P2P-Zone - so, how's PNAC doing these days?

P2P-Zone (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/index.php)

- Political Asylum (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/forumdisplay.php?f=34)

- - so, how's PNAC doing these days? (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/showthread.php?t=21997)

so, how's PNAC doing these days?

the Project For A New American Century is a well-documented game plan for US foreign policy administration that has been discussed here before. the plan, developed in the 90's and refined after 9/11, calls for the US to practice "benevolent global hegemony" based on "military supremacy and moral confidence".

from the Asia Times, an interesting article on how PNAC (and by direct extension, the Bush administration) is doing after four years of foreign policy failure:

Quote:

Coalition down but not out
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - It was four years ago this week that a little-known group called the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) published an open letter to President George W Bush advising him on how precisely he should carry out his brand-new "war on terrorism".

In addition to ousting Afghanistan's Taliban, the letter's mostly neo-conservative signatories called for implementing regime change "by all necessary means" in Iraq, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the (September 11) attack". It also urged "appropriate measures of retaliation" against Iran and Syria if those countries refused to comply with US demands to cut off support to Hezbollah, which they considered part of the terror network.

The letter called for cutting off aid to the Palestinian Authority unless it immediately halted attacks against Israel and Israeli settlements, and for a "large increase in defense spending" in order to rein in the conflict that some of its signers, notably former CIA director James Woolsey, were soon describing as "World War IV".

Six months later, PNAC published a second letter - again little-noticed by the US mainstream media - calling for Washington to "accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power", "lend full support to Israel" whose "fight against terrorism is our fight", and greatly increase the defense budget to ensure that the impending war could be successfully carried out in all its aspects.

PNAC's prescription and subsequent events fostered the impression, particularly in Europe and the Arab world, that the group had successfully and - given the lack of media coverage - covertly "hijacked" US foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East.

These events included the administration's fulsome embrace of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, followed by the invasion of Iraq, not to mention the effective cut-off of communications with both Damascus and Tehran (albeit not precisely because of their ties to Hezbollah).

Indeed, when the historical record of what the Bush administration has actually done in the region is compared with PNAC's recommendations, the correspondence can only be described as stunning.

But they were hardly the result of some covert conspiracy.

In fact, the PNAC, whose staff consists of only about half a dozen people, had been issuing letters, statements and reports quite openly for several years before. It called in particular for regime change in Iraq as part of a larger foreign policy project inspired mainly by a policy paper drafted by hawks in the Pentagon under former President George H W Bush after the first Gulf War, and by a 1996 article by PNAC co-founders William Kristol and Robert Kagan in Foreign Affairs magazine that called for the US to practice "benevolent global hegemony" based on "military supremacy and moral confidence".

The ideas contained in those works attracted - indeed reflected - the thinking of what could best be called a coalition of hawks, including assertive nationalists, neo-conservatives and the Christian Right, which have worked together since the mid-1970s.

And it was that coalition that seized the initiative after September 11, 2001 within the administration. Guided by Kristol, who doubles as editor of The Weekly Standard, PNAC simply became the public voice of that coalition.

After all, among the signatories of its 1997 charter statement were Vice President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their two top aides, I Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz (who had authored the 1992 Pentagon paper), respectively, as well as several other top administration officials.

Thus, in its September 20, 2001 letter to Bush, the PNAC was not "recommending" anything that these men were not already pushing within the administration's highest councils, as Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward among others has since made clear. It was acting as a combination of transmission belt, echo chamber and cheerleader on the outside, as it has since.

So, four years later, how is the PNAC is doing? The short answer is not so well. Because it represents a coalition of different, although like-minded varieties of hawks, its own influence - or at least the perception of that influence - is highly dependent on the coalition's unity.

But that unity began to fray even as US troops were flowing into Iraq. Sensing that Rumsfeld, in particular, was not committed to using the kind of overwhelming force - and keeping it there - necessary for "transforming" Iraq (and the region), Kristol and Kagan, among other neo-conservatives, began attacking the defence secretary and have repeatedly called for his resignation.

Moreover, their tactical alliance with "liberal internationalists" - mostly Democrats - in appealing for the resources required for "nation-building" has, by many accounts, deeply offended Rumsfeld and other "assertive nationalists" in and outside the administration.

