The American Century: Neoconservatism

[Azad]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

This is our "honest" soccer mom. That tells you how corrupt this country is from its core. I am not implying other countries are any better, but when we "pride" ourself for being the "shinning light of Democracy" .... I say they can shove it were it doesn't shine.

"WASHINGTON - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has charged her state a daily allowance, normally used for official travel, for more than 300 nights spent at her home, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

An analysis of travel statements filed by the governor, now John McCain's Republican running mate, shows she claimed the per diem allowance on 312 occasions when she was home in Wasilla and that she billed taxpayers $43,490 for travel by her husband and children."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/palin_travel_expenses

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

RAHM EMANUEL: Ardent Zionist called Obama’s ‘Svengali’

More sinister than Karl Rove and potentially deadlier than xxxx “Darth Vader” Cheney, his name is Rahm Emanuel, and he was recently appointed chief of staff in the president-elect’s White House. This first official act should send waves of alarm through people because Barack Obama promised change, but what we’re getting is the exact same cabal that brought us 9-11 and endless war in the Middle East. Initial media reports described Emanuel as a vulgar, Chicago-based enforcer who had an aggressive, in-your- face, pit-bull style. Others painted him as a partisan Washington insider with strong ties to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).Although these labels seem harsh, the reality is far worse. Rahm Emanuel, nicknamed “Rahmbo,” is a pro- Israel Orthodox xxx who was educated in a Talmudic yeshiva and served as a volunteer in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). He is a dual citizen of Israel, which his office refused to deny when AFP inquired. Israel is the only nation where Americans can apply for and obtain citizenship without automatically renouncing U.S. citizenship.

Some Americans are unilaterally proclaimed citizens of other countries, as when an American GI marries a French girl and becomes an automatic citizen of France. But if the GI applied for and obtained French citizenship, he would lose his American citizenship. It is impossible to be a 100 percent loyal American and have an ounce of loyalty to another country; there is no #101 percent and the interests of Israel and the United States are not always synonymous. Those familiar with the 9-11 terrorist attacks know that the IDF was instrumental in training the Dancing Israelis who—from a rooftop in Weehawken, N. J.—had the foreknowledge to videotape both WTC towers being struck by kamikaze jetliners, then celebrate afterward. Mentored by members of Chicago’s corrupt party machine like convicted Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, Emanuel gravitated to Washington in 1991 after becoming Bill Clinton’s campaign finance committee director. His star rose even higher when he served as one of the primary NAFTA architects and pushed strict anti-gun legislation. After leaving his post as a policy aide for the Clintons, he used his influence as an investment banker to rake in millions during the late 1990s. With this money, Emanuel won a congressional seat in 2002, became the fourth ranking House Democrat by 2006, and is now the most powerful member of Obama’s executive office team.

FAMILY HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

What truly makes Emanuel dangerous is that his Israeli-born father Benjamin was an integral member of the Zionist terror group known as Irgun during the 1940s. Along with another notorious terror outfit—the Stern Gang—Irgun bombed Jerusalem’s King David Hotel in 1946 where 96 people were killed; while also instigating the 1948 Deir Yassin Massacre. Rahm Emanuel is the son of a terrorist who directly plotted the assassination of Count Bernadotte, a Swedish diplomat and United Nations envoy who tried to broker peace in Palestine. But Irgun didn’t seek treaties. It instead sought racial cleansing and genocide. According to Elisabeth Bumiller in The New York Times, Benjamin Emanuel passed secret codes to Shin Bet bomber and future Prime Minister Menachem Begin. These very same xxxish terrorists eventually became the recognized Israeli government in 1948, as well as predecessors to Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud Party.

OBAMA’S SVENGALI

Rahm Emanuel likes to brag about his role in discovering Barack Obama. “Six years ago, people on the North Side of Chicago took a bet on a young kid,” reporter D.H. Williams writes of their symbiotic relationship. “Rahm and Barack have a deep history together in Chicago politics. Emanuel has been instrumental in the rise of Barack Obama from neophyte senator to the next president of the United States. Getting virtually no media attention, Rahm Emanuel has been by Obama’s side during most of the last two years on the campaign trail.” If Karl Rove was George W. Bush’s architect, the same can be said of the Emanuel connection. When Obama bowed and groveled at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention on June 4, 2008, it was Emanuel who escorted him to meet the executive board afterward. Emanuel has been the operative who, according to the Chicago Tribune, “remade the Democratic Party in his own image.” Illinois Rep. Ray LaHood (R) seconded this notion. “He legitimately can be called the golden boy of the Democratic Party today. He recruited the right candidates, found the money and funded them, and provided issues for them. Rahm did what no one else could do.”

