The American Century: Neoconservatism

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

CBS NEWS Sept. 4, 2002

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington.

It was 12:05 p.m. when the director of Central Intelligence told Rumsfeld about the intercepted conversation. Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden. But later that afternoon, the CIA reported the passenger manifests for the hijacked airliners showed three of the hijackers were suspected al Qaeda operatives.

"One guy is associate of Cole bomber," the notes say, a reference to the October 2000 suicide boat attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, which had also been the work of bin Laden. With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden. Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld. "Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

White man's burden

By Ari Shavit, Haaretz

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical

1. The doctrine

WASHINGTON - At the conclusion of its second week, the war to liberate Iraq wasn't looking good. Not even in Washington. The assumption of a swift collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime had itself collapsed. The presupposition that the Iraqi dictatorship would crumble as soon as mighty America entered the country proved unfounded. The Shi'ites didn't rise up, the Sunnis fought fiercely. Iraqi guerrilla warfare found the American generals unprepared and endangered their overextended supply lines. Nevertheless, 70 percent of the American people continued to support the war; 60 percent thought victory was certain; 74 percent expressed confidence in President George W. Bush.

Washington is a small city. It's a place of human dimensions. A kind of small town that happens to run an empire. A small town of government officials and members of Congress and personnel of research institutes and journalists who pretty well all know one another. Everyone is busy intriguing against everyone else; and everyone gossips about everyone else.

In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them xxxish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend to read reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the success of the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall).

Are they wrong? Have they committed an act of folly in leading Washington to Baghdad? They don't think so. They continue to cling to their belief. They are still pretending that everything is more or less fine. That things will work out. Occasionally, though, they seem to break out in a cold sweat. This is no longer an academic exercise, one of them says, we are responsible for what is happening. The ideas we put forward are now affecting the lives of millions of people. So there are moments when you're scared. You say, Hell, we came to help, but maybe we made a mistake.

2. William Kristol

Has America bitten off more than it can chew? Bill Kristol says no. True, the press is very negative, but when you examine the facts in the field you see that there is no terrorism, no mass destruction, no attacks on Israel. The oil fields in the south have been saved, air control has been achieved, American forces are deployed 50 miles from Baghdad. So, even if mistakes were made here and there, they are not serious. America is big enough to handle that. Kristol hasn't the slightest doubt that in the end, General Tommy Franks will achieve his goals. The 4th Cavalry Division will soon enter the fray, and another division is on its way from Texas. So it's possible that instead of an elegant war with 60 killed in two weeks it will be a less elegant affair with a thousand killed in two months, but nevertheless Bill Kristol has no doubt at all that the Iraq Liberation War is a just war, an obligatory war.

Kristol is pleasant-looking, of average height, in his late forties. In the past 18 months he has used his position as editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard and his status as one of the leaders of the neoconservative circle in Washington to induce the White House to do battle against Saddam Hussein. Because Kristol is believed to exercise considerable influence on the president, Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he is also perceived as having been instrumental in getting Washington to launch this all-out campaign against Baghdad. Sitting behind the stacks of books that cover his desk at the offices of the Weekly Standard in Northwest Washington, he tries to convince me that he is not worried. It is simply inconceivable to him that America will not win. In that event, the consequences would be catastrophic. No one wants to think seriously about that possibility.

What is the war about? I ask. Kristol replies that at one level it is the war that George Bush is talking about: a war against a brutal regime that has in its possession weapons of mass destruction. But at a deeper level it is a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East. It is a war that is intended to change the political culture of the entire region. Because what happened on September 11, 2001, Kristol says, is that the Americans looked around and saw that the world is not what they thought it was. The world is a dangerous place. Therefore the Americans looked for a doctrine that would enable them to cope with this dangerous world. And the only doctrine they found was the neoconservative one.

That doctrine maintains that the problem with the Middle East is the absence of democracy and of freedom. It follows that the only way to block people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to disseminate democracy and freedom. To change radically the cultural and political dynamics that creates such people. And the way to fight the chaos is to create a new world order that will be based on freedom and human rights - and to be ready to use force in order to consolidate this new world. So that, really, is what the war is about. It is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to create a new Middle East.