Some in turn have blamed neo-conservatives for deluding themselves and Bush into thinking that US troops would be greeted with "sweets and flowers" in Iraq. The exile of Wolfowitz to the World Bank and the resignation last summer of Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith should be seen in this light.

But the breakdown in the coalition's unity and coherence resulted at least as much from external factors, as well, beginning with the tenacity of the Iraq insurgency. In bogging down US land forces, it has put paid to the coalition's original dreams of the armed forces being prepared to intervene in any crisis - anytime, anywhere.

In addition, the unanticipated and enormous costs associated with the occupation in Iraq - to which might now be added the unanticipated and enormous costs of recovery from Hurricane Katrina - has also demonstrated, both to some right-wing but budget-conscious nationalists, as well as to the rest of the world, that the money for the kind of military PNAC has always lobbied for is simply not available.

Thus, significant hikes in the defence budget, or in the occupation force in Iraq, as called for by PNAC in its most recent letter this January, are simply beyond the political pale.

Indeed, the growing public perception that Iraq has become a "quagmire" has added to the burdens of the PNAC coalition, members of which now must spend an inordinate amount of time defending the original decision to invade. A group that is temperamentally best suited to offence has found itself over the past two years in an increasingly defensive crouch.

Another external event that has clearly divided the PNAC coalition, and even the neo-conservatives who have dominated it, was Sharon's determination to disengage from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

The September 20, 2001 letter and its April 3, 2002 follow-up on the Israel-Palestinian conflict both reflected the coalition's commitment to the closest-possible alliance between the US and a Likud-led Israel.

But just as the Likud Party in Israel has split over Sharon's disengagement, so PNAC hawks, particularly the neo-conservatives and the Christian Right, have split here. And because Israel holds such a central position in the worldview of both groups, internal disagreement on such a key issue is particularly debilitating.

But it would be a mistake to believe that because the PNAC and the coalition it represents are down, they must be out, particularly with respect to the other policy initiatives which they recommended four years ago.

Confrontation with Iran, particularly under the leadership of hard-line President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, is something that the coalition remains unified about, particularly with respect to the prospect of Tehran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

While the PNAC has not explicitly addressed what to do about Iran, there is little question that the coalition - like the hawks within the administration - remains fundamentally united on its own hardline policy and, in any event, an absolute refusal to directly engage the new government.

What to do about Syria is more uncertain, although more hawkish sectors within the coalition clearly favor "regime change", possibly with the help of cross-border attacks in the name of preempting the infiltration of insurgents into Iraq, as has been called for by Kristol, among others.

While realists within the administration argue in favor of engaging Syrian President Bashar Assad, if only because the alternative could be so much worse, the hawks, particularly the neo-conservatives who often refer to Damascus as "low-lying fruit", appear determined to prevent any weakening of their policy of isolation and economic pressure on the assumption that the regime will soon collapse.

As in Iraq, however, the question of what will take its place has not yet been fully thought through.

these days, most people seem to like the old American century better.

And this too shall pass...

Cumming
on a blue dress
made me happy

Questions
in the courtroom
made me lie

Cum stains
on the blue dress
proved me guilty

Scumbags
in the congress
let me fly

Had John Denver in my head today. (Sunshine)

at some point in the future, when historians poke around in the aftermath of the slow-motion train wreck that is this Bush administration, PNAC's mission statement will come to be regarded as the Mein Kampf of it's time.

indeed

and most of the people living in the u.s., just like in 1930's-40's Germany can say "we had no idea this was happening"

and like those ja-mer-mans of yore would be held in contempt by civilized people for eons. course not quite as strongly, perhaps, but cheer up rabid conservatives, the republicans are still running things. it ain't over yet. before they're hunted down like mangy dogs or chased from power by global invasion forces these hard-right sociopaths may just give the nazi's a run for thier zyklon b afterall - and while in hiding you can squeak "we helped them do it!" under your breath naturally. there's your legacy. what a gas, eh?

- js.

You gotta pull yourself out of that fantasy world Jack; it ain't healthy. Just snap out of it. Come on; you can do it.

it must be tough to see wearing blinders

Quote:

Neocon architect says: 'Pull it down'

NEOCONSERVATISM has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda, according to one of its prime architects.

Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies.

In an extract from his forthcoming book, America at the Crossroads, Mr Fukuyama declares that the doctrine "is now in shambles" and that its failure has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes".
In its narrowest form, neoconservatism advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones.

Mr Fukuyama once supported regime change in Iraq and was a signatory to a 1998 letter sent by the Project for a New American Century to the then president, Bill Clinton, urging the US to step up its efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It was also signed by neoconservative intellectuals, such as Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, and political figures Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the current defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

now he figures out the game plan is doomed - sorry about your kids, mr & mrs america :dunno:

wonder if he e-mailed this revelation to fellow neocon PNAC-ers Cheney and Rumsfeld..."hey guys, we fucked up bigtime - this whole Iraq thing isn't gonna work out the way we thought it would..." :shf:

Those were your legs you left in Iraq? Oh dear. I'm sorry, we're just making this up as we go along, didn't you know?

in the immortal words of otter:

"You fucked up - you believed us!"

take that america!

- js.

Quote:

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

...He said it with reproach--with disbelief, almost--at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. ...I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

link

Quote:

Originally Posted by theknife

now he figures out the game plan is doomed

Fukuyama as of at least 2 years ago was saying that the ideas behind the original Neoconservation movement that he was a part of had been corrupted and stained forever.

He no longer even associates with those that refer to themselves as Neocons.

What's a neocon?

Is it anything like a ecofreak?

page 73 of the PNAC's 'Rebulding Americas Defenses'

Quote:

This may happen when they take on
one mission too many – if, say, NATO’s
role in the Balkans expands, or U.S troops
enforce a demilitarized zone on the Golan
Heights – and a major theater war breaks
out. Or, it may happen when two major
theater wars occur nearly simultaneously.
Or it may happen when a new great power –
a rising China – seeks to challenge
American interests and allies in an important
region.

i wonder how the nano bot army and the space weapons are coming?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RDixon

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_next_war/1

That was an interesting and well-written (and scary) article. Thanks for the link, RDixon. :W:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TankGirl

That was an interesting and well-written (and scary) article. Thanks for the link, RDixon. :W:

Thanks.

I seldom read the entire article when they are that long, but that one, I did.

And I fear what is revealed in the article is just the tip of the iceberg that will sink America.

from the last paragraph in the article:

Quote:

"Faster, please," he urged the White House, arguing that the war should now be taken over by the U.S. military and expanded across the entire region. "The only way we are going to win this war is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus, and they are not going to fall as a result of fighting between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Only the United States can accomplish it," he concluded. "There is no other way."

these fucking maniacs are truly delusional - bring down these regimes how? and then what? the "we'll be greeted as liberators with flowers strewn at our feet" myth has been shattered in Iraq and Afghanistan...what makes Damascus and Tehran any more tenable than Bagdhad?

What makes everyone think military action in Iran is a foregone conclusion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

What makes everyone think military action in Iran is a foregone conclusion?

don't know about everyone else but i'm not saying it's a foregone conclusion; i'm saying that our government has given every indication that they would prefer military action over diplomatic action. since it's clear they have not learned a thing from Iraq, military action is indeed something to be concerned about. headline from today's NYT:

Quote:

Bush Sees a Chance for Change to Sweep Mideast

sound familiar?

If the military has learned anything from Iraq (and it is patently ridiculous to say nothing has been learned), it's how to get involved with the local people, earn their trust, and use them as informants to flush out insurgents. This is a skill very few of our soldiers had four years ago, but after three years in Iraq the troops are getting real good at gathering and applying intelligence. The field commanders are learning a lot too, and if anybody can predict what's going to happen and what needs to be done in Iran, it's definitly them. Knowing what they know, they'll be making the case to their superiors and to the president that military action in Iran would be a serious mistake, ten-fold worse than the mistake you think the Iraq war has been.

If indeed the president does make threats of bombing or invasion, he's just doing it to make the Iranian government sweat. Not surprisingly the people here at home who think Bush is a mindless warmonger believe those threats just as much as the Iranians disbelieve them.