Worst of all, Emanuel is a rampant warmonger who takes his cues from the neo-cons. In his book The Plan: Big Ideas for America, he wrote, “We need to expand the U.S. Army by 100,000 more troops.” What will America’s next target be under an Obama presidency? Sources close to Emanuel say that he has a “Zionist obsession with Iran.” To get a final idea of what we’re dealing with, consider this quote from U.S. war journalist Pat Dollard: Letme tell you right now, no exaggeration. Rahm Emanuel is the devil. He is ... a Goebbels, a Mengele, a perfect Cromwell who would, without the faintest evidence of hesitation washing across his face for even a millisecond, order and even personally execute each and every human being he or Obama perceived to be an enemy of the regime. And if you ever personally offended him, and he had the opportunity to kill you, he would probably do it by starting with your children as you were made to watch. He is a bad guy. Some researchers have gone so far as to claim that Emanuel was the notorious “Mega” spy deep inside the Clinton administration who passed top-secret documents about Iran on to the Israeli government, causing a great deal of chaos among the various intelligence agencies. Be very wary of this man. Like the “Prince of Darkness” Richard Perle and Michael Chertoff before him (both of whom hold dual U.S.-Israeli citizenships), it may well be proven that his loyalties rest more with a fabricated little state in the Middle East than they do with us.

Source: http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...anuel_157.html

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Obama, McCain the Same on Military, Foreign Policy

By Ralph Nader

The three so-called presidential debates—really parallel interviews by reporters chosen by the Obama and McCain campaigns—are over and they are remarkable for two characteristics—convergence and avoidance. A remarkable similarity between McCain and Obama on foreign and military policy kept enlarging as Obama seemed to enter into a clinch with McCain each time McCain questioned his inexperience or softness or using military force. If anyone can detect a difference between the two candidates regarding belligerence toward Iran and Russia, more U.S. soldiers into the quagmire of Afghanistan (next to Pakistan), kneejerk support of the Israeli military oppression, brutalization and colonization of the Palestinians and their shrinking lands, keeping soldiers and bases in Iraq, despite Obama’s use of the word “withdrawal,” and their desire to enlarge an already bloated, wasteful military budget which already consumes half of the federal government’s operating expenses, please illuminate the crevices between them. This past spring, the foreign affairs reporters, not columnists, for The New York Times and The Washington Post concluded that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are advancing foreign and military policies similar to those adopted by George W. Bush in his second term.

Where then is the “hope” and “change” from the junior Senator from Illinois? Moreover, both Obama and McCain want more nuclear power plants, more coal production, and more offshore oil drilling. Our national priority should be energy efficient consumer technologies (motor vehicles, heating, air conditioning and electric systems) and renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal. Both support the gigantic taxpayer funded Wall Street bailout, without expressed amendments. Both support the notorious Patriot Act, the revised FISA act which opened the door to spy on Americans without judicial approval, and Obama agrees with McCain in vigorously opposing the impeachment of George W. Bush and xxxx Cheney. What about avoidance? Did you see them speak about a comprehensive enforcement program to prosecute corporate crooks in the midst of the greatest corporate crime wave in our history? Did you see them allude to doing anything about consumer protection (credit card gouging, price of medicines, the awful exploitation and deprivation of the people in the inner city) and the ripoffs of buyers in ever more obscure and inescapable ways? Wasn’t it remarkable how they never mentioned the poor, and only use the middle class when they refer to “regular people?” There are one hundred million poor people and children in this nation and no one in Washington, D.C. associates Senator Obama, much less John McCain, with any worthy program to treat the abundant poverty-related injustices.

What about labor issues? Worker health and safety, pensions looted and drained, growing permanent unemployment and underemployment, and outsourcing more and more jobs to fascists and communist dictatorships are not even on the peripheries of the topics covered in the debates. When I was asked my opinion about who won the debates, I say they were not debates. But I know what won and what lost. The winners were big business, bailouts for Wall Street, an expansionary NATO, a boondoggle missile defense program, nuclear power, the military-industrial complex and its insatiable thirst for trillions of taxpayer dollars, for starters. What lost was peace advocacy, international law, the Israeli-Palestinian peace movement, taxpayers, consumers, Africa and We the People. The language of avoidance to address and challenge corporate power is spoken by both McCain and Obama, though interestingly enough, McCain occasionally uses words like “corporate greed” to describe his taking on the giant Boeing tanker contract with the Pentagon. Funded by beer, tobacco, auto and telecommunications companies over the years, the corporation known as the Commission on Presidential Debates features only two corporate-funded candidates, excludes all others and closes off a major forum for smaller candidates, who are on a majority of the states, to reach tens of millions of voters. In the future, this theatre of the absurd can be replaced with a grand coalition of national and local citizen groups who, starting in March, 2012 lay out many debates from Boston to San Diego, rural, suburban and urban, summon the presidential candidates to public auditoriums to react to the peoples’ agendas. Can the Democratic and Republican nominees reject this combination of labor, neighborhood, farmer, cooperative, veteran’s, religious, student, consumer and good government with tens of millions of members? It will be interesting to see what happens if they do or if they do not.

Source: http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...in_102308.html

[Armanen]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Obama – Beware of Elites' bearing Gifts

By Richard K. Moore

Global Research, November 18, 2008

Author's website: www.cyberjournal.org


The McCain-Palin dragon has been slain. The Heroic Knight has been crowned and an era of profound hope has descended on the Kingdom. I know this is true because all my friends tell me so. There can be no doubt of the immense and genuine popularity of our new President-elect. Not even JFK inspired as much hope and devotion in his followers, nor was his following as universal.

