Wednesday, August 28, 2002

It has become increasingly clear that DOUBLE STANDARDS are what the Bush administration is all about. As a result of such an approach to foreign policy, they have managed to antagonize friend and foe alike.

In an article entitled "Double Standards Make Enemies," Salman Rushdie writes:

"The entire Arab world would be radicalized and destabilized. What a disastrous twist of fate it would be if the feared Islamic jihad were brought into being not by the al Qaeda gang but by the president of the United States and his close advisers"

For the whole article please click here

While members of the "Bush/Sharon Axis" are determined to intervene militarity in Iraq to establish a "democratic, pluralistic society," they embrace members of the Saudi royal family, one of the most repressive monarchies in the Arab/Muslim world.

Again, in the words of Rushdie:

"However, during the past year the Bush administration has made a string of foreign policy miscalculations, and the State Department conference must acknowledge this. After the brief flirtation with consensus-building during the Afghan operation, the United States' brazen return to unilateralism has angered even its natural allies."

Members of the "Bush/Sharon Axis" have attempted to downplay the Israeli-Palestinian conflict given that Sharon always opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state. Rushdie strongly disagrees and writes as follows:

"Inevitably, the reasons lie in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like it or not, much of the world thinks of Israel as the 51st state, America's client and surrogate, and Bush's obvious rapport with Ariel Sharon does nothing to change the world's mind. Of course the suicide bombings are vile, but until America persuades Israel to make a lasting settlement with the Palestinians, anti-American feeling will continue to rise; and if, in the present highly charged atmosphere, the United States does embark on the huge, risky military operation suggested Monday by Vice President Dick Cheney, then the result may very well be the creation of that united Islamic force that was bin Laden's dream. Saudi Arabia would almost certainly feel obliged to expel U.S. forces from its soil (thus capitulating to one of bin Laden's main demands). Iran -- which so recently fought a long, brutal war against Iraq -- would surely support its erstwhile enemy, and might even come into the conflict on the Iraqi side."

It has become increasingly clear that the Bush Poppy and Bush Junior have parted ways on the issue of Iraq.

Once Poppy realized that his kid was determined to intervene militarily in Iraq, alone if necessary, he publicly admonished Shrub-the-Crusader. Using intimate friends such as Scowcroft and Baker as proxies, Poppy delivered a strong warning that reflects his obvious concern that such an action may indeed trigger a major all-out war with unpredictable consequences.

As for Colin Powell...I suspect that at this critical junction he has been ORDERED to come out strongly in support of the "Crusader for Jesus" or...else.

It remains to be seen whether Mr. Powell will side with hardline members of the "Bush/Sharon Axis" or, cling to his principles and follow the dictates of his conscience by...RESIGNING!.

Sunday, August 25, 2002

"When it comes to running the country — as opposed to running 5-K's — Mr. Bush owes his reticence to a mixture of insecurity and hauteur. Dick Cheney owes his reticence only to hauteur" writes Maureen Dowd in an article published in the New York Times.

In her inimitable style, Dowd captures the very essence of Mr. Harken and Mr. Halliburton in one short paragraph.

Bush is indeed an INSECURE individual given that he knows he is in a job that is WAY over his head.

Compensating for his lack of knowledge and experience, he adopts an air of arrogance that has antagonized friend and foe alike.

Conversely, while Cheney is indeed an experienced individual, he is right up there with the best in the arrogance department. His attitude: "I know it all, soooo....why confuse me with facts and demand I answer "silly" questions?"

Slowly but surely Americans are waking up to the fact that the ol' Deceptive Iran-Contra Gang is back in power...a gang OBSESSED with SECRECY... determined to prove it is the UNClinton administration as they work overtime to stress CONFRONTATION as opposed to cooperation.

Predictably, anti-Americanism around the globe has grown considerably as they attempt to win the war against HATRED by...triggering more hatred.

But then...right-wingers have never been accused of being smart....

For the full article please click on HAUTEUR

Thursday, August 22, 2002

Kissinger's "realpolitik" in action.

