military aggression under the guise of a preventive/preemptive "war against terrorism." When the American people caught on that the "war on terror" was a cloak for wars of aggression, they put Democrats in control of Congress in order to apply a brake to the regime's warmongering. However, the Democrats have proven to be impotent to stop the neoconservative drive to wider war and, perhaps, world conflagration. IS/IS

'Racist' forced to withdraw bid for Israeli cabinet post

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
Published: 01 March 2007

Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the most right-wing party in Israel's governing coalition, was forced last night to cancel his nomination of a colleague condemned as a "true racist" to the Tourism Ministry.

Mr Lieberman had faced mounting embarrassment over his choice of Esterina Tartman for the post of Tourism Minister after a series of damaging revelations about her eligibility for the job - or lack of it.

Ehud Olmert's Cabinet confirmed Ms Tartman's appointment on Sunday despite her having made what was widely construed as a racist attack on the appointment of the first Arab Muslim minister last month.

Saying that Ghaleb Majadale's promotion was "lowering the guillotine on Zionism" Ms Tartman, a Knesset member in the Yisrael Beiteinu party declared: "We need to burn this plague out of our midst and God willing, the Lord will help us with that." Her own party leader's harshly anti-Arab views did not deter Mr Olmert from making him a deputy prime minister in his coalition, and the most vigorous public opposition to her appointment at that stage was largely confined to the liberal left in Israeli politics and Arab politicians.

But doubts began to spread wider after the revelation by Channel Two television that Ms Hartman had received around £150,000 in social security benefits after producing a doctor's certificate that she was not able to work more than four hours a day because of a car accident a decade ago.

Then Yedhiot Ahronot revealed that two institutions from which she had claimed to have graduated with a "clear economics background" including a "master's in business administration", Hebrew University and Bar Ilan University, had no record of her having even enrolled. Instead it appears she has only a bachelor's degree from the rather less distinguished Israeli branch of the New York-based Touro College.

The Bank Yahav, where she claimed to have been a vice-president disobligingly disclosed that she had only been a deputy department head.

And the Israel Defence Forces even declined to confirm that Ms Hartman, a zealous army reservist, held an Israeli record for women in the military by having made 42 parachute jumps.

Mr Lieberman has now nominated a former senior policeman in his party, Yitzhak Aharonovitch, to the job.

Obama to offer pro-Israel views at AIPAC

Obama to offer pro-Israel views at Chicago gathering

March 1, 2007

For the first time since becoming a senator -- much less a White House hopeful -- Barack Obama on Friday will talk in depth about U.S. policy toward Israel and the Mideast.

The story behind the story of Obama's appearance before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's regional forum at the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers provides insight into the Obama presidential operation.

AIPAC, whose sole interest is U.S.-Israel relations, is one of the most influential lobbying groups in the nation. Its annual policy conference starts March 11 in Washington. The gathering provides fertile territory for Obama to schmooze with well-connected backers and donors. Though no 2008 presidential candidates are on the program, Obama is hosting a reception for AIPAC members -- as is archrival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton delivered a well-received speech before an AIPAC regional meeting in New York on Feb. 1. The Obama team wanted to get Obama's pro-Israel views -- not well-known -- out front before the big AIPAC conference. Obama's team has put together a briefing sheet on his record about Israel, but that was not widely circulated and clearly not enough. If he was to make a major speech on Israel, there was an interest among Obama's Chicago backers for him to deliver it in the city.

The Chicago/Midwest AIPAC office obliged and booked Friday's foreign policy forum featuring Obama, not unlike how the Chicago Council on Global Affairs arranged an event for Obama when he wanted to deliver a major Iraq speech last November.

Meanwhile, Obama's speech started taking shape with input from Mark Lippert, Obama's Senate foreign policy adviser, and Dan Shapiro, a Middle East specialist, now a lobbyist, who is an Obama campaign foreign policy adviser. Shapiro recently was a deputy chief of staff for Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and handled international affairs for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). He also served on the National Security Council under former President Bill Clinton.

One of the most important concerns for Israel is to ensure that Iran does not get nuclear capability.

Obama, in his speech, will detail his vision for Israel and the Mideast and expand his views on regional engagement. Last November, in his Iraq address, Obama, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for an "opening dialogue" with Iran and Syria. "Make no mistake," Obama said then, "if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken."

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States, in a switch, will hold talks with the two nations.

Obama on Friday will call for tougher Iran sanctions, more bilateral diplomacy and declare he is for leaving all military options on the table. He will underscore the need for energy independence so that U.S. Mideast policy is not anchored to the country's huge appetite for fossil fuels.

Obama traveled to Israel for the first time in January 2006. He allotted time on his official trip to visit projects sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Chicago and the Chicago Catholic Archdiocese.

Obama's camp is well-aware that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz -- in a recurring feature ranking the 2008 U.S. presidential candidates or people who may run on how good they are for Israel -- puts him last on its list. Former GOP New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani tops its ranking, followed by Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Clinton, Al Gore, Sam Brownback and the others, with Obama at the end. Part of the reason for the low score may be that the others have worked the Israeli street for years and Obama is just an unknown factor when it comes to Israel.

But let me share something. Last August, Obama was in Cape Town, South Africa, at a time when Israel was being criticized for overreacting for its military attacks in Lebanon in response to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Obama was speaking to a group at a cultural institution called The Center for the Book, which provided a friendly venue for the Illinois Democratic. The crowd, clearly hostile to Israel, expected Obama to bash Israel on Lebanon. He did not. They were surprised.

They just did not know Obama well enough to realize who they were dealing with.

BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist

Human Rights Watch Financier Soros buys Halliburton

The guy who wants to start a new Israel lobby. I smell Nobel Peace prize, Medal of Honor...
---
Soros buys Halliburton

Tue, 02/27/2007 - 3:22pm.

Normally, I'm willing to overlook the hypocrisy of the liberal elite. If Al Gore and his Hollywood cronies want to fly around on gas-guzzling, atmosphere-polluting private jets while railing against global climate change, I'm willing to overlook it.

But the latest move by globe trotting, hyper-liberal billionaire George Soros borders on being too much. According to papers filed with the SEC, in the fourth quarter of 2006 Soros purchased nearly 2 million shares of ... hold your breath ... Halliburton. The Halliburton shares reportedly went for an average purchase price of $31.30 a share. That puts Soros' total investment in Halliburton at around $62.6 million, or about 2 percent of his total portfolio.

Soros, of course, is the dean of Democratic money giving. And Halliburton, of course, is the company that embodies everything the Democrats see as evil. Dick Cheney is its former chief, for goodness' sake. But Soros is also a man of contradictions. He supported campaign finance reform for years, only to declare that defeating President George W. Bush was the "central focus" of his life. To prove it, he sunk $24 million of his own "soft" money into the 2004 campaign, helping make that election one of the most divisive in modern history.

Soros' position in Halliburton is reported to be his first, which means he bought it with a full understanding of Halliburton's reputation. Soros may not see a problem with profiting from a company that has been accused of everything from sweatheart deals to cooking the books to serving U.S. troops lousy food in Iraq. The real question, however, is whether MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, and other organizations that have benefitted from Soros' charity will see a problem with accepting money earned off Halliburton shares?

Mike Boyer |

permalink |

Home » blogs » Mike Boyer

Encampment to Stop the War March 12+ Washington DC March 12+ Washington DC

Encampment to Stop the War
March 12+ Washington DC