So great is this enthusiasm for Obama here that I find I must hold my tongue in polite company, lest I upset someone by expressing my reservations. Nonetheless, there are several inconvenient truths that need to be said. First among these is the observation that Obama is not a populist. That is, he was not a candidate, like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader, whose race was a fight against the establishment. Obama had the full support of the establishment at every step of the way. Paul Street sums this up well enough:

But, as The New York Times' editors certainly know, "they" still "put in who they want to put in" to no small extent. The predominantly white U.S. business and political establishment still makes sure that nobody who questions dominant domestic and imperial hierarchies and doctrines can make a serious ("viable") run for higher office - the presidency, above all. It does this by denying adequate campaign funding (absolutely essential to success in an age of super-expensive, media-driven campaigns) and favorable media treatment (without which a successful campaign is unimaginable at the current stage of corporate media consolidation and power) to candidates who step beyond the narrow boundaries of elite opinion. Thanks to these critical electoral filters and to the legally mandated U.S. winner-take-all "two party" system [2], a candidate who even remotely questions corporate and imperial power is not permitted to make a strong bid for the presidency.

"Barack Obama is no exception to the rule. Anyone who thinks he could have risen to power without prior and ongoing ruling class approval is living in a dream world." — Paul Street, "Barack Obama as a Ruling Class Candidate"

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/19343

Obama was sold to us, not just as a President but as a savior. The McCain-Palin charade was an important part of the sales campaign: you can't have an Heroic Knight unless there's a Fearsome Dragon to be slain. A friend pointed out to me that McCain's campaign was mostly negative attacks on Obama. Another way to frame that is to say that the campaign was all about Obama, rather than about issues. The negative attacks caused just as much bonding between Obama and his followers as did Obama's inspiring speeches. The negative and the positive themes were played against one another, in the media, with all the precision of a symphony.

Phony media circuses are nothing new to Presidential campaigns. With Obama, we saw a new dimension added, with the help of the Internet. I speak of the volunteer phenomenon. I was surprised to learn how many of my friends and acquaintances were active as volunteers in the campaign. They organized themselves at the grassroots, and they got their commands from Campaign Central, via email. Not since the heyday of Est have I seen such wild-eyed enthusiasm among activist volunteers. Even before I saw news reports that Obama planned to make political use of his Internet activists from a new White House Internet office, I heard my friends saying that the 'organization must go on', that it 'must not die with campaign'. They are eager to remain part of the bandwagon, to be troopers for Obama, and Obama is prepared to make use of them.

What we have is basically a personality cult. Obama true-believers are now bigger than the Fundamentalists, and equally mobilized. But what is it they are going to be mobilized for? The campaign rhetoric was to a large extent about 'overcoming divisiveness', and 'bringing us all together'. Sounds good, but divisiveness is not among the major problems facing America. The problems facing us are economic and environmental collapse, the struggle to hold onto empire, and new emerging powers on the global scene. Divisiveness was, and remains, a created issue, a cult-formation device, a device for which McCain and Palin, and their over-the-top redneck rallies, were a critical ingredient.

The other main themes of the campaign were 'change' and 'hope'. Interesting. Change we will get, of one kind or another, that's for sure. And there are two kinds of hope, that which arises in times of positive change, and that which arises in times of despair. If you see light at the end of the tunnel, you feel hope; if the tunnel remains dark, you rely on hope. Which kind of hope will Obama deliver? His followers have been led to feel there is light at the end of the tunnel. I suggest they are destined for disappointment. Hope for positive change will morph into a reliance on 'hope in Obama'.

As things get worse, we will take comfort that Obama 'understands our plight', is 'one of us', and is 'doing all he can'. Indeed, we will be dutifully emailing our representatives, to support this or that Obama legislation. As to the actual dark tunnel we are entering, here are a few recent articles that have come my way:

Stephen Lendman, Worse Than The Great Depression?

http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman171108.htm

Paul Craig Roberts, The Crisis Has Hardly Begun

http://www.countercurrents.org/roberts171108.htm

Economic Crisis Is Beyond The Reach Of Traditional Solutions

http://www.countercurrents.org/roberts141108.htm

Michel Chossudovsky, The Great Depression of the 21st Century:
Collapse of the Real Economy

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10977

I've recently published lots of other articles relevant to these pivotal times:

http://groups.google.com/group/newslog/topics

Our scenario is very much like that preceding the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The 'problem' then, as now, is a scary, engineered 'collapse'. The 'solution', then as now, is the greater centralization of banking in private hands, now some kind of IMF cum Central Bank on a global scale. In both cases the promise is to avoid future collapses, while the reality is increased enslavement to banking elites. Some background material:

Richard C. Cook, The G-20 Economic Summit Won’t Change the "Financial Crime Scene"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10987

Telegraph UK, Gordon Brown calls for new world order to beat recession

http://tinyurl.com/5cqhda

To my way of thinking, the proper response to the financial collapse would be to place all the big financial institutions under national receivership. They created the crisis through fraudulent practices, and baling them out should be the furthest thing from our minds. The nations of the world can figure out who legitimately owes who what, figure out some way to settle up, and establish new sounder bases for currencies. That's what the G-20 could have been doing, but of course they didn't.

If anyone still doubts that the banking elites run things from behind the scenes, the past few months should have opened their eyes. Instead of a rational response, based on bringing the financial institutions under control, we have a capitulation to banking interests, symbolized by the installation of Henry Paulson as US Economic Czar, the same Paulson who helped engineer the subprime virus while at Goldman Sachs. The bailout, which has become a global phenomenon, is a crime against humanity, a betrayal of whatever democratic principles remained in our societies.