Does that mean that the war in Iraq is effectively a neoconservative war? That's what people are saying, Kristol replies, laughing. But the truth is that it's an American war. The neoconservatives succeeded because they touched the bedrock of America. The thing is that America has a profound sense of mission. America has a need to offer something that transcends a life of comfort, that goes beyond material success. Therefore, because of their ideals, the Americans accepted what the neoconservatives proposed. They didn't want to fight a war over interests, but over values. They wanted a war driven by a moral vision. They wanted to hitch their wagon to something bigger than themselves.

Does this moral vision mean that after Iraq will come the turns of Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

Kristol says that he is at odds with the administration on the question of Saudi Arabia. But his opinion is that it is impossible to let Saudi Arabia just continue what it is doing. It is impossible to accept the anti-Americanism it is disseminating. The fanatic Wahhabism that Saudi Arabia engenders is undermining the stability of the entire region. It's the same with Egypt, he says: we mustn't accept the status quo there. For Egypt, too, the horizon has to be liberal democracy.

It has to be understood that in the final analysis, the stability that the corrupt Arab despots are offering is illusory. Just as the stability that Yitzhak Rabin received from Yasser Arafat was illusory. In the end, none of these decadent dictatorships will endure. The choice is between extremist Islam, secular fascism or democracy. And because of September 11, American understands that. America is in a position where it has no choice. It is obliged to be far more aggressive in promoting democracy. Hence this war. It's based on the new American understanding that if the United States does not shape the world in its image, the world will shape the United States in its own image.

3. Charles Krauthammer

Is this going to turn into a second Vietnam? Charles Krauthammer says no. There is no similarity to Vietnam. Unlike in the 1960s, there is no anti-establishment subculture in the United States now. Unlike in the 1960s, there is now an abiding love of the army in the United States. Unlike in the 1960s, there is a determined president, one with character, in the White House. And unlike in the 1960s, Americans are not deterred from making sacrifices. That is the sea-change that took place here on September 11, 2001. Since that morning, Americans have understood that if they don't act now and if weapons of mass destruction reach extremist terrorist organizations, millions of Americans will die. Therefore, because they understand that those others want to kill them by the millions, the Americans prefer to take to the field of battle and fight, rather than sit idly by and die at home.

Charles Krauthammer is handsome, swarthy and articulate. In his spacious office on 19th Street in Northwest Washington, he sits upright in a black wheelchair. Although his writing tends to be gloomy, his mood now is elevated. The well-known columnist (Washington Post, Time, Weekly Standard) has no real doubts about the outcome of the war that he promoted for 18 months. No, he does not accept the view that he helped lead America into the new killing fields between the Tigris and the Euphrates. But it is true that he is part of a conceptual stream that had something to offer in the aftermath of September 11. Within a few weeks after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, he had singled out Baghdad in his columns as an essential target. And now, too, he is convinced that America has the strength to pull it off. The thought that America will not win has never even crossed his mind.

What is the war about? It's about three different issues. First of all, this is a war for disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. That's the basis, the self-evident cause, and it is also sufficient cause in itself. But beyond that, the war in Iraq is being fought to replace the demonic deal America cut with the Arab world decades ago. That deal said: you will send us oil and we will not intervene in your internal affairs. Send us oil and we will not demand from you what we are demanding of Chile, the Philippines, Korea and South Africa.

That deal effectively expired on September 11, 2001, Krauthammer says. Since that day, the Americans have understood that if they allow the Arab world to proceed in its evil ways - suppression, economic ruin, sowing despair - it will continue to produce more and more bin Ladens. America thus reached the conclusion that it has no choice: it has to take on itself the project of rebuilding the Arab world. Therefore, the Iraq war is really the beginning of a gigantic historical experiment whose purpose is to do in the Arab world what was done in Germany and Japan after World War II.

It's an ambitious experiment, Krauthammer admits, maybe even utopian, but not unrealistic. After all, it is inconceivable to accept the racist assumption that the Arabs are different from all other human beings, that the Arabs are incapable of conducting a democratic way of life.