For those of you not familiar with the word, it translates into: "The ends justify the means" that in turn translates into: If it is in our "national interest" we don't care how many innocent individuals must die.

Clearly, Kissinger never met a right-wing dictator he did not embrace. Not only did he close his eyes and ignored the incredible abuses being perpetrated in Argentina during the seventies, but...he became complicit in the assassination of Salvador Allende, a duly elected, left-leaning Chilean president, and replaced him with Gen. Pinochet who, inspired by the Argentine military, engaged in the same brutal actions.

"Argentine Junta Felt Safe From the U.S." by James Dao is an article published by the New York Times on August 23, 2002

Excerpts follow:

"Leaders of the military dictatorship that took control of Argentina in 1976 believed that the Ford administration supported their crackdown on leftist insurgents and would not penalize them for rights abuses, newly declassified State Department documents show"

"Repeatedly, senior Argentine officials brushed aside concerns raised by embassy officials, saying that Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and other top Ford administration officials supported their war against Communists and were not deeply worried about rights abuses, several documents show."

Since I lived in Argentina during that period of time, I can categorically state that that Kissinger's actions were always coldly calculated and the repercusions of actions taken by the U.S., particularly during the Nixon-Ford-Kissinger and Reagan-Bush administrations, continue to be felt to this day.

USING foreign nationals as proxies to wage war in what they viewed as in the U.S.'s best interests....was par for their course. What they failed to grasp is that callous actions have long-term consequences that, if ignored, come back to haunt us.

9/11 clearly demonstrated that when hatred reaches a crescendo, not even the mightiest nation on earth is immune.

To read the FULL article....


Saturday, August 17, 2002

WAR is in the air....again.

Finally, someone had the GUTS to expose the FACTS, namely, that our nation is being driven into WAR by a bunch of ZIONISTS who, in conjunction with right-wing Republican hardliners, are attempting to restructure the WORLD in their UGLY image.

While it is true that Hitler suffered from delusions of grandeur...his vision is MATCHED by right-wing Israelis and their U.S. cohorts.

Instead of "Deutschland...Deutschland uber alles," the voices we presently hear proclaim: "U.S./Israel...U.S./Israel uber alles."

Recipe: When you mix a bunch of FASCISTS with a bunch of religious EXTREMISTS...what you get is...another BLOODY WAR!!!

The following article exposes right-wing BULLIES for what they are: a POWER hungry bunch whose policies are based on GREED and whose vision closely resembles that of Adolph Hitler.

The following article is a MUST read for every American interested in what is going on behind-the-scenes given that the actions of these individuals will affect the lives of each and every one of us in days and years to come:

THE NATION, September 2, 2002

The Men From JINSA and CSP by JASON A. VEST

Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks
found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee
on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States
was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and
whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets,
near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous
championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its
nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of
Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power.

Just as the right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a
shadow defense establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too,
did the right during the Clinton years, in part through two organizations: the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP).

And just as was the case two decades ago, dozens of their members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came.

Industrious and persistent, they've managed to weave a number of issues--support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general--into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core.

On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war--not just with Iraq, but "total war," as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, "regime change" by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative.

Anyone who dissents--be it Colin Powell's State Department, the CIA or career military officers--is committing heresy against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East--a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action.

For example, the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board--chaired by JINSA/CSP
adviser and former Reagan Administration Defense Department official
Richard Perle, and stacked with advisers from both groups--recently made
news by listening to a briefing that cast Saudi Arabia as an enemy to be
brought to heel through a number of potential mechanisms, many of which
mirror JINSA's recommendations, and which reflect the JINSA/CSP crowd's
preoccupation with Egypt. (The final slide of the Defense Policy Board
presentation proposed that "Grand Strategy for the Middle East" should
concentrate on "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot [and] Egypt as the prize.")

Ledeen has been leading the charge for regime change in Iran, while old comrades like Andrew Marshall and Harold Rhode in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment actively tinker with ways to re-engineer both the Iranian and Saudi governments. JINSA is also cheering the US military on as it tries to
secure basing rights in the strategic Red Sea country of Eritrea, happily failing to mention that the once-promising secular regime of President Isaiais Afewerki continues to slide into the kind of repressive authoritarianism practiced by the "axis of evil" and its adjuncts.

