Bibi and AIPAC suckereing USA into war with Iran.
Would Neocons Control Romney?
Mitt Romney has articulated few substantive differences between himself and President Obama on foreign policy, but a Romney victory could dramatically change the U.S. approach to the world because he, like George W. Bush, is surrounding himself with neocon advisers, notes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.
Citing findings in the recently released poll of American opinion on foreign policy conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Drezner observes that “most of America — and independents in particular — want pretty much the opposite of” what Romney says he wants regarding increased military spending and more hawkish policies toward Iran, Syria, Russia, China, North Korea and illegal immigration.
A recent and hugely costly and painful episode that illustrates all of these elements was the Iraq War. The outcome of the 2000 presidential election (and the 9/11 terrorist attack) made the war possible, even though the rhetoric of the 2000 campaign did not make it specifically predictable.
Neocons won enough of the appointment games so that they, in alliance with assertive nationalists in senior positions and an inexperienced president itching to get out from under his father’s foreign-policy shadow, were able to launch their Iraq project.
The mammoth effort to sell the war was so able to shape public opinion that a majority of Americans came to believe that the Iraqi regime and Saddam Hussein were involved in 9/11. The shaping was accomplished not through specific assertions by government officials but by a rhetorical drumbeat that continually linked Iraq and 9/11.
One can find a disturbing similarity in the Chicago Council’s survey results, even though Drezner is pleased to conclude that the poll suggests Americans “have become even more realpolitik” than they were a few years ago.
In one of the poll’s few tests of factual knowledge, respondents were asked what they believe is the current status of Iran’s nuclear program. Only 25 percent got it correct, based on the repeatedly and publicly stated judgment of the U.S. intelligence community: that “Iran is developing some of the technical ability to build nuclear weapons, but has not decided whether to produce them or not.”
Forty-eight percent thought that Iran has decided to produce nuclear weapons and is actively working to do so. Another 18 percent thought Iran already has nuclear weapons.
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/09/12...ontrol-romney/
Neocons Slither Back
Ryan bemoaned "the slaughter of brave dissidents in Syria. Mobs storming American embassies and consulates. Iran four years closer to gaining a nuclear weapon. Israel, our best ally in the region, treated with indifference bordering on contempt by the Obama administration." American foreign policy, he said, "needs moral clarity and firmness of purpose."
Ryan was moving his mouth, but the voice was the neocon puppet master Dan Senor. The hawkish Romney adviser has been secunded to manage the running mate and graft a Manichaean worldview onto the foreign affairs neophyte.
A moral, muscular foreign policy; a disdain for weakness and diplomacy; a duty to invade and bomb Israel's neighbors; a divine right to pre-emption - it's all ominously familiar.
You can draw a direct line from the hyperpower manifesto of the Project for the New American Century, which the neocons, abetted by Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, used to prod an insecure and uninformed president into invading Iraq - a wildly misguided attempt to intimidate Arabs through the shock of overwhelming force. How's that going for us?
After 9/11, the neocons captured one Republican president who was naïve about the world. Now, amid contagious Arab rage sparked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, they have captured another would-be Republican president and vice president, both jejeune about the world.
Senor is emblematic of how much trouble America blundered into in the Middle East - trillions wasted, so many lives and limbs lost - because of how little we fathom the culture and sectarian politics. We're still stumbling in the dark. We not only don't know who our allies and enemies are, we don't know who our allies' and enemies' allies and enemies are.
As the spokesman for Paul Bremer during the Iraq occupation, Senor helped perpetrate one of the biggest foreign policy bungles in American history. The clueless desert viceroys summarily disbanded the Iraqi Army, forced de-Baathification, stood frozen in denial as thugs looted ministries and museums, deluded themselves about the growing insurgency, and misled reporters with their Panglossian scenarios of progress.
"Off the record, Paris is burning," Senor told a group of reporters a year into the war. "On the record, security and stability are returning to Iraq."