If change is to sweep the middle east, that sweep should occur in a north-westerly direction, through Syria. The conflict in Lebanon and Israel would come to a quick end if Syria's borders were closed to Iran. Both Hezbollah and many of the insurgents in Iraq would have their supply lines to Iran severed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

Where to begin....
What has been learned?
No WMDs.
No ties to 9 / 11.
No ties to Bin Laden.
No cakewalks.
No Flowers.
No slam dunks.
No Iraqi oil money to pay for the mess.
And foremost, absolutely no justification for going to war with Iraq, yet here we are in a ever growing mess.

Hell, this military is so damned ignorant, they can't even do a coverup and get it right.

Incompetence at the top and the trickle down theory.

As for as how it's going in Iraq:

Same way things were going in Nam in '68.

Politicians with no military experience making "decisions" on how the war is prosecuted and looking for some one or something to blame other than themselves when all their "decisions" prove to be disasterously wrong.

Why is Rumsfeld still the Sec Def?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RDixon

Do the Math RDixon and follow the money trail...

Today there are still 5 bank left that are not in control of the central banks or the Rothschild banks. Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Libya and Sudan. There used to be 7 of them, the ones that fell were Afghanistan and Iraq. Why would Iran being treated differently?

Chronology

9/11 happened, mighty good excuse to ram into Afghanistan and take over their banking system. What is today's results? Women are still in fear of their lives and still wearing those damned worse than burkah's dress. No infrastructure has been built yet and it's still civil war there.

Through their best efforts in trying to link Al-Q. to Iraq has miserably failed. No WMD's, no biological weapon recovered there yet the occupation still goes on and the media are very afraid, compared to here, to call it now another civil war with no better conditions for Iraq's citizen or rebuilding their infrastructures.

Now, Iran, the big badass wolf with allegations that they are building nukes, hiding Iraq's WMD's and with ties to Hezbollah, maybe they do but it's only a matter of time before those persians get invaded.

Each country so far that has tried to kicked the US dollar off their market has been demonised such as Cuba and recently Venesuela. Maybe it is unknown to some of you but when I was visiting Venesuela back in early 1994, they were under US dollar embargo, if we would have known that, we would have purchased american dollars to change it there since they gave us twice as much bolivars as they did canadian money.

Why does the international community does not help Sudan in this time of crisis? I do believe it's because their bank is not yet part of the international banking crap so no one have any interests to help them.

The only reason why the USA wants to get Canada and Mexico into that alliance is because they want to be able to compete with the Euro standard. Brown Nose Harper will surely bow down to that creep but most canadians won't, maybe Alberta will tho :PO:

RDixon, you are right, Iran will be invaded, not because of their weapons, not because of their oil but only to secure the hegemony of the US dollar.

Follow the money trail...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RDixon

We learn as much from our mistakes as from our successes. Either way we are victorious, and only by learning nothing could we characterize this war as a faillure.

And why is Rumsfeld still the secretary of defense? Because he is a civilian commander, and he works for a civilian commander in chief. This is, after all, how the framers of the Constitution wanted it to be. Rumsfeld also happens to be particularly good at keeping the ambitions of careerists colonels and generals from mucking things up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

...And why is Rumsfeld still the secretary of defense?...

The Answer lies inside the question ;)

Not the first time he's been the secretary of defence, he was back in 1975 under President Ford.

Get back on your meds missy.

It's not even amusing now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albed

Get back on your meds missy.

It's not even amusing now.

Let me get this...

First it's you are drunk?, seconds it's get off those drugs (bong sucking monkey?) and now it's get on meds? Make up yer mind you shell of a tortoise!

Funny, no it ain't, especially with what is happening right now but it all comes down to PNAC doesn't it? Without the support of Canada or Mexico, the ugly truth is that the United States doesn't have the capital$$$ to wage that war.

As for those banks, it is now recorded history, after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, they were assimilated into that world bank trip and Iran is next. Atleast under the Taliban, the Poppy fields were destroyed while now with that new gov in place, Heroin trade is thriving. What is wrong with that picture :con:

So far, Israel is only driving your country into an ugly war which most american and canadian citizens wouldn't even want to touch with a 60 foot pole but because of the aid your country provide to that state, you are tied to that conflict and it is happening. It's only a matter of time before Iran jump in the whole mess and when that hapens, I can only pray that that Brown nose Harper will be out of Pretzels by that time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_silver

It's only a matter of time before Iran jump in the whole mess and when that hapens, I can only pray that that Brown nose Harper will be out of Pretzels by that time.