Indeed, there are some in military and intelligence circles who have taken to using "axis of evil" in reference to JINSA and CSP, along with venerable repositories of hawkish thinking like the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute, as well as defense contractors, conservative foundations and public relations entities underwritten by far-right American Zionists (all of which help to underwrite JINSA and CSP).

It's a milieu where ideology and money seamlessly blend: "Whenever you see someone identified in print or on TV as being with the Center for Security Policy or JINSA championing a position on the grounds of ideology or principle--which they are unquestionably doing with conviction--you are, nonetheless, not informed that they're also providing a sort of cover for other ideologues who just happen to stand to profit from hewing to the Likudnik and Pax Americana lines," says a veteran intelligence officer.

He notes that while the United States has begun a phaseout of civilian aid to Israel that will end by 2007, government policy is to increase military aid by half the amount of civilian aid that's cut each year--which is not only a boon to both the US and Israeli weapons industries but is also crucial to realizing the
far right's vision for missile defense and the Middle East.

Founded in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that the United States might not be able to provide Israel with adequate military supplies in the event of another Arab-Israeli war, over the past twenty-five years JINSA has gone from a loose-knit proto-group to a $1.4-million-a-year operation with a formidable array of Washington power players on its rolls. Until the beginning of the current Bush Administration, JINSA's board of advisers included such heavy hitters as Dick Cheney, John Bolton (now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control) and Douglas Feith, the third-highest-ranking executive in the Pentagon. Both Perle
and former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, two of the loudest voices in the attack-Iraq chorus, are still on the board, as are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eugene Rostow and Ledeen--Oliver North's Iran/ contra liaison with the Israelis.

According to its website, JINSA exists to "educate the American public about the importance of an effective US defense capability so that our vital interests as Americans can be safeguarded" and to "inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East." In practice, this translates into its members producing a steady stream of op-eds and reports that have been good indicators of what the Pentagon's civilian leadership is thinking.

JINSA relishes denouncing virtually any type of contact between the US
government and Syria and finding new ways to demonize the Palestinians.

To give but one example (and one that kills two birds with one stone):
According to JINSA, not only is Yasir Arafat in control of all violence in the occupied territories, but he orchestrates the violence solely "to protect Saddam.... Saddam is at the moment Arafat's only real financial supporter.... [Arafat] has no incentive to stop the violence against Israel and allow the West to turn its attention to his mentor and paymaster." And if there's a way to advance other aspects of the far-right agenda by intertwining them with Israeli interests, JINSA doesn't hesitate there, either. A recent report contends that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge must be tapped because "the Arab oil-producing
states" are countries "with interests inimical to ours," but Israel "stand[s] with us when we need [Israel]," and a US policy of tapping oil under ANWR will "limit [the Arabs'] ability to do damage to either of us."

The bulk of JINSA's modest annual budget is spent on taking a bevy of retired US generals and admirals to Israel, where JINSA facilitates meetings between Israeli officials and the still-influential US flag officers, who, upon their return to the States, happily write op-eds and sign letters and advertisements championing the Likudnik line. (Sowing seeds for the future, JINSA also takes US service academy cadets to Israel each summer and sponsors a lecture series at the Army, Navy and Air Force academies.)

In one such statement, issued soon after the outbreak of the latest intifada, twenty-six JINSAns of retired flag rank, including many from the advisory board, struck a moralizing tone, characterizing Palestinian violence as a "perversion of military ethics" and holding that "America's role as facilitator in this process should never yield to America's responsibility as a friend to Israel," as "friends don't leave friends on the battlefield."

However high-minded this might sound, the postservice associations of the letter's signatories--which are almost always left off the organization's website and communiqués--ought to require that the phrase be amended to say "friends don't leave friends on the battlefield, especially when there's business to be done and bucks to be made."