However, according to the xxxish-American columnist, the present war has a further importance. If Iraq does become pro-Western and if it becomes the focus of American influence, that will be of immense geopolitical importance. An American presence in Iraq will project power across the region. It will suffuse the rebels in Iran with courage and strength, and it will deter and restrain Syria. It will accelerate the processes of change that the Middle East must undergo.

Isn't the idea of preemptive war a dangerous one that rattles the world order?

There is no choice, Krauthammer replies. In the 21st century we face a new and singular challenge: the democratization of mass destruction. There are three possible strategies in the face of that challenge: appeasement, deterrence and preemption. Because appeasement and deterrence will not work, preemption is the only strategy left. The United States must implement an aggressive policy of preemption. Which is exactly what it is now doing in Iraq. That is what Tommy Franks' soldiers are doing as we speak.

And what if the experiment fails? What if America is defeated?

This war will enhance the place of America in the world for the coming generation, Krauthammer says. Its outcome will shape the world for the next 25 years. There are three possibilities. If the United States wins quickly and without a bloodbath, it will be a colossus that will dictate the world order. If the victory is slow and contaminated, it will be impossible to go on to other Arab states after Iraq. It will stop there. But if America is beaten, the consequences will be catastrophic. Its deterrent capability will be weakened, its friends will abandon it and it will become insular. Extreme instability will be engendered in the Middle East.

You don't really want to think about what will happen, Krauthammer says looking me straight in the eye. But just because that's so, I am positive we will not lose. Because the administration understands the implications. The president understands that everything is riding on this. So he will throw everything we've got into this. He will do everything that has to be done. George W. Bush will not let America lose.

[...]

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...ID=0&listSrc=Y

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

The following comment was made by a top level US Naval commander some twenty five years ago. Just imagine what the situation is like today...

Thomas H. Moorer (1912 - 2004)

Admiral, US Navy & Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would RISE UP IN ARMS. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."

Some twenty years later the following comment is made by the Zionist war criminal, Ariel Sharon:

Ariel Sharon (1928 - 2006)

According the Israeli Hebrew radio Kol Yisrael Wednesday, Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and turn the US against us. At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." The radio said Peres and other cabinet ministers warned Sharon against saying what he said in public, because "It would cause us a public relations disaster."

[skhara]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would RISE UP IN ARMS.

Brittney Spears' sister is pregnant?

No they would not. I think there is no excuse for not knowing today. Apathy rules.

[crusader1492]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Weekend Edition
January 26 / 27, 2008
Why Bush Wants to Legalize the Nuke Trade with Turkey
Exonerating Neo-Con Crimes

By JOSHUA FRANK

According to FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds there is a vast black
market for nukes, and certain U.S. officials have been supplying
sensitive nuclear technology information to Turkish and Israeli
interests through its conduits. It's a scathing allegation which was
first published by the UK Times two weeks ago, and Edmonds' charge
seems to be on the verge of vindication.

In likely reaction to the UK Times' report, the Bush Administration
quietly announced on January 22 that the president would like Congress
to approve the sale of nuclear secrets to Turkey. As with most stories
of this magnitude, the U.S. media has put on blinders, opting to not
report either Edmonds' story or Bush's recent announcement.

The White House Press Release claims that President Clinton signed off
on the Turkey deal way back in 2000:

"However, immediately after signature, U.S. agencies received
information that called into question the conclusions that had been
drawn in the required NPAS (Nuclear Proliferation Assessment
Statement) and the original classified annex, specifically,
information implicating Turkish private entities in certain activities
directly relating to nuclear proliferation. Consequently, the
Agreement was not submitted to the Congress and the executive branch
undertook a review of the NPAS evaluation My Administration has
completed the NPAS review as well as an evaluation of actions taken by
the Turkish government to address the proliferation activities of
certain Turkish entities (once officials of the U.S. Government
brought them to the Turkish government's attention)."

What "private entities" the press release refers to is not clear, but
it could well include the American Turkish Council, the "entity"
revealed in the Times' article.

The Bushies seem to be covering their own exposed backsides, for the
timing of Bush's call to sell nuke secrets to Turkey is certainly
suspicious, if not overtly conspicuous.