Humanity is the patient, and capitalism (ie, rule by capitalist elites) is the disease. The agenda of our leaders, and Obama will be no exception, is to sacrifice the patient so that the disease may survive. The agenda will include an expansion of genocide in the third world, assisted by the biofuel market and runaway food prices, and it will most likely include a nuclear confrontation with Russia and perhaps China. As Kissinger says, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Final consolidation of global power is an omelette worth many a sacrifice, particularly if you get to eat the omelette and aren't the one making the sacrifices.

Does all of this stuff sound irrelevant to Obama and the issues of the campaign? It should, for the campaign and Obama's rhetoric have nothing to do with the problems we will be facing, and nothing to do with the agenda Obama brings to the office. The rhetoric was a conjured illusion, a bit like LBJ promising not to escalate in Vietnam, or Clinton promising universal health care. The difference between Obama and those precedents is that Obama has the capacity to carry his followers with him. Whereas we all felt abandoned and betrayed by LBJ, Obama has the charisma to carry his flock willingly into the abyss as he makes 'difficult but necessary' choices.

Part of the architecture of a fascist regime is a mobilized grassroots following. The motivating characteristics vary with the culture. Ethnic hatreds and a resurgence of nationalism are not the American way. Obama shows us the American way, with his organized network of followers. His skill, and his value to elites, will be his ability to get us to take our kool-aid voluntarily.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11024

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

AIPAC's Man in the Obama Camp

Barack Obama's first appointment, that of Chicago Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, is quite frankly unsettling and suggests that voters who had hoped for real change in Washington will be disappointed. There should also be some concern on the part of Americans who believe that a close and continuing relationship with a foreign government might disqualify one for high office in the United States. Emanuel, far from serving as a neutral gateway to the president, has some very strong views on foreign policy, particularly regarding the Middle East, views that are closer to those of George W. Bush and xxxx Cheney than they are to the millions of voters who thought that Obama would put an end to "wars of choice." And Obama appears to share at least some of those views, though he might be driven primarily by unwillingness to antagonize Israel's numerous cheerleaders in the Democratic Party. During the presidential campaign Obama refused to meet with American Muslims, and on a fact-finding trip to the Middle East last summer he spent several days in Israel but only 45 minutes with Palestinian leaders.

More recently, Obama did not respond to a congratulatory letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the only world leader to be snubbed in that fashion. In his first press conference on Nov. 7, Obama, who has promised to do "everything in his power" to denuclearize Iran, reiterated that Iran's development of a nuclear weapon would be unacceptable, a position adhering closely to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) line. There are also reports that Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has already called Vice President-elect Joe Biden to tell him that even talking to Iran would be a sign of weakness, a signal that Israel might be willing to unleash its all-powerful lobby against the Obama administration if it is perceived as going too far. The extremely partisan and foul-mouthed Emanuel, who has the reputation of a junkyard dog, is a retread from the Clinton White House, where he served in two senior advisory positions after demonstrating his expertise in fundraising during the 1992 presidential campaign. Though born in Chicago, he was an Israeli citizen through his father until he, according to his own account, renounced his dual citizenship when he turned 18. When the United States went to war with Iraq in 1991 the 31-year-old Emanuel rushed off to join the colors, though the colors in this case were the blue and white flag of Israel. He claims that he was a civilian volunteer in the Israeli army who was assigned the task of "rust-proofing brakes" on military vehicles, an assertion that has been questioned because his father's background suggests that he would likely have been offered something much more important.

Emanuel's father, an Israeli physician, was a member of the terrorist group Irgun in the 1940s. Irgun was responsible for blowing up the King David Hotel and ethnically cleansing much of Palestine through selective massacres of Arab civilians. In an interview in the Jerusalem Post, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel said he was convinced that his son's appointment as White House chief of staff would be good for Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." Commenting on his father's statement, Rahm Emanuel noted that Obama does not need his influence to "orientate his policy toward Israel." Other Israelis and prominent American supporters of Israel also see Emanuel as their man in the White House. The respected Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz hailed his appointment, describing him unambiguously as an Israeli. William Daroff of the United xxxish Communities also praised Emanuel, describing him as "a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock." Ira Forman, head of the National xxxish Democratic Council, welcomed the appointment, saying, "It's just another indication that despite the attempts to imply that Obama would somehow appoint the wrong person or listen to the wrong people when it comes to the U.S.-Israel relationship … that was never true," an indication that some will actually expect Emanuel to act on behalf of Israel when the chips are down.

Emanuel left the Clinton administration in 1998 and went to work for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and head of the Chicago investment bank Wasserstein Perella. He made $18 million in a little over two years. He was deliberately placed in a position where he could exploit his White House connections, which he did, to obtain a nest egg to finance his political career. In 2000 he was named by Clinton to the board of Freddie Mac, where he earned an additional $260,000 but was later criticized for not taking his oversight responsibility seriously. In 2002, he was elected to Congress, where he was noted for his ability to attract large political contributions. Emanuel soon moved into a leadership position, eventually becoming chairman of the Democratic Caucus in January 2007, the fourth-ranking Democrat in Congress. In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner, particularly close to right-wing politicians such as Ariel Sharon and Bibi Netanyahu, sometimes even more so than President Bush. In June 2003 he signed a congressional letter criticizing Bush for being weak in his support of Israel. The letter, signed by 34 Democrats, stated, "We were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror." The letter supported Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders because it "was clearly justified as an application of Israel's right to self-defense."