Iran is already in it. Without them, Hezbollah wouldn't have enough money to feed themselves, let alone fire missiles on Israeli buildings. If Hezbollah wins their little war, Lebanon will become their property. Because of Iran the authority of the democratic government of Lebanon is in jeopardy. And here we thought Lebanon had finally gotten out from under Syria's thumb, but it turns out that the people of that little nation are still just pawns in Iran's play for Israel's distruction.

Being at war with terrorism means we're already at war with the government of Iran, and they've been at war with us for much longer. But it's a cold war, and as we did with the Soviet Union, we can win the war without droping a single bomb. Don't assume that just because we're enemies that we wish death upon each other. We're not interested in engaging in combat, but we must still prepare for it. Like the old saying says, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_silver

RDixon, you are right, Iran will be invaded, not because of their weapons, not because of their oil but only to secure the hegemony of the US dollar.

I am not making predictions about the us invading iran.

I am merely pointing out the people who seem hell bent on doing that no matter the cost.

My personal belief is that Bush knows that invading Iran without a formal declaration of war from Congress would be a dangerous act.

It is also my belief that if they start another illegal war, there will be turmoil in this country the likes of which have not been seen here since 1770.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

Problem with this is rotation. Most of the people who have picked up these skills are on rotation out, and not a lot are looking at reupping for another stint. So the question becomes one not of have our troops learned anything, but has the way in which the military trains its troops and the way in which the commanders use the troops evolved in any way.

After speaking to a friend who just completed basic about 9 weeks ago, the answer to part one is no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

actually, my point is that it is the Bush administration has learned little from Iraq (at least not they are willing to admit publicly) - no doubt the military has learned much. but as far as "making their case", well, the administration is not famous for it's open-door policies. case in point:

Quote:

The Bush administration's decision to move thousands of U.S. soldiers into Baghdad to quell sectarian warfare before it explodes into outright civil war underscores a problem that's hindered the American effort to rebuild Iraq from the beginning: There aren't enough troops to do the job.

Many U.S. officials in Baghdad and in Washington privately concede the point. They say they've been forced to shuffle American units from one part of the country to another for at least two years because there haven't been enough soldiers and Marines to deal simultaneously with Sunni Muslim insurgents and Shiite militias; train Iraqi forces; and secure roads, power lines, border crossings and ammunition dumps.

. . . "This is exactly what happens when there aren't enough troops: You extend people and you deplete your theater reserve," said an American defense official in Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

During embedded reporting trips beginning in the summer of 2003 - which included time with troops from eight Army divisions, an armored cavalry regiment and several Marine units -- yours truly a McClatchy reporter was told repeatedly that more manpower was needed.

. . Almost no high-ranking, active-duty U.S. officers are willing to discuss their concerns about troop levels publicly, for fear of being reprimanded or having their careers cut short. There's an unwritten understanding, they said, that the Bush administration doesn't want to hear about the need for more troops.

"They're not allowed to ask for more troops," the U.S. defense official in Iraq said. "If you say something you're gone, you're relieved, you're not in the Army anymore" - Tom Lasseter, Knight Ridder McClatchy Newspapers

there is not much reason to believe the administration, led largely by people with no miltary experience, will pay heed to the military.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RDixon

agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malk-a-mite

Is your friend serving in Iraq now? I'm curious to know what he's learning over there. I would venture to say that the Army's field training techniques have changed drastically since Vietnam, and it has a lot to do with the way troops are deployed, which I'll explain below.

Quote:

"This is exactly what happens when there aren't enough troops: You extend people and you deplete your theater reserve," said an American defense official in Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I've read that a lot of this ill sentiment among the military brass has a lot to do with Rumsfeld. The military leaders want to run this war like every other war we've been involved in, i.e. throw all your manpower and firepower at the problem until it goes away. The secretary of defense understands, as the president does, that an oppressive dictatorship-styled occupation will loose this war for us. To limit casualities on both sides they're simply limiting troop numbers. They want the troops on the ground to interface with the people of Iraq, teach them how to defend themselves, use them to gather intelligence directly, and restrain themselves from causing collateral damage. As a result conventional tactis have gone right out the window, and the administration is basically forcing the military to learn new things to adapt to this situation. Needless to say a lot of West Point graduates are wondering why they bothered to go to school to learn a bunch of now useless strategies.