It appears the White House has been spooked by Edmonds and hopes to
absolve the U.S. officials allegedly involved in the illegal sale of
nuclear technology to private Turkish "entities". One of those
officials is likely Marc Grossman, the former ambassador to Turkey
during the Clinton Administration who also served in the State
Department from 2001-2005. Grossman has been named by Edmonds who
claims he was directly involved in the nuclear smuggling ring that she
says has allowed the intelligence agencies of Pakistan, Israel and
Turkey to operate in the U.S. with impunity.Totally complicit in the
nuke trade, the U.S. government, according to Edmonds, has known of
the vast criminal activities of these foreign nations' presence in the
States, which has included all sorts of illegal activities like drug
trafficking, espionage and money laundering.

Edmonds says "several arms of the government were shielding what was
going on" which included an entire national security apparatus
associated with the neoconservaties who have profited by representing
Turkish interests in Washington. As Justin Raimondo recently reported
in Antiwar.com:

"this group includes not only Grossman, but also Paul Wolfowitz,
chief intellectual architect of the Iraq war and ex-World Bank
president; former deputy defense secretary for policy Douglas J.
Feith; Feith's successor, Eric Edelman; and Richard Perle, the
notorious uber-neocon whose unique ability to mix profiteering and
warmongering forced him to resign his official capacity as a key
administration adviser Edmonds draws a picture of a three-sided
alliance consisting of Turkish, Pakistani, and Israeli agents who
coordinated efforts to milk U.S. nuclear secrets and technology,
funneling the intelligence stream to the black market nuclear network
set up by the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. The multi-millionaire
Pakistani nuclear scientist then turned around and sold his nuclear
assets to North Korea, Libya, and Iran."

Is the Bush Administration seeking to exonerate these "officials" with
its plea to allow Turkey to obtain U.S. nuclear secrets? Besides
Grossman, who else was involved in Edmonds' grim tale of the
nuke-for-profit underground? As the news that U.S. officials have
allegedly been supplying Turkey with nuclear technology begins to
creep in to the mainstream media, the Bush team appears to be moving
to legalize the whole shady operation.

If Congress does not block or amend Bush's legislation to sell nukes
to Turkey within 90 days, it will become law automatically, likely
acting retroactively to clear the alleged crimes of Marc Grossman and
his neocon, nuke-trading friends.

Joshua Frank is co-editor of DissidentVoice.org and author of Left
Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press,
2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming
Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in June 2008.

[crusader1492]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

From left to right, Ambassador Marc Grossman, America Abroad Media's Judy Woodruff, and Assistant Secretary Daniel Fried during media interview.

"this group includes not only Grossman, but also Paul Wolfowitz,
chief intellectual architect of the Iraq war and ex-World Bank
president; former deputy defense secretary for policy Douglas J.
Feith; Feith's successor, Eric Edelman; and Richard Perle, the
notorious uber-neocon whose unique ability to mix profiteering and
warmongering forced him to resign his official capacity as a key
administration adviser Edmonds draws a picture of a three-sided
alliance consisting of Turkish, Pakistani, and Israeli agents who
coordinated efforts to milk U.S. nuclear secrets and technology,
funneling the intelligence stream to the black market nuclear network
set up by the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. The multi-millionaire
Pakistani nuclear scientist then turned around and sold his nuclear
assets to North Korea, Libya, and Iran."

Look at the cast of characters involved in this scandal:

Marc Grossman
Paul Wolfowitz
Douglas J. Feith
Eric Edelman
Richard Perle

If I didn't know any better, I would think this is the cast list for "Fiddler on the Roof"

Oy Vey!

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

McCain found a tool with which to woo conservative Republicans: Israel

"Those [Democratic] senators won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally Israel in the region," McCain said Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference. There's been a lot of talk lately about John McCain's problem with the more conservative (and religious) right wing of the Republican Party. In Super Tuesday McCain won among self-identified conservatives in only three of the nine states that were covered by the exit polls I looked at. His real strength is among moderates.