Not surprisingly, Emanuel has always been in favor of the Iraq war, and he supports an aggressive policy toward Iran. In his 2006 book with the pretentious title The Plan: Big Ideas for America he advocates increasing the size of the U.S. Army by 100,000 soldiers and creating a domestic spying organization like Britain's MI5. More recently, he has supported mandatory paramilitary national service for all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25. Emanuel has always expressed intense hostility toward antiwar Democrats. When, in November 2005, Congressman Jack Murtha made his proposal for withdrawal from Iraq, Emanuel quickly declared that "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha." In late 2005 and early 2006, Emanuel played a key role as chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in lining up candidates to run against the Republicans for congressional seats in November 2006. Out of 22 candidates vetted and supported financially by Emanuel, 20 were pro-war, despite the fact that the Democratic Party base was not. Antiwar candidates were routinely denied funding and support from his DCCC. Only eight of Emanuel's candidates won, a percentage considerably lower than the success rate for other Democrats, possibly because voters had a hard time embracing their pro-war positions.

In a June 2006 congressional debate on Iraq policy, Emanuel made his own views clear, declaring, "The debate today is about whether the American people want to stay the course with an administration and a Congress that has walked away from its obligations or pursue a real strategy for success in the war on terror. … Democrats are determined to take the fight to the enemy." In his speech, Emanuel fully embraced the questionable "War on Terror" concept and aligned himself far to the right of the Democratic Party base, which, at the time, was 60 percent in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In July 2006, Emanuel was one of several congressmen who called for the cancellation of an impending speech before Congress by visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki because Maliki had called Israel's bombing of Lebanon "aggression." Emanuel was joined by his close friend and DSCC counterpart Sen. Charles Schumer, who asked; "Which side is he on when it comes to the war on terror?" Emanuel described the Lebanese and Palestinian governments as "totalitarian entities with militias and terrorists acting as democracies" in a subsequent speech on July 19 regarding a House resolution supporting Israel's bombing, which produced thousands of civilian casualties.

On March 12, 2007, the Democratic Party leadership announced that it would separate the issue of Iran from consideration of funding measures for the troop surge in neighboring Iraq. Opponents of a possible military action against Iran had sought specific language in the appropriation that would deny funding for any military operations outside Iraq without prior congressional approval. The proposal had seemed reasonable enough, given the Bush administration's track record on the use of force, but apparently it was not acceptable to Emanuel. AIPAC mobilized immediately and began an intensive lobbying campaign against the proposal, instructing its supporters to call and write Congress, adding that it is best to telephone just after lunch, when there are more staffers available to answer the phone. Emanuel organized resistance to the measure from inside the House of Representatives and promised AIPAC early in the process that the offensive language would be dropped. The Democratic Party subsequently held a number of closed-door meetings on the issue and decided that the prohibition would not be included in the funding measure because of "possible impact on Israel."

During the summer of 2008, Emanuel was a key player in the marginalization and humiliation of former president Jimmy Carter, whose book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid had outraged Israel's supporters. Carter was not allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention, an unprecedented snub toward a former president and a further indication, if one was needed, that in American politics it is possible to do or say nearly anything as long as one does not criticize Israel. And now Emanuel is the president's chief of staff, one of the most powerful positions in the White House. Perhaps there is a limit to the mischief that he will be able to do; at this point one can only adopt a wait-and-see policy. One thing is certain, however. If the subject is Israel, Emanuel knows very clearly where his loyalty lies.

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=13773

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

On president elect Barak Obama.

The American sheeple better wake up and realize that when it comes to vital/core political issues there are no real differences between Republicans and Democrats. The US has been for a long time a nation with 'one' political party with two factions. As much as I feared and hated the Bush administration (including McCain) I am truly getting sick to my stomach over Obama worship. In real political terms, Obama will prove to be just as bad if not worst than Bush's administration. What the sheeple worldwide need to realize here is that Obama was not "elected" by the people, he was "chosen" by the political elite four years ago as one that can potentially replace the failed and discredited representatives of Neoconservatism in Washington. In short, it now seems obvious that the globalist agenda of the US empire needed a fresh new face to move forward, a face that could again appeal to the disillusioned masses. Obama is that new face. President elect Obama has not even moved into the White House yet and look at the kind of people already standing behind him; foreign policy maker Zbigniew Brzezinski, an American imperialist and an ardent Russophobe and Rohm Emanuel, a fervent Zionist. Obama's election has actually been a massive propaganda coup d’état for policy makers in Washington, giving them a means to silence or recruit its domestic antagonists and opponents. Nevertheless, the Obama presidency will essentially be the continuation of the American empire's global agenda by 'other' means... and due to blind Obama worship, it may even prove to be more disastrous.