Almost every retired officer who sits on JINSA's board of advisers or has participated in its Israel trips or signed a JINSA letter works or has worked with military contractors who do business with the Pentagon and Israel. While some keep a low profile as self-employed "consultants" and avoid mention of their clients, others are less shy about their associations, including with the private mercenary firm Military Professional Resources International, weapons broker and military consultancy Cypress International and SY Technology, whose main clients include the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, which oversees several
ongoing joint projects with Israel.

The behemoths of military contracting are also well represented in JINSA's ranks. For example, JINSA advisory board members Adm. Leon Edney, Adm. David Jeremiah and Lieut. Gen. Charles May, all retired, have served Northrop Grumman or its subsidiaries as either consultants or board members. Northrop Grumman has built ships for the Israeli Navy and sold F-16 avionics and E-2C Hawkeye planes to the Israeli Air Force (as well as the Longbow radar system to the Israeli army for use in its attack helicopters). It also works with Tamam, a subsidiary of Israeli Aircraft Industries, to produce an unmanned aerial vehicle.

Lockheed Martin has sold more than $2 billion worth of F-16s to Israel since
1999, as well as flight simulators, multiple-launch rocket systems and Seahawk heavyweight torpedoes. At one time or another, General May, retired Lieut. Gen. Paul Cerjanand retired Adm. Carlisle Trost have labored in LockMart's vineyards. Trost has also sat on the board of General Dynamics, whose Gulfstream subsidiary has a $206 million contract to supply planes to Israel to be used for "special electronics missions."

By far the most profitably diversified of the JINSAns is retired Adm. David Jeremiah. President and partner of Technology Strategies & Alliances Corporation (described as a "strategic advisory firm and investment banking firm engaged primarily in the aerospace, defense, telecommunications and electronics industries"), Jeremiah also sits on the boards of Northrop Grumman's Litton subsidiary and of defense giant Alliant Techsystems, which--in partnership with Israel's TAAS--does a brisk business in rubber bullets. And he has a seat on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, chaired by Perle.

About the only major defense contractor without a presence on JINSA's advisory board is Boeing, which has had a relationship with Israeli Aircraft Industries for thirty years. (Boeing also sells F-15s to Israel and, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, Apache attack helicopters, a ubiquitous weapon in the occupied territories.) But take a look at JINSA's kindred spirit in things pro-Likud and pro-Star Wars, the Center for Security Policy, and there on its national security advisory council are Stanley Ebner, a former Boeing executive; Andrew Ellis, vice president for government relations; and Carl Smith, a former staff
director of the Senate Armed Services Committee who, as a lawyer in
private practice, has counted Boeing among his clients. "JINSA and CSP,"
says a veteran Pentagon analyst, "may as well be one and the same."

Not a hard sell: There's always been considerable overlap beween the JINSA and CSP rosters--JINSA advisers Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle and Phyllis Kaminsky also serve on CSP's advisory council; current JINSA advisory board chairman David Steinmann sits on CSP's board of directors; and before returning to the Pentagon Douglas Feith served as the board's chair. At this writing, twenty-two CSP advisers--including additional Reagan-era remnants like Elliott Abrams, Ken deGraffenreid, Paula Dobriansky, Sven Kraemer, Robert Joseph, Robert Andrews and J.D. Crouch--have reoccupied key positions in the national security establishment, as have other true believers of more recent vintage.

While CSP boasts an impressive advisory list of hawkish luminaries, its star is Gaffney, its founder, president and CEO. A protégé of Perle going back to their days as staffers for the late Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (a k a the Senator from Boeing, and the Senate's most zealous champion of Israel in his day), Gaffney later joined Perle at the Pentagon, only to be shown the door by Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci in 1987, not long after Perle left.

Gaffney then reconstituted the latest incarnation of the Committee on the Present Danger. Beyond compiling an A-list of influential conservative hawks, Gaffney has been prolific over the past fifteen years, churning out a constant stream of reports (as well as regular columns for the Washington Times) making the case that the gravest threats to US national security are China, Iraq,
still-undeveloped ballistic missiles launched by rogue states, and the passage of or adherence to virtually any form of arms control treaty.