Before he played ventriloquist to Ryan, Senor did the same for Romney, ratcheting up the candidate's irresponsible bellicosity on the Middle East. Senor was the key adviser on Romney's disastrous trip to Israel in July, when Mittens infuriated the Palestinians by making a chuckleheaded claim about their culture.
Senor got out over his skis before Romney's speech in Jerusalem, telling reporters that Mitt would say he respected Israel's right to make a pre-emptive, unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;js...=28&sub=Sunday
Romney and Ryan Court Leaders of Anti-Muslim Hate Fest
If there’s anything we know about evangelical Christians, it’s that they comprise a remarkably effective voting block, and the religious right has been a core part of the Republican coalition for decades.
So it comes as no surprise, perhaps, that the two top members of the Republican ticket, presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running-mate, Paul Ryan, would court the Family Research Council at its recent Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., where, on Friday,
But what is appalling is that the event this duo endorsed quickly devolved into a hate fest directed against an American religious minority.
"This is not about a film, this is about free speech!"
Nakoula, an Egyptian-born Christian who is currently serving a sentence for bank fraud, was interviewed to determine whether he had violated the terms of his parole, which prohibits him from going on the internet, through his involvement with video, which was posted on YouTube.
In Starnes’ telling, though, the interrogation of Nakoula was government “intimidation” of a “Christian filmmaker.” He did not mention that Nakoula was a felon on parole.
Ironically, Starnes runs a Web site on Fox News Radio's site where he routinely condemns what he views as anti-Christian or anti-American behavior.
But the other speakers at the luncheon event were small fish compared to Jerry Boykin. The retired U.S. Army lieutenant general was perhaps more fitted for being to a case study on religious hostility than to lecture an audience about it.
Boykin, whom FRC hired in July to become its executive vice president, has a controversial history of Muslim-bashing, such as when he claimed that the war on terror was a spiritual war between Muslims and "Christian America" in 2003
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...tter711367&t=3
Gecko and Ryan just enhancing their credibility as neocon Muslim-haters and hate-filled "Chrisitians"
As if Gore wouldn't have been a huge warmonger too...
Gore was not a member of PNAC, was not an oilman, was/is not a war-mongering, imperialistic neocon.
As part of Clinton's EXEC would have been well aware of the threat from al Quaida that Clinton passed to the Repugs, and therefore might have prevented 9/11 by pushing the NatSec apparatus much harder than dubya/ head/condi who basically did nothing about terrorism in Jan-Sep 2001.
VRWC conspiracy does not control Al Gore? I thought it was totally un able and us, totally ed.
You think Al Gore would've kept the VRWC at abay, and us out of war?
(btw, isn't Al Gore a Scoop Jackson democrat, or he used to pretend to be one?)
do you sometimes make stuff up, boutons?
I SAID effectively, not your words, that I think Gore would not have LIED the USA into Iraq-for-oil, and he, with is experience with Clinton's attempt to get OBL, probably would have taken the terrorist chatter about plans into buildings more seriously than the vacationing/"we-got-our-1%-tax-cut-rammed-through" Repugs. He wouldn't have had Iraq as a priority as dubya did in his first cabinet meeting.
Monday morning quarterbacking. interesting how your analysis of past and future events dovetails so well with your preconstructed narrative. . .
LOL, never knew that Christian filmmaker was also a meth dealer.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...informant.html
link? PNAC wrote him to invade Iraq. He didn't.
countries playing with fire will get themselves burnt first imho.
How many are going to die in the attacks? How many do you think are going to die in the war that follows? How many will die due to the world economy going into the ter when the oil stops flowing out of the Persian Gulf because its a war zone? How are you going to guarantee this will stop the nuclear program and how will you guarantee all sites will be destroyed? How will you deal with Russia and China after such an action?
Stupid doesn't even begin to describe this idea.
