Dump Condi: Foreign policy conservatives charge State Dept. has hijacked Bush agenda
The warmongers are furious. They had their plans and now certain people are ruining them and they are not ready to accept defeat.
The plan was that Israel was to invade Lebanon with such reckless abandon that, hopefully, Syria or Iran would intervene giving the warmongers their long dreamed of wider Middle Eastern war.
Indeed, as I pointed out in a recent post, the secret wish of the extreme right for this wider conflict was shown in Victor Davis Hanson's solemn plea:
Why do not Iran and Syria — or for that matter other Arab states — now attack Israel to join the terrorists that they have armed?
You can almost hear the desperate disappointment in his voice .
Now neo-conservatives such as Newt Gingrich and Richard Perle have decided who they are going to blame for "reversing the administration’s national security and foreign policy agenda."
They are calling on Bush to fire Condaleezza Rice for incompetence.
The conservatives, who include Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle and leading current and former members of the Pentagon and National Security Council, have urged the president to transfer Miss Rice out of the State Department and to an advisory role. They said Miss Rice, stemming from her lack of understanding of the Middle East, has misled the president on Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict.Now what can Rice have done to be deserving of such wrath from these nutcases? After all she has refused to criticise Israel and certainly, as I pointed out yesterday, she gave Israel so much time to complete whatever it may have wanted to do in Lebanon that she'd have been quicker getting to the Middle East on a pogo stick.
"The president has yet to understand that people make policy and not the other way around," a senior national security policy analyst said. "Unlike [former Secretary of State Colin] Powell, Condi is loyal to the president. She is just incompetent on most foreign policy issues."
"North Korea firing missiles," Mr. Gingrich said. "You say there will be consequences. There are none. We are in the early stages of World War III. Our bureaucracies are not responding fast enough. We don't have the right attitude."Perhaps Miss Rice is unaware that we are in the middle of WWIII, though to be fair to her not many of us have ever been told that we are in such a conflict, so you'll have to cut Rice a little slack there.
It is left to Richard Perle, the Prince of Darkness, to spell out the real sin that Rice - and by implication, Bush - has committed.
The failure of successive U.S. administrations, including this one, to give moral and political support to the (Iranian) regime's opponents is a tragedy.By which he means Israel. The fury can surely only be because Rice has now arrived in the Middle East and the shooting match they have been enjoying so much will eventually be brought to an end before the great battle against Iran can even commence. This fact infuriates the nutbags of the far right.
Of course, with the US forces tied up in Iraq any idea of a war with Iran, as any sensible person could tell you, is solely for fantasists.
However, these dangerous fantasists surround Bush, and their dream is of an all out Middle East war - leaving Israel at the top of the pile - and they are hoping to use US military might to pull it off.
They have been scheming and planning this for decades and they are furious that, with it seeming so tantalisingly close, it about to be snatched away from them.
Although there have, indeed, been hints that they have been planning this for decades, for anyone to have suggested they wanted the US to fight a war for Israel would have instantly been dismissed as anti-Semitic nonsense. However, all that changed when William Kristol made his soon to be infamous remarks, that Israel's wars are the US's wars too.
This was an astonishing comment. Thanks to the US, Israel possesses the world's fourth largest army. The idea that they need the US to fight their wars would baffle most Americans and force them to ask why they give Israel $6 billion a year in aid. Surely that was to equip Israel to fend off any foes?
However, the logic employed by most of us misunderstands the neo-con way of thinking. They essentially see no difference between the well being of Israel and the well being of the United States. To them they are the same.
Indeed, Wurmser, Perle and Feith were the principal authors of the 1996 100-day policy plan for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. None ever registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for this work.Perle has even transmitted classified information to the Israelis, proving that he sees no essential difference between the security needs of the US and the security needs of Israel. To him, as to all neo-cons, they are the same.
"An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy."In Bush, the neo-cons thought they had finally found the man who would allow them to unleash US and Israeli forces towards Israel's enemies in the Middle East.
And they thought now was the time. A glance at this site tells us that over at the Rapture Ready Forum they were so excited about the coming conflict that they were preparing to meet the Lord.
The neo-cons have not yet given up on Bush, so the blame must belong at Rice's door, hence the calls for her to be fired.
The idea of young Americans laying down their lives for the citizens of another nation would appal most Americans, who believe their troops should only risk their lives when their country faces maximum danger.
But that's because most Americans, whilst supporting Israel, recognise that Israelis are not Americans. The neo-cons do not make this distinction.
And having sent US troops into Iraq based on a set of lies, why should we suppose that they wouldn't send them to fight their great war in the Middle East for Israel? They never cared about whether the troops needed to be employed in Iraq, they were simply determined that Saddam would be overthrown and, if we lost troops, that was the price we had to pay. Indeed, Perle, especially, has never shown any concern for US troops.