Gaffney and CSP's prescriptions for national security have been fairly simple: Gut all arms control treaties, push ahead with weapons systems virtually everyone agrees should be killed (such as the V-22 Osprey), give no quarter to the Palestinians and, most important, go full steam ahead on just about every national missile defense program. (CSP was heavily represented on the late-1990s Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, which was instrumental in keeping the program alive during the Clinton years.)

Looking at the center's affiliates, it's not hard to see why: Not only are makers of the Osprey (Boeing) well represented on the CSP's board of advisers but so too is Lockheed Martin (by vice president for space and strategic missiles Charles Kupperman and director of defense systems Douglas Graham). Former TRW executive Amoretta Hoeber is also a CSP adviser, as is former Congressman and Raytheon lobbyist Robert Livingston. Ball Aerospace & Technologies--a major manufacturer of NASA and Pentagon satellites--is represented by former Navy Secretary John Lehman, while missile-defense computer systems maker Hewlett-Packard is represented by George Keyworth, who is on its board of directors. And the Congressional Missile Defense Caucus and Osprey (or "tilt rotor") caucus are represented by Representative Curt Weldon and Senator Jon

CSP was instrumental in developing the arguments against the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Largely ignored or derided at the time, a 1995 CSP memo co-written by Douglas Feith holding that the United States should withdraw from the ABM treaty has essentially become policy, as have other CSP reports opposing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the International Criminal Court. But perhaps the most insightful window on the JINSA/CSP policy worldview comes in the form of a paper Perle and Feith collaborated on in 1996 with six others under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.

Essentially an advice letter to ascendant Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" makes for insightful reading as a kind of US-Israeli neoconservative manifesto.

The paper's first prescription was for an Israeli rightward economic shift, with tax cuts and a selloff of public lands and enterprises--moves that would also engender support from a "broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders."

But beyond economics, the paper essentially reads like a blueprint for a mini-cold war in the Middle East, advocating the use of proxy armies for regime changes, destabilization and containment. Indeed, it even goes so far as to articulate a way to advance right-wing Zionism by melding it with missile-defense advocacy.

"Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state," it reads. "Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel's survival, but it would broaden Israel's base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense"--something that has the added benefit of being "helpful in the effort to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem."

Recent months in Washington have shown just how influential the notions propagated by JINSA and CSP are--and how disturbingly zealous their advocates are.

In early March Feith vainly attempted to get the CIA to keep former intelligence officers Milt Bearden and Frank Anderson from accepting an invitation to an Afghanistan-related meeting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon--not because of what the two might say about Afghanistan, according to sources familiar with the incident, but likely out of fear that Anderson, a veteran Arabist and former chief of the CIA's Near East division, would proffer his views on Iraq (opposed to invading) and Israel-Palestine (a fan of neither Arafat nor Sharon).

In late June, after United Press International reported on a US Muslim civil liberties group's lambasting of Gaffney for his attacks on the American Muslim Council, Gaffney, according to a fellow traveler, "went berserk," launching a stream of invective about the UPI scribe who reported the item.

It's incidents like this, say knowledgeable observers and participants, that highlight an interesting dynamic among right-wing hawks at the moment. Though the general agenda put forth by JINSA and CSP continues
to be reflected in councils of war, even some of the hawks (including Rumsfeld deputy Paul Wolfowitz) are growing increasingly leery of Israel's settlements policy and Gaffney's relentless support for it.

Indeed, his personal stock in Bush Administration circles is low. "Gaffney has worn out his welcome by being an overbearing gadfly rather than a serious contributor to policy," says a senior Pentagon political official. Since earlier this year, White House political adviser Karl Rove has been casting about for someone to start a new, more mainstream defense group that would counter the influence of CSP. According to those who have communicated with Rove on the matter, his quiet efforts are in response to complaints from many conservative activists who feel let down by Gaffney, or feel he's too hard on President Bush. "A lot of us have taken [Gaffney] at face value over the years," one influential conservative says. "Yet we now know he's pushed for some of the most flawed missile defense and conventional systems. He considered Cuba a 'classic asymmetric threat' but not Al Qaeda. And since 9/11, he's been less concerned with the threat to America than to Israel."