The dominant narrative for the rest of the Republican race could be McCain's uneasy relationship with the right, writes Michael Grunwald in Time. The candidate is making an effort to win over this important constituency: "I promise you," McCain assured conservatives in his victory speech, "if I am so fortunate to win your nomination, I will work hard to ensure that the conservative philosophy and principles of our great party ... will again win the votes of a majority of the American people." The problem he has is clear: How does one win over the more radical wing of his party without alienating the more centrist voters on which one relies to help him win not just the nomination but also the general election. McCain is using a couple of tools as to try and achieve this goal. One of them, and not a marginal one, is the State of Israel. Senator Joe Lieberman is playing a role here. The staunchest xxxish supporter McCain has, Lieberman can promise both xxxs and Evangelical voters that McCain is the candidate who will not abandon Israel (no wonder some people still think Lieberman is McCain's top pick for Vice President).

Lieberman also says that McCain understands how significant the establishment of the state of Israel was. He is an avid reader of history and also has "a sense of history." He is familiar with the story of the country. He will not do anything that will "compromise Israel's security." Lieberman has real confidence in McCain, a "total comfort level" because "I know this man." "In his potential outreach to evangelical Christians, Lieberman could trade on a relationship rooted in a shared concern for the safety of Israel, as well the respect many evangelicals have for Lieberman's Orthodox xxxish background and for his activism on values issues like violence in the media", wrote Jennifer Siegel of the Forward, and rightly so. But who needs Lieberman when it is so clear that the candidate himself is using the Israel tool with his most problematic constituency? Two weeks ago I reported that "it is not only the xxxs who McCain is courting" with gestures and statements concerning Israel: Asked about his chances of winning the Republican nomination despite his poor relations with evangelical Christians, he noted that an influential segment of this community is very committed to Israel, and "obviously I have been a very strong proponent to the State of Israel."

And here is a statement he made earlier, in the summer: "The State of Israel has never needed your support and your hopes and your prayers they way they need it today," McCain said. "And God bless you for your commitment." The occasion: the annual Christians United for Israel Summit in Washington. McCain's speech Thursday, at the Conservative Political Action Conference here in Washington, was designed to hammer this point home in an even more forceful way: "Those [Democratic] senators won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally Israel in the region", McCain said. Meaning: If you conservatives really care about Israel as you often say you do - I'm you're man. Here?s some more: "I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions".

His speech, wrote Stephen Hayes "was surprisingly well-received". After the speech, Hayes reports: [Tom] DeLay told a few reporters that a speech at CPAC could not make up for McCain's record, but he would not rule out voting for him. That might not seem like a big deal unless we recall that DeLay had previously said that McCain "has done more to hurt the Republican Party than any elected official I know of." And he'd still consider voting for him? DeLay is definitely one of those people to which a positive message concerning Israel is of great importance, and might help McCain do the trick.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/952529.html

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

One of the godfathers of American Neoconservatism, one of the core architects of the disastrous Iraq war, one of the core proponent of the impending war against Iran and Syria, fanatical Zionist, Russophobe and life long Turkophile, William Kristol, and he speaks on the creation of the Zionist State:

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

The Jewish State at 60

William Kristol (born December 23, 1952 in New York City) is an American Republican pundit, analyst, and strategist. He is the son of Irving Kristol, one of the founders of the neoconservative movement, and Gertrude Himmelfarb, a scholar of Victorian era literature. In 1997, Kristol and Robert Kagan cofounded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Kristol is a member of the board of trustees for the think tank Manhattan Institute. Kristol is also a member of the Policy Advisory Board for the neoconservative think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center. Kristol has also been an attendee at Bilderberg Group conferences. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol

By WILLIAM KRISTOL

This week marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel. There have already been many birthday greetings, some heartfelt, some perfunctory, along with numerous reflections on the meaning of the occasion, some profound, some commonplace. For me, however, a discordant voice broke through. Israel is a “stinking corpse” on its way to “annihilation,” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last Thursday as Israel celebrated Independence Day. “Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken,” proclaimed the president of Iran, a nation that is a member in good standing of the United Nations and an active trading partner of countries like Germany and Russia. “Today the reason for the Zionist regime’s existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation.” I didn’t intend, in writing this column, to quote Ahmadinejad. I hate to dignify him by even taking note of his comments. I meant to pay tribute to the Zionists — men like Weizmann and Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion and Begin — who made possible the almost miraculous redemption of the xxxish people in 1948. And I also intended to recognize the defenders of Israel at moments of crisis — men like Harry Truman and Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.