Armenian

*************************

Obama's Council on Foreign Relations Crew

The men behind Barack Obama part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouUJNG8f2k

The men behind Barack Obama part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-KJC...eature=related

Foreign Policy Debate - Relations with Russia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukR4U27aoig

Ralph Nader: Obama will be like Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8H92fcSOdY

Alex Jones speaks out on Obama's team: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19esfWGZIys

Obama endorses American imperialism - anti-war activist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StDdCPZUNTE

Obama's Chief of Staff a son of terrorist?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l2W8vTD494

Meet some of president elect Obama’s leading foreign and domestic policy advisors and likely administration members, every one of them a prominent member of the Council On Foreign Relations. Will these people bring about "change" or will they continue to hold up the same entrenched system forged by the corporate elite for decades?

Susan E. Rice - Council on Foreign Relations, The Brookings Institution - Served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under Clinton from 1997 to 2001. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright is a longtime mentor and family friend to Rice. Critics charge that she is is ill disposed towards Europe, has little understanding of the Middle East and would essentially follow the same policies of Condoleeza Rice if appointed the next Secretary of State or the National Security Adviser.

Anthony Lake - CFR, PNAC - Bill Clinton’s first national security adviser, who was criticized for the administration’s failure to confront the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and now acknowledges the inaction as a major mistake.

Zbigniew Brzezinski - CFR, Trilateral Commission - Brzezinski is widely seen as the man who created Al Qaeda, and was involved in the Carter Administration plan to give arms, funding and training to the mujahideen in Afghanistan.

Richard Clarke - CFR - Former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Bush. Notoriously turned against the Bush administration after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Also advised Madeleine Albright during the Genocide in Rwanda.

Ivo Daalder - CFR, Brookings, PNAC - Co-authored a Washington Post op-ed with neocon Robert Kagan arguing that interventionism is a bipartisan affair that should be undertaken with the approval of our democratic allies.

Dennis Ross - CFR, Trilateral Commission, PNAC - Served as the director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton. A noted supporter of the Iraq war, Ross is also a Foreign Affairs Analyst for the Fox News Channel.

Lawrence Korb - CFR, Brookings - Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Has criticized manor of the invasion of Iraq but has detailed plans to increase the manpower of the United States Army to fight the war on terror and to "spread liberal democratic values throughout the Middle East".

Bruce Reidel - CFR, Brookings - Former CIA analyst who wishes to expand the war on terror to fight Al Qaeda across the globe. Considered to be the reason behind Barack Obama’s Hawkish views on Pakistan and his Pro India leanings on Kashmir.

Stephen Flynn - CFR - Has been attributed with the idea for Obama’s much vaunted "Civilian Security Force". Flynn has written: "The United States should roughly replicate the Federal Reserve model by creating a Federal Security Reserve System (FSRS) with a national board of governors, 10 regional Homeland Security Districts, and 92 local branches called Metropolitan Anti-Terrorism Committees. The objective of this system would be to develop self-funding mechanisms to more fully engage a broad cross-section of American society to protect the country’s critical foundations from the widespread disruption that would arise from a terrorist attack."

Madeline Albright - CFR, Brookings - Currently serves on the Council on Foreign Relations Board of directors. Secretary of State and US Ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton. Did not take action against the genocide in Rwanda. Defended the sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein. When asked by CBS’s 60 Minutes about the effects of sanctions: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Of course, had John McCain become president, being a member of the CFR himself, his administration would have been replete with CFR representatives also. Max Boot, Lawrence Eagleburger and Henry Kissinger, to name but a few, are all CFR members and were all advisors to the McCain campaign. Please do your own research and add more names in the comments section of this report. It is important to document how these people are a part of the engine of global elitism and do not represent change. Only with this understanding will others wake up to the false left-right paradigm and be able to create the environment for real political change.

Source: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10867

[Mizzike]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism




Why The Neocons Love Hillary

By Jack Hunter

One item that made breaking news this week shouldn’t have surprised anyone - the possible selection of Hillary Clinton by Barack Obama as Secretary of State. And it’s a possible choice that has excited more than a few Republicans.

Neoconservatives afraid that a President Obama might even partially live up his promise to remove troops from Iraq have been warming up to the new administration and hedging their bets where they can. In his ongoing role as neocon concierge, Sen. Lindsey Graham’s arranged meeting between John McCain and Obama was one step, as was Graham’s blustering praise for Obama’s selection for Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a man who few conservatives have a kind word about. “This is a wise choice by President-elect Obama” glowingly said Graham of Emanuel.

And one can only assume that if Clinton were to take over for Condoleezza Rice, Graham and his boss John McCain will have the same enthusiasm and for the same reason. Republican Senator John Kyl, who teamed up with Joe Lieberman to get Congress to declare the entire Iranian army a terrorist organization as a precursor to possible war, said of Clinton as possible Sec. of State “It seems to me she’s got the experience. She’s got the temperament for it.” The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb was just as praiseful and more explicit about his excitement, “On the issues, Clinton’s a hawk. Not only did she vote to authorize the war in Iraq, she… went so far as to connect Saddam to al Qaeda… She threatened to ‘obliterate’ Iran (and) on matters of diplomacy, Clinton’s views are not so different from those held by John McCain and most Republicans. Clinton would be a fine Secretary of State… And perhaps she could even present the case for war with Iran to an insubordinate United Nations.”