Quote:

Almost no high-ranking, active-duty U.S. officers are willing to discuss their concerns about troop levels publicly, for fear of being reprimanded or having their careers cut short. There's an unwritten understanding, they said, that the Bush administration doesn't want to hear about the need for more troops.

Like I stated above, the iron fist of Rumsfeld is preventing a lot of brass from abusing their authority. Those that do so get the boot. Asking for more troops is not an abuse of authority, but building a strategy around a certain troop level and demanding more troops from the president in order to make that strategy work is blackmail, because employing such a strategy needlessly jeopardizes the lives of the troops that are there. Those who have tried to use blackmail have either been demoted or retired. The lesson is do what the commander in chief tells you to do or face the consequences. While you may not like the way the president has used the military in the middle east, you have to give him credit for upholding his Constitutional mandate to keep the military subservient to the civilian government.

Anyway, this war will be won mostly with brains rather than brawn. Everybody who has been demanding that the troops be brought home will soon get their wish. The brass will likely complain in private that troop levels in Iraq are being scaled back too quickly, while the anti-war camp here at home will publicly complain that they're not being scaled back fast enough. You can't fault the military for wanting to finish the job, for wanting to keep as many troops in place as they can so they can do what they were brought there to do. But the hammer isn't the only tool available to us. Before too long our mission in Iraq will be a diplomatic/humanitarian one because, simply put, using the military to solve all our problems weakens our moral authority. We can't do that and win the war at the same time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RDixon

True, Mr. Buchanan seems to think the same thing.

Quote:

July 21, 2006
No, This Is Not 'Our War'
by Patrick J. Buchanan

My country has been "torn to shreds," said Fouad Siniora, the prime minister of Lebanon, as the death toll among his people passed 300 civilian dead, 1,000 wounded, with half a million homeless.

Israel must pay for the "barbaric destruction," said Siniora.

To the contrary, says columnist Lawrence Kudlow, "Israel is doing the Lord's work."

On American TV, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu says the ruination of Lebanon is Hezbollah's doing. But is it Hezbollah that is using U.S.-built F-16s, with precision-guided bombs, and 155-mm artillery pieces to wreak death and devastation on Lebanon?

No, Israel is doing this, with the blessing and without a peep of protest from President Bush. And we wonder why they hate us.

"Today, we are all Israelis!" brayed Ken Mehlman of the Republican National Committee to a gathering of Christians United for Israel.

One wonders if these Christians care about what is happening to our Christian brethren in Lebanon and Gaza, who have had all power cut off by Israeli air strikes, an outlawed form of collective punishment, that has left them with no sanitation, rotting food, impure water, and days without light or electricity in the horrible heat of July.

When summer power outrages occur in America, it means a rising rate of death among our sick and elderly, and women and infants. One can only imagine what a hell it must be today in Gaza City and Beirut.

But all this carnage and destruction has only piqued the blood lust of the hairy-chested warriors at The Weekly Standard. In a signed editorial, "It's Our War," William Kristol calls for America to play her rightful role in this war by "countering this act of aggression by Iran with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?"

"Why wait?" Well, one reason is that the United States has not been attacked. A second is a small thing called the Constitution. Where does George W. Bush get the authority to launch a war on Iran? When did Congress declare war or authorize a war on Iran?

Answer: It never did. But these neoconservatives care no more about the Constitution than they cared about the truth when they lied us into war in Iraq.

"Why wait?" How about thinking of the fate of those 25,000 Americans in Lebanon if we launch an unprovoked war on Iran? How many would wind up dead or hostages of Hezbollah, if Iran gave the order to retaliate for the slaughter of their citizens by U.S. bombs? What would happen to the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, if Shi'ites and Iranian "volunteers" joined forces to exact revenge on our soldiers?

What about America? Richard Armitage, who did four tours in Nam and knows a bit about war, says that, in its ability to attack Western targets, al-Qaeda is the B team, Hezbollah the A Team. If Bush bombs Iran, what prevents Hezbollah from launching retaliatory attacks inside the United States?

None of this is written in defense of Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran.