I thought I might even dwell on the amazing essay by the novelist George Eliot who made a case for Zionism in 1879 — 17 years before the publication of Theodor Herzl’s “The xxxish State.” “The hinge of possibility,” Eliot wrote, is that among the xxxs “there may arise some men of instruction and ardent public spirit, some new Ezras, some modern Maccabees, who will know how to use all favouring outward conditions, how to triumph by heroic example, over the indifference of their fellows and the scorn of their foes, and will steadfastly set their faces towards making their people once more one among the nations.” The new Ezras and the modern Maccabees arose. But xxx hatred didn’t go away. And so, today, in light of Ahmadinejad’s remarks, in the face of the weakness of the West before the Iranian regime — I can’t avoid being reminded of the fact that this year is not only the 60th anniversary of Israel, but also the 75th anniversary of Hitler’s coming to power.

In 1933, in Germany, at the geographical and intellectual center of 20th-century Europe, the Weimar Republic was replaced, as the philosopher Leo Strauss put it, “by the only German regime — by the only regime that ever was anywhere — which had no other clear principle except murderous hatred of the xxxs, for ‘Aryan’ had no clear meaning other than ‘non-xxxish.’ The civilized world was helpless. Churchill’s pleas to act were ignored. The world was plunged into war. Two-fifths of world xxxry were murdered. The founding of Israel promised a more hopeful future, not just for the xxxs but for mankind. And, in fact, the last 60 years have perhaps been less horror filled and more humane than the preceding 60. But what of the future? On Dec. 10, 1948, Winston Churchill, then leader of the opposition, took to the floor of the House of Commons to chastise the Labour government for its continuing refusal to recognize the state of Israel. In his remarks, Churchill commented:

“Whether the Right Honourable Gentleman likes it or not, and whether we like it or not, the coming into being of a xxxish state in Palestine is an event in world history to be viewed in the perspective, not of a generation or a century, but in the perspective of a thousand, two thousand or even three thousand years. This is a standard of temporal values or time values which seems very much out of accord with the perpetual click-clack of our rapidly-changing moods and of the age in which we live.”

In 2008, the defense of the state of Israel, and everything it stands for, requires a kind of courage and determination very much out of accord with the perpetual click-clack of our politics, and with the combination of irresponsibility and wishfulness that characterizes the age in which we live. Still, even though the security of Israel is very much at risk, the good news is that, unlike in the 1930s, the xxxs are able to defend themselves, and the United States is willing to fight for freedom. Americans grasp that Israel’s very existence to some degree embodies the defeat and repudiation of the genocidal totalitarianism of the 20th century. They understand that its defense today is the front line of resistance to the jihadist terror, and the suicidal nihilism, that threaten to deform the 21st. What Eric Hoffer wrote in 1968 seems even truer today: “I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel, so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/op...ristol.html?hp

[Azad]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism



Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., right, speaks with his director of Foriegn Policy and National Security Randy Scheunemann ...

Who is this ape?

"Randy Scheunemann is the President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which was created by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), of which he is a board member. He was Trent Lott's National Security Aide and was an advisor to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq. He was hired by prospective 2008 Presidential candidate John McCain as his foreign-policy aide."

"Committee for the Liberation of Iraq,
President: Randy Scheunemann (?)
"The president of the Committee is Randy Scheunemann, Trent Lott's former chief national-security adviser. Last year Scheunemann worked for Donald Rumsfeld as a consultant on Iraq policy ... The Committee is little more than an extension of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), an 'educational' organization packed with neocons such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan."

http://xxxishtribalreview.org/coopt.htm

[HayotzAmrotz]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Joos have completely achieved in America what they have almost achieved in Russia and Germany, namely mutating themselfs into the host society to such degree that on the surface the difference between them and their hosts becomes non existent. They couldn't achieve a complete trasnformation in Russia and Germany for only one reason: The strong Christian, Nationalist and Ethnic foundations of those two countries. These countries stood firm despite being erodet within, but they didn't crumble and fall. America is gone to dogs, she's gone for good. Forget America. The world's hope is Russia!