When discussing his new book "Battle Ready" co-authored with retired general Anthony Zinni, author Tom Clancy stated that he almost came to blows with Perle. According to Clancy:
- "He was saying how (Secretary of State) Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me.
But their hypocrisy doesn't stop there. These men claim to believe in God. Whether they are Jews or Christians, they claim to believe in a Higher Being and to live by his teachings.
And yet they are salivating to send young men and women into war and calling for the dismissal of anyone who they perceive to be standing in their way.
All of us must now stand in their way. William Kristol overplayed his hand when he claimed Israel's wars were the wars of the USA. They can no longer brand anyone who opposes what they are proposing as anti-Semitic.
Israel's wars are not the US's wars. And the neo-cons are being unpatriotic when they claim that they are. American soldiers should only ever die defending American causes. Anyone who argues otherwise is a traitor.
Click title for full article.
6 comments:
Kel,
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on this:
The idea of young Americans laying down their lives for the citizens of another nation would appal most Americans, who believe their troops should only risk their lives when their country faces maximum danger.
No, they don't. At least they don't anymore. Once the WMD falsehoods were exposed for the lies they were, the White House shifted to the "freedom and democracy for Iraq" rhetoric. Most Americans then bought that load of crap, hook, line and sinker, not thinking at all that US troops were dying so that Iraqis could have a free society. I am not going to get into whether that was the genuine goal of the White House (not!) but merely point out that when the war was still polling positive, this was what was cited as the reason to "stay the course."
Of course, now it has become (if has not always been) a purely narcissistic worry that pulling out would make America look weak. But the "freedom and democracy for Iraq" was something swallowed by a majority of the population, hardly what one would call "maximum danger" for the US. American soldiers were and are being killed supposedly for the Iraqi people and Americans didn't seem to have a big problem with that initially. Hardly anyone said, hey wait a minute, that is not what the military is for. It wasn't until is finally became obvious, even to the most ignorant chump, that nothing good was going to come out of this enormous misadventure that the majority of the country turned against the effort.
Bhc,
I find that depressing beyond belief. The notion that young men and women can be put in danger when the country isn't really angers me. But when I think about what you have written, you are right.
The majority of them did buy into the free Iraq notion.
Do you think they would buy the "Israel is in danger" crap as well? Despite the amount of funding you give?
Like I've said already, Americans gobble up the spoon-fed pablum oozing out of CNN/Fox/ ..., that Israel never does anything except "respond" to the bad actions of Hezbollah and Hamas.
Juan Cole has an excellent piece up about how it now appears that Israel has been planning this assault for a year. IDF official apparently gave a Powerpoint presentation to the Pentagon about a year ago describing in detail the very action now underway.
War on Lebanon Planned for at least a Year
He goes to some length to demonstrate that the War on Terror has been an extremely efficient terrorism generator, which should be obvious to most, but his argument is excellent.
Thanks for that Bhc. Excellent article. I've linked to it on the site.
It's important to expose the bullshit that it all happened because Israel was responding to someone's else's provocation.
And this not forgetting Israel kidnapping the two Palestinians. Perhaps to set off the plan that was already a year in the making?
I agree with Bhc on the American people's viewpoint. Most Americans really dig the idea of killing. Most Americans fantasize about ripping someone's heart out with their bear hands. Really. Most of us have that evil seed within us. I don't know about other countries, but I wouold suspect there are a lot of those in the U.K. as well. My main assessment is that people really like the idea of killing, and then just accepting any justification necessary to bury the conscience. WMD's? Great, commence the killing. Fighting for Democracy? Fantastic, push the missile buttons. Ridding the world of terrorists? Super, I don't care that terrorism is statistically less of a "threat" than lightning, let's start the murdering ASAP. Hmm, all those excuses have been debunked? Ok...hmm...how about this: a bunch of really educated and smart people, like Richard Perle, say it's ok to advance American-style imperialism. Awesome, blow some more brains out.
The best part is that these Americans get to live vicariously through the soldiers, whom they claim to "support" by simply pushing them into longer terms of service. That way, these pussy Americans, these "don't cut-and-run" cowards, these despicable polemicists, don't have to get a single drop of blood on their hands. It's all a big movie to them.
Reality is on life support; let's keep it alive.
MM,
Most Brits are the same. However, there has at least been a sea change of public opinion here.
Three years ago I spent my entire time being shouted at by people who thought I was advocating allowing a madman to possess WMD. Strangely, those same people now admit that Iraq was wrong. However, they seem to have erased their support for it from their memories.
And you are right, they do fight vicariously from their arm chairs. I saw O'Reilly on with Jon Stewart talking about the need to confront and take on the bad guys, Stewart asked, "When are you going to do that then?" Brought the roof in because it exposed exactly that mindset of the armchair general.
Post a Comment