Gaffney's operation has always been a small one, about $1 million annually--funded largely by a series of grants from the conservative Olin, Bradley and various Scaife foundations, as well as some defense contractor money--but he's recently been able to underwrite a TV and print ad campaign holding that the Palestinians should be Enemy Number One in the War on Terror, still obsessed with the destruction of Israel.

It's here that one sees the influence not of defense contractor money but of far-right Zionist dollars, including some from Irving Moskowitz, the California bingo magnate. A donor to both CSP and JINSA (as well as a JINSA director), Moskowitz not only sends millions of dollars a year to far-right Israeli settler groups like Ateret Cohanim but he has also funded the construction of settlements, having bought land for development in key Arab areas around Jerusalem. Moskowitz ponied up the money that enabled the 1996 reopening of a tunnel under the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, which resulted in seventy deaths due to rioting.

Also financing Gaffney's efforts is New York investment banker Lawrence Kadish. A valued and valuable patron of both the Republican National Committee and George W. Bush, Kadish helps underwrite CSP as well as
Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, an offshoot of conservative activist William Bennett's Empower America, on which he and Gaffney serve as "senior advisers" in the service of identifying "external" and "internal" post-9/11 threats to America. (The "internal" threats, as articulated by AVOT, include former President Jimmy Carter, Harper's editor Lewis Lapham and Representative Maxine Waters.)

Another of Gaffney's backers is Poju Zabludowicz, heir to a formidable diversified international empire that includes arms manufacturer Soltam--which once employed Perle--and benefactor of the recently established Britain Israel Communication and Research Centre, a London-based group that appears to equate reportage or commentary uncomplimentary to Zionism with anti-Semitism.

While a small but growing number of conservatives are voicing concerns about various aspects of foreign and defense policy--ranging from fear of overreach to lack of Congressional debate--the hawks seem to be
ruling the roost. Beginning in October, hard-line American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin (to Rubin, outgoing UN human rights chief Mary Robinson is an abettor of terrorism) arrives at the Pentagon
to take over the Defense Department's Iran-Iraq account, adding another voice to the Pentagon section of Ledeen's "total war" chorus.

Colin Powell's State Department continues to take a beating from outside and inside--including Bolton and his special assistant David Wurmser. (An AEI scholar and far-right Zionist who's married to Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute--recently the subject of a critical investigation by London Guardian Middle East editor Brian Whitaker--Wurmser played a key role in crafting the "Arafat must go" policy that many career specialists see as a problematic sop to Ariel Sharon.)

As for Rumsfeld, based on comments made at a Pentagon "town hall" meeting on August 6, there seems to be little doubt as to whose comments are resonating most with him--and not just on missile defense and overseas adventures: After fielding a question about Israeli-Palestinian issues, he repeatedly referred to the "so-called occupied territories" and casually characterized the Israeli policy of building Jewish-only enclaves on Palestinian land as "mak[ing] some settlement in various parts of the so-called occupied area," with which Israel can do whatever it wants, as it has "won" all its wars with various Arab entities--essentially an echo of JINSA's stated position that "there is no Israeli occupation."

Ominously, Rumsfeld's riff gave a ranking Administration official something of a chill: "I realized at that point," he said, "that on settlements--where there are cleavages on the right--Wolfowitz may be to the left of Rumsfeld."<<

Friday, August 16, 2002

Members of the "Bush/Sharon Axis" are determined to DRAG the U.S. into WAR!

Any doubts that right-wing Israelis and their U.S. cohorts are determined to DRAG the U.S. into WAR are dispelled in the following article.

A "greater Israel" has always been Sharon's ultimate objective and, in the aftermath of 9/11, he found the opening he has been waiting for once the Shrub CAVED to his DEMANDS and added Palestinian "freedom fighters" to the U.S. list of "terrorists."

A war against Iraq would provide the cover Sharon needs to expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and, as opposition to a U.S. incursion into Iraq grows daily, both at home and abroad, I suspect that right-wingers in the U.S. and Israel will soon move into DISinformation mode since they have mastered this "art."