"HEY GUYS I DON'T WANT MILLIONS TO DIE IN A WAR SO LETS START THAT WAR"
SMH
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Cons ution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
they were all lied to by CIA/NSA. No WMD, but lots of oil
And Clinton didn't bomb or, better, didn't invade Iraq. It was the PNAC oilmen and neocon Jews who did.
So Clinton was lied to about WMD's, but Dubya was lying when he said the same exact ?
Funny, I don't see a difference between the lies spewed by the Clinton administration and the lies spewed by the Bush administration, but maybe that's because I'm not a blind partisan shill, tbh....
Wrong again, dumb .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...December_1998)And Clinton didn't bomb or, better, didn't invade Iraq.
He's not desperate.
He is appealing to his party's ueber conservative base. SOSDD, only this is Israel.
Meh. Let the Iranians get nukes. If they want it that badly, they can live with the fact that we will have them dialed in with hundreds of times more firepower than they can muster, and a world that won't do business with them, nor trust them.
Russia and China don't want them to have nukes anymore than anyone else does, and Iranian nukes would weaken those two countries political stance considerably.
I don't know about this, there is evidence to show that the Russians aided and propelled the iranian nuclear program..they are allies and I don't think they would mind iran having the bomb any more than china doesn't mind north korea having it.
That's what I really didn't understand about internal or external support for Israeli action on Iranian nuclear plants. They bombed Saddam's plants but I feel like that was due to instability within the country. Iranian people are mostly (albeit I'm looking from afar) rational and progressive. The government wouldn't start a war, especially a nuclear war, with anyone because the people would definitely form an uprising. The populace is too large and educated not to. Like RG says, I think you let them develop nukes. The main fear I guess is that they sell/give nuclear material to a less stable group like their proxy Hezbollah. I guess it's a real concern for Israel if that fear is legitimate.
It's not about oil in the sense that we're over there just looting them and driving out with tankers full of oil...it's about the petrodollar. OPEC selling oil in dollars and ONLY dollars is the only thing propping up the dollar.
Saddam had started selling oil in Euro's when we decided to invade, and shortly after we switched them back to dollars.
Gaddafi was in the process of creating a gold based african currency and selling oil in gold. So we took him out.
The petrodollar is essential to american dominance and economic strength..these maniacs will go to war to preserve their monopoly on global trade. This thing is banker driven, it gets deeper than just "we want their oil." We still pay for the oil, it's not the oil exactly it's the petrodollar.
I would go along with this idea more than others outside of what i stated, but I don't think this was why. At least it's a credible view in my opinion.
If you dig deeper and study history you'll find that it's exactly the case though. We currently have an agreement with everyone in OPEC to protect their oilfields with our military in exchange for them selling oil exclusively in dollars in return..you just can't make this stuff up. It's a total monopoly on world trade and gives us a huge advantage as an importer.
Are you suggesting we operated like the mob does? Pay the protection price or we will attack?
I have no love for the way our government does many things, but that seems a bit out there for me to believe.
well..don't you find it odd that NO countries EVER trade oil in a currency other than dollars? it never happens. i can understand the dollar being a safe, popular currency..but wouldn't it sometimes ever be convenient to use something else? maybe if say, you're short on dollars at the time? but no, every country ALWAYS keeps a healthy supply of dollars on hand..because dollars are the only currency allowed to be traded for oil.
check out this article..it's from 2000 right before the invasion. saddam had just started to accept euros in exchange for oil. it'll tell you all that you need to know.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...998512,00.html
Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a compe or to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."
The switch to euros would cost the U.N. a small fortune in accounting-paperwork changes. It would also reduce the interest earnings and reparations payments that Iraq is making for damage it caused during the Gulf War, a shortfall the Iraqis would have to make up.
The move hurts Iraq, the U.N. and the countries receiving reparations. So why is Saddam doing it? Diplomatic sources say switching to the euro will favor European suppliers over U.S. ones in competing for Iraqi contracts, and the p.r. boost that Baghdad would probably get in Europe would be another plus.
--By William Dowell/New York City
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