Not since Operation Chaos during the primaries have we seen some Republicans so anxious to jump off the “Stop-Hillary Express” and on the Clinton bandwagon. The sort of Republican who cheers for Hillary is the same sort who embraced Lieberman. No matter how many liberal positions either held, socialized healthcare, open borders, higher taxes, anti-2nd amendment, it didn’t matter. As with Lieberman, so long as Hillary is prepared to continue sending U.S. troops around the world to continue the neoconservative mission of American global empire, Clinton would be their gal.

The Atlantic Monthly’s Andrew Sullivan noticed the neocons seeming comfort with Hillary during the presidential primaries “Among the neoconservatives there is obviously sympathy for her (Clinton) against the most decisively anti-war candidates, Obama and Edwards. Many publicly prefer her to the insurgent anti-war candidate in their own ranks, Texas congressman Ron Paul. Privately some neocons see her as an important substantive successor to Bush, perpetuating and retroactively legitimizing the Iraq occupation. She did vote for it, after all, they tell themselves. And her constant attempt to stay to the right of her opponents in the primaries has led to the bizarre spectacle of some well known Republicans showering her with thinly veiled support on Fox News.”

The rise of the neoconservatives to prominence during the Bush administration and the decades old term finally becoming part of the popular lexicon has led many plain, old fashioned conservatives to wonder, “what is it about these ‘neoconservatives’ that is actually conservative?”

Absolutely nothing. Neoconservatism’s main premise, that drastically different cultures in some of the most contentious parts of the world can magically become democratic through sheer force of American will, is arguably the most radical policy ever put forth by any government, anywhere. And conservatives now concerned about “radicals taking over the White House,” need to take a good, hard look at not only the woman Obama might be trusting with foreign affairs, but the Republicans who adore her.

Source:
http://southernavenger.ccpblogs.com/...-love-hillary/

Watch and listen to the commentary here:
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article...ocons_hillary/

[Mizzike]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism



*********************

A Roundup of Neocon Love for Obama’s Cabinet

“[T]he new administration is off to a good start.”
– Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.

“[S]uperb … the best of the Washington insiders … this will be a valedictocracy — rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes.”
– David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist

“[V]irtually perfect … “
– Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and John McCain’s top surrogate in the 2008 campaign.

“[R]eassuring.”
– Karl Rove, “Bush’s brain.”

“I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain … this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign … [Hillary] Clinton and [James] Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for ‘neo-liberalism’ which is not so different in many respects from ‘neo-conservativism.’”
– Max Boot, neoconservative activist, former McCain staffer.

“I see them as being sort of center-right of the Democratic party.”
– James Baker, former Secretary of State and the man who led the theft of the 2000 election.

“[S]urprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush’s second term and the incoming administration … certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush … “
– Michael Goldfarb of the neoconservative Weekly Standard.

“I certainly applaud many of the appointments … “
– Senator John McCain

“So far, so good.”
– Senator Lamar Alexander, senior Republican Congressional leader.

Hillary Clinton will be “outstanding” as Secretary of State
– Henry Kissinger, war criminal

Rahm Emanuel is “a wise choice” in the role of Chief of Staff
– Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain’s best friend.

Obama’s team shows “Our foreign policy is non-partisan.“
– Ed Rollins, top Republican strategist and Mike Huckabee’s 2008 campaign manager

“The country will be in good hands.”
– Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush’s Secretary of State

Source:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/waroniraq/109160

[TheGreat]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Israel's push for Iran strike may hurt U.S. ties

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to Jimmy Carter, said in an interview with Haaretz over the weekend that Israel will do harm to its relations with the United States if it insists on lobbying Washington for an American military strike on Iran.

Brzezinski was at the center of a controversy during much of the United States presidential campaign when xxxish opponents of president-elect Barack Obama sent out mass emails calling the former U.S. president's aide anti-Israel, and saying he was one of the Illinois senator's key advisors on foreign policy.

The Obama campaign denied that Brzezinski and other figures like Bill Clinton's former advisor Robert Malley with dovish positions on the Israel-Palestinian question were among his Middle East advisors.
Advertisement

Brzezinski told Haaretz: "One [piece of] advice that I would give the Israeli government is not to engage in this campaign for an American attack on Iran, because I don't think America is going to attack Iran, and if it did, and the consequences would be disastrous."

"It wouldn't be particularly good for American-Israeli relations, and there will be a lot of resentment against [Israel]," he said. "There already has been some after the war in Iraq."

On Sunday, Obama told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the West must engage in "tough but direct diplomacy" with Iran, but emphasized that Tehran's vocalized threats against Israel stand "contrary to everything" the United States believes in.

Brezinski added that even if Israel did attack Iran, it would be incapable of striking all of its nuclear facilities. The best it could hope to do is to slow down or delay the Islamic Republic's drive to build a nuclear bomb while emboldening extremist sentiment in the country.

"I don't know if Iran believes the military option is real, but I think it's not a real option for the U.S., and it is not a real option for Israel, because Israel doesn't have a capability to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities," Brzezinski said.

"It can damage them, so it can only delay the process, while intensifying Iranian extremism and wielding together Iranian nationalism and Iranian fundamentalism, which I don't think is in anyone's interest. Last, but not least, Israel really cannot execute effective strike without our permission. Because if you look at the map, you can see the reason why it is so."

The former Carter aide was among those who listened intently to President George W. Bush's farewell speech on the Middle East over the weekend.