In fact, they have just launched their first salvo

Hopefully, the American people will NOT allow themselves to be dragged into another BLOODY conflict....a conflict that right-wing ISRAELIS perceive as a threat to THEIR nation while attempting to convince us it is a threat to ours.

While Saddam is undoubtedly a mean character, the FACT is that he values HIS neck more than he values anything else. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that he would attack his neighbors or the U.S. [laughable] at this point in time.

Had it not been for U.S. support during the eighties [Reagan-Poppy], Saddam would have been unable to continue waging his war against Iran. It was only after he tried to "annex" Kuwait, a nation that was not on Poppy's "to do" list, that the U.S. turned against him without proper warning.

As was often the case during the Nixon-Kissinger and Reagan-Poppy years, foreigners were USED as proxies to wage wars the U.S. deemed in its best interests. was inevitable that sooner or later such a callous approach would backfire.

It did...on 9/11, after two individuals bearing the names most hated in the Arab/Muslim world, Bush and Sharon, were entrenched in positions of power.

Osama bin Laden was practically created during the late eighties and early nineties as the U.S. USED Afghanis as proxy fighters in its battle against the Soviet Union. Again, once the Soviets retreated, Poppy turned his back on those whom he had used.

Sooooo...when his KID asked the question: WHY do they hate us....the answer is very simple: Arab/Muslims resent being USED by arrogant, right-wing bullies such as the Bushes and their right-wing cohorts.

Thursday, August 08, 2002

Your tax dollars at work....

Ahhhh....the "good ol'" Poppy days are here again. Zillions and more zillions are being thrown at defense contractors and beltway bandits totally unchecked...NO audits...NO questions asked.

"When it comes to defense, money is NO object" was the ol' Reagan-Poppy mantra that has been reaffirmed by his KID...with a vengeance.

And, with the Carlyle Group deeply entrenched in defense contract investments, it is clear that Bush monarchists are filling their pockets with BLOOD money as well.

The Pentagon believes in Santa Claus writes Mary McGrory in the Washington Post and, in the best Bush tradition, SECRECY is the name of the game.

"So anxious are the president and his civilian cohorts to get this highly dubious undertaking underway that they are reverting to the "buy before you try" standard of Caspar Weinberger, to whom the bang was more important than the buck. George Bush is trying to push missile defense so far and so fast that no successor will be able to reverse course, and hang the tests, which so far have proved nothing." writes Ms. McGrory and she is right-on-the-mark.

The "good ol' days" are here again. But then, what could we expect from the good ol' Iran-Contra Gang?

It is no wonder that the two names most hated in the Arab/Muslim world, Bush and Sharon, attracted the Mother of ALL Terrorist attacks on our nation on 9/11.

The question was not IF but simply WHEN bin Laden would attack....somehow, our intelligence agencies missed what should have been obvious when these two right-wing hardliners were allowed to govern their respective nations.

Friday, August 02, 2002

The time has come for Israelis to decide whether they want to live in peace with their neighbors and allow the establishment of a VIABLE Palestinian state, or, if they will follow Sharon, a right-wing hardliner whose ultimate objective is the establishment of a "greater Israel" by squeezing Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank.

The latter scenario would ensure that the war against hatred will simply trigger more hatred that translates into...TERRORISM.

Arab/Muslim nations have shown their willingness to accept Israel as a neighbor by officially acknowledging their existence as a Jewish state. Marwan Muasher, Jordan's Foreign Minister, speaks for all Arab/Muslims when he writes:

"The EU, the United Nations and the Arab world have heeded President Bush's call for international cooperation to restore momentum to the process and, by doing so, infuse the region with some measure of confidence in the future.

We have gone as far as we possibly can without strong American leadership. Now it is time for President Bush to join us in pressing ahead. Only then can we expect Prime Minister Sharon to participate in a constructive manner. Otherwise, we are left without a peace partner and without the possibility of achieving President Bush's vision."

To read the whole article please click here.

Thursday, August 01, 2002

Since the day he was SElected by five U.S. Supremes to sit in the Oval Office, Bush was determined to prove that actions taken by President Clinton were wrong and that he would show the world that only he and his right-wing cohorts had the right answers.