But none of them has attacked our country, nor has Syria, whom Bush I made an ally in the Gulf War, and to whom the most decorated soldier in Israeli history, Ehud Barak, offered 99 percent of the Golan Heights. If Nixon, Bush I, and Clinton could deal with Hafez al-Assad, a tougher customer than son Bashar, what is the matter with George W. Bush?

The last superpower is impotent in this war because we have allowed Israel to dictate to whom we may and may not talk. Thus, Bush winds up cussing in frustration in St. Petersburg that somebody should tell the Syrians to stop it. Why not pick up the phone, Mr. President?

What is Kristol's moral and legal ground for a war on Iran? It is the "Iranian act of aggression" against Israel, and that Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons, and we can't have that.

But there is no evidence Iran has any tighter control over Hezbollah than we have over Israel, whose response to the capture of two soldiers had all the spontaneity of the Schlieffen Plan. And, again, Hezbollah attacked Israel, not us. And there is no solid proof Iran is in violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which it has signed but Israel refuses to sign.

If Iran's nuclear program justifies war, why cannot the neocons make that case in the constitutional way, instead of prodding Bush to launch a Pearl Harbor attack? Do they fear they have no credibility left after pushing Bush into this bloody quagmire in Iraq that has cost almost 2,600 dead and 18,000 wounded Americans?

No, Kenny boy, we are not "all Israelis." Some of us still think of ourselves as Americans, first, last, and always. And, no, Mr. Kristol, this is not "our war." It's your war.

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9375

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

blackmail? hardly - it was Rumsfeld and the DoD who set the troop levels in the pre-war planning. when Army Chief of Staff General Shineski argued in 2003 that there were not enough to do the job, Rumsfeld fired him..

and as far as Bush and the Constution goes, he gets credit for doing more damage to that document than any president in memory. case in point, from the American Bar Association's report on signing statements:

Quote:

“If left unchecked, the president’s practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances, that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries. Immediate action is required to address this threat to the Constitution and to the rule of law in our country.”

the creativity of the Bush apologists never fails to amaze me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RDixon

well the WMD's still might be found by Israel in Lebanon or Syria.

we know there were some, because Rummy helped sell it to Saddam.

or maybe when the UN troops move in they will find them;)

other than that, let them eat cakewalk

never knew about this :)

Saddam Hussein donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to a Detroit church and received a key to the city more than two decades ago, soon after he became president of Iraq.

The events contrast sharply with the attack Saddam's regime is now facing from a U.S.-led coalition, reflecting his changed relationship with the United States since Washington helped Saddam covertly in his 1980-88 war with Iran.

Saddam's bond with Detroit started in 1979, when the Rev. Jacob Yasso of Chaldean Sacred Heart congratulated Saddam on his presidency. In return, Yasso said, his church received $250,000.

"He was very kind person, very generous, very cooperative with the West. Lately, what's happened, I don't know," Yasso, 70, said Wednesday. "Money and power changed the person."

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment.

Yasso said that at the time, Saddam made donations to Chaldean churches around the world.

"He's very kind to Christians," Yasso said.

Chaldeans are a Catholic group in predominantly Muslim Iraq. Among prominent Chaldeans is Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz.

A year later, Yasso traveled with about two dozen people to Baghdad as a guest of the Iraqi government, and they were invited to Saddam's palace.

"We were received on the red carpet," Yasso said.

Yasso said he presented Saddam with the key to the city, courtesy of then-Mayor Coleman Young. Then, Yasso said, he got a surprise.

"He said, `I heard there was a debt on your church. How much is it?"' Yasso said.

Saddam donated another $200,000.

In the 1980s, Iraq and the United States were allied in their mistrust of Iran, which held hundreds of Americans hostage under the regime of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Yasso called Saddam an American puppet.

"The job the United States trusted to him is done; now he's no good," he said.

There are tens of thousands of Chaldeans among the roughly 300,000 Americans of Middle Eastern descent in the Detroit area. About 1,200 families attend Sacred Heart, said Yasso, who came to the United States in 1964.

Some church members disagreed that Saddam was once kind.

"When he became president, I leave everything and run away," said Nadhim Franco, 66. "I came here. I was dishwasher. I came here, I was happy."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in546287.shtml