Brzezinski, one of the architects of the Camp David peace accords between Israel and Egypt who spared no criticism of the outgoing president during his two terms in office, is still not buying Bush's vision for a new Middle East.

"You might remember that when Iraq war started in March, already in May President Bush proclaimed: 'Mission accomplished,'" Brzezinski told Haaretz. "That happens to be more than seven years ago. In the course of this year, he several times declared that there's going to be Israeli-Palestinian peace by the end of this year before he leaves office, because of his policies in the region. That hasn't materialized yet and it is unlikely to happen before he leaves office. Iran is now more influential in region than seven years ago. So I think there is some legitimate skepticism justified regarding his analysis of what has happened."

The octogenarian former diplomat continues to be one of the most active figures in Washington. Aside from his ability to prompt leaders to seek his advice, one of his trademarks continues to be a special talent to draw fire from critics. Many Israelis think he loathes their country, yet a similar sentiment can be heard from the Palestinians and the Russians. His supporters say he is simply focusing on advancing U.S. interests, and that he has no intention of toadying to anyone. Brezinski's endorsement of Barack Obama moved many in the xxxish community to warn: "With advisors like Brzezinski, Obama's policies will not be pro-Israel."

Brezinski thinks the president-elect has a rare opportunity to translate the euphoria which followed his election victory into a concrete policy that will yield results in the international arena. "I think Barack Obama has to actively help to resolve Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and it requires a comprehensive and explicit American peace initiative, because the parties are stalemated," Brzezinski said. "I think that the first priority for the US president is to articulate that stand, especially when he has very high international prestige, he was elected with unprecedented global enthusiasm."

"He has a lot of prestige," he said. "If he would articulate that position, I think the whole international community would endorse it. And I think that would have some significant impact on a peace process, and after he has made that statement, he should than appoint the usual peace plenipotentiary to deal with the problem, because obviously president can't spend his time involved in negotiating process."

Brzezinki said public opinion in Israel and the Palestinian territories is more accommodating to an agreement, but it is the political leadership's hesitance to make fateful concessions that necessitates active U.S. mediation.

"The public is actually ahead of the political leaders in some aspects, but the political leaders are hesitant to make necessary concessions that are fundamental to the settlement," he said. "Out of the perhaps understandable fear that if one makes the concession first, the other side will pocket it without return. So I think it's necessary that the U.S. takes initiative and breaks the lock jam, and that initiative requires particularly clear American view but also the international community's view that this initiative has to be based on four fundamental principles."

They include a Palestinian renunciation of the right of return; an Israeli commitment to genuinely share Jerusalem; a final border based on the '67 lines with minor alterations to allow for annexation of settlement blocs; and a demilitarized Palestinian state.

Brezinski also says the two sides should consider an international peacekeeping force led by NATO to assuage security concerns.

"The possible involvement of NATO is not a question of war on terror, but ensuring that the Palestinian state is not a military threat, but at the same time stable and secure, and NATO presence could bring this double benefit," he said. "Perhaps a NATO presence [could] ensure a peace agreement, or maybe even an American presence along the Jordan River, to give the Israelis sense of geographical security."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1044635.html

[TheGreat]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Iran rejects Barack Obama's 'failed' carrot and stick policy

Iran rejected on Monday a suggestion by U.S. President-elect Barack Obama that a carrot and stick policy of economic incentives and additional sanctions might persuade the Iranian government to halt its nuclear program.

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hasan Qashqavi, said Monday that Obama's proposed policy was unacceptable and had failed in the past.

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said on Sunday he was prepared to offer Iran economic incentives to stop its nuclear program, which Washington says is aimed at making bombs. But he warned that sanctions could be toughened if it refused.
Advertisement
"When they stick to their past view regarding suspending uranium enrichment, our answer will be: Iran will never suspend uranium enrichment," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi told reporters.

Washington, which cut ties with Tehran after the 1979 revolution that ousted the U.S.-backed shah, has been pushing hard to isolate Iran over its nuclear plans.

Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer, insists it wants to master nuclear technology to generate electricity so it can save more of its oil and gas reserves for exports.

Enrichment is the part of Iran's program that most worries the West because, if uranium is enriched much more, it can make warhead material as well as being used to make fuel for power plants.

"If their [Washington's] new stance is to remove concerns about Iran's nuclear activities, we are ready for that. But our new expectation is ... that they should recognize our right to nuclear technology," Qashqavi said.

"The old policy was carrot and stick. This needs to change and transform into an interactive policy," he said.

During a presidential debate with Republican rival John McCain in October, Obama said his administration would work to restrict gasoline imports to Iran, which cannot make enough refined fuel to meet all domestic needs and has to import some.

Speaking on Sunday, Obama told a U.S. broadcaster: "We are willing to talk to them directly and give them a clear choice and ultimately let them make a determination in terms of whether they want to do this the hard way or the easy way."

Obama takes office on Jan. 20.

"When they talk about change, everyone expects a changed policy to entail something very different to what President [George W.] Bush was following," Qashqavi said, adding everyone should "wait and see" what approach Obama would take in office.

Iran said last week it did not believe U.S. policy would change under Obama. Its refusal to stop enrichment, has drawn three rounds of U.N. sanctions since 2006, as well as separate U.S. measures.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1044661.html