At the core of President Clinton's foreign policy was global trade and COOPERATION as clearly demonstrated by his tireless efforts on behalf of peaceful coexistence.

Conversely, the moment Bush entered the office for which he was clearly NOT qualified, he immediately adopted an attitude that spelled CONFRONTATION thereby establishing an atmosphere that antagonized friend and foe alike.

His first MAJOR catastrophic decision was to ignore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict given that he viewed the Clinton administration's efforts as too "intrusive."

Result: The Middle East BLEW UP in his face and, when he finally was forced to take action, he CAVED to the demands of Sharon and Netanyahu who insisted that Palestinian "freedom fighters" be added to the U.S. list of global terrorists.

Once Sharon was given carte blanche by the White House to do as he pleased, predictably, the bloodshed continued unabated given that his ultimate objective never had been a return to the negotiating table.

Instead, members of the Sharon/Netanyahu Brigade are presently demanding the ouster of Saddam Hussein by U.S. military forces claiming he is a threat to the "U.S."

Closely cooperating with Sharon are his U.S. right-wing cohorts, Perle and Wolfowitz, the major hawks in the Bush Administration, two Jewish Americans who also view Saddam as a threat to....ISRAEL!

The question then becomes...WHY should American troops be placed in harm's way simply because members of the "Sharon Brigade" justify their demands publicly by stating that Saddam is a serious to...the U.S.?

Does anyone truly believe that Saddam Hussein would attack the U.S. given that what is uppermost in his mind is saving his own scalp?

Bush's second MAJOR mistake was to TRASH treaties that had been signed and/or proposed since only he and his right-wing cohorts had all the answers.

Result: He antagonized friend and foe alike with his arrogant, unilateralist stance.

But, as "luck" would have it, Osama bin Laden came to his "rescue" and he was forced to make a U-Turn and seek HELP from the same nations he had been largely ignoring and/or antagonizing.

Again, his approach was one of ARROGANCE in that he proclaimed: "You are either with us, or, against us." NOT the effective manner in which to make friends and influence people. While most leaders agreed to go along with his "war of all wars" given that he largely gave them carte blanche to go after their political opponents, be they terrorists or not, in the long-run such an attitude will inevitably backfire just as Poppy's policies backfired since he practically created bin Laden by using Afghanis as proxies in their war against the Soviet Union. Once the Soviets withdrew, Poppy turned his back to this nation and paved the way for the birth of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Bush's third MAJOR mistake was to ignore major financial crises in nations such as Argentina stating they had not taken the necessary steps he had demanded.

Result: A swelling S. American financial crisis that is spreading throughout the continent as the "contagion," predictably leads to currency devaluations and political unrest.

Sec.of the Treasury O'Neill is finally headed toward the region now that it is BLOWING UP, both politically and economically.

Bush's fourth MAJOR mistake was to believe the fairy tales predicted by some, namely, that budget surpluses would last forever and that a humongous tax cut, mostly for the wealthiest, was the solution to all ills.

Result: Surpluses soon turned into large deficits that will, sooner or later, takes their toll on the U.S. economy. However, he insists that all tax cuts be made permanent given that Poppy broke his "read my lips" pledge, a "mistake" he is unwilling to repeat.

During the 2000 campaign I asked one question: WHY argue with SUCCESS?

What is wrong with healthy economic growth...a balanced budget...low inflation...low unemployment and...a world largely at PEACE?

But, for reasons that escape me, a total ignoramus was escorted into the Oval Office in 2001, a man who had accomplished absolutely NOTHING in life other than to bear his father's name, as luck would have it, who in turn had close connections to the Enron crowd of the corporate world.

CRONYISM is the name of the game the Bushes play best. And loyalty is measured in terms of SECRECY to increase their hold on POWER!

Using bin Laden as their prop, Bush and his cohorts are presently transforming this great nation into a police state. Assuming bin Laden is still alive, he must be having the time of his life watching the damage that is being inflicted on this great nation in his name.

The question that remains to be answered is: WHY did we argue with...SUCCESS?