portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

government | imperialism & war | police / legal

happy new year!...the neo-con nutters only get nuttier for 2004

happy new year!....the neo-con nutters get nuttier...this will make for an interesting 2004,
and may well open the door wide-open to a defeat for Bush before year is out...???
repostings 4 u

Hawks tell Bush how to win war on terror
By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 31/12/2003)

President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by Washington's hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.

The manifesto, presented as a "manual for victory" in the war on terror, also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.

The manifesto is contained in a new book by Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and "intellectual guru" of the hardline neo-conservative movement, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. They give warning of a faltering of the "will to win" in Washington.

In the battle for the president's ear, the manifesto represents an attempt by hawks to break out of the post-Iraq doldrums and strike back at what they see as a campaign of hostile leaking by their foes in such centres of caution as the State Department or in the military top brass.

Their publication, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, coincided with the latest broadside from the hawks' enemy number one, Colin Powell, the secretary of state.

Though on leave recovering from a prostate cancer operation, Mr Powell summoned reporters to his bedside to hail "encouraging" signs of a "new attitude" in Iran and call for the United States to keep open the prospect of dialogue with the Teheran authorities.

Such talk is anathema to hawks like Mr Perle and Mr Frum who urge Washington to shun the mullahs and work for their overthrow in concert with Iranian dissidents.

It may be assumed that their instincts at least are shared by hawks inside the government, whose twin power bases are the Pentagon's civilian leadership and the office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney.

Such officials prevailed over invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but have been seen as on the back foot since the autumn as their post-war visions of building a secular, free-market Iraq were scaled back in favour of compromise and a swift handover of power next June.

The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear programme.

As North Korea will probably refuse such terms, the book urges a Cuba-style military blockade and overt preparations for war, including the rapid pullback of US forces from the inter-Korean border so that they move out of range of North Korean artillery.

Such steps, with luck, will prompt China to oust its nominal ally, Kim Jong-il, and install a saner regime in North Korea, the authors write.

The authoritarian rule of Syria's leader, Bashar Assad, should also be ended, encouraged by shutting oil supplies from Iraq, seizing arms he buys from Iran, and raids into Syria to hunt terrorists.

The authors urge Mr Bush to "tell the truth about Saudi Arabia". Wealthy Saudis, some of them royal princes, fund al-Qa'eda, they write.

The Saudi government backs "terror-tainted Islamic organisations" as part of a larger campaign to "spread its extremist version of Islam throughout the Muslim world and into Europe and North America".

The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of offsetting US power. "We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington," it states. Britain's independence from Europe should be preserved, perhaps with open access for British arms to American defence markets.
Pearl Rules. 31.Dec.2003 22:45

Dancin' Dave davidk@oz-online.net

Don't be silly, these guys don't have to "send" a manifesto to Bush, they already control his policy and will continue to do so. Go to some New Years party where you can meet some honest radical people!

French Resistance 31.Dec.2003 23:02

jlii

I know not what course others may choose. But a trade embargo or quarantine of France would be so welcome a thing I dare the US to bring it on. Make an even bigger ass of your self America, end American involvement in NATO. Feel the bite of the WTO on your balance of payments. Hell please go ahead, it will be great to watch some business in the States get it and get together and oust the Bush dictatorshit.

How are they going to do this attack the world bluff, half the Army wants to quit. A draft is a confession of no popular support. Commanders are about to spike their guns. Fun's, fun's but you can't let pulp-fiction novelist write State department papers. The White House should consider whether someone is working for rebellion from the inside.

VIVE LA FRANCE

ding dong!...time for>>> 01.Jan.2004 04:46

KNOW YOUR NEOCONS

we repost, you decide

-Caveat Lector-  http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/schulsky/schulsky.html

ding dong!...time for KNOW YOUR NEOCONS...

Highlights & Quotes

Abram Shulsky, a Leo Strauss scholar and intelligence expert associated with the Project for the New American Century, is best known for his work in the Office of Special Plans, a secretive intelligence outfit in the Pentagon that was charged with digging up information on Iraq that would support the administration's arguments for going to war. According to an expose by the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, the Office of Special Plans, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz and began its work soon after the 9/11 terrorists attacks, "has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community. These advisers and analysts . . . have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq. They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi." (1)

By late 2002, says Hersh, the Office of Special Plans had overshadowed the C.I.A. and the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency, the D.I.A., and become Bush's main intelligence source on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and on Hussein's alleged Al Qaeda connections. Hersh continues, "Although many people, within the Administration and outside it, profess confidence that something will turn up, the integrity of much of that intelligence is now in question. The director of the Special Plans operation is Abram Shulsky, a scholarly expert in the works of the political philosopher Leo Strauss. Shulsky has been quietly working on intelligence and foreign-policy issues for three decades; he was on the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the early nineteen-eighties and served in the Pentagon under Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle during the Reagan Administration, after which he joined the Rand Corporation. The Office of Special Plans is overseen by Under-Secretary of Defense William Luti, a retired Navy captain. Luti was an early advocate of military action against Iraq, and, as the Administration moved toward war and policymaking power shifted toward the civilians in the Pentagon, he took on increasingly important responsibilities." (1)

W. Patrick Lang, a former Middle East expert at the DIA, told Hersh, "The Pentagon has banded together to dominate the government's foreign policy, and they've pulled it off. They're running Chalabi. The DIA has been intimidated and beaten to a pulp. And there's no guts at all in the CIA." (1)

Shulsky arrived at the Office of Special Plans armed with his own unique perspective on the value and purpose of intelligence. In 2002, Shulsky coauthored with Gary Schmitt, the director of the Project for the New American Century, Silent Warfare: Understanding the World of Intelligence, which argued that "truth is not the goal" of intelligence operations, but "victory." (5)

The two also coauthored The Future of U.S. Intelligence, a report published by the hardline National Security Information Center that foreshadowed the work of the Office of Special Plans. The report concluded that intelligence should not be centralized in the CIA, and that the intelligence community should adopt new methodology aimed at "obtaining information others try to keep secret and penetrating below the 'surface' impression created by publicly available information to determine whether an adversary is deceiving us or denying us key information." It recommended creating "competing analytic centers" with "different points of view" that could "provide policymakers better protection against new 'Pearl Harbors,' i.e., against being surprised." (6)

Institutional Affiliations

Project for the New American Century: Participant, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (3)
Rand Corporation: Researcher/author (1, 2)
National Strategy Information Center: Fellow (2, 4) Government Service


Defense Department: Director, Office of Special Plans (1)
Senate Intelligence Committee: Former staffer (1)
Defense Department: Served under then-Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle during the Reagan administration (1) Education

University of Chicago: Ph.D. (1972) (1)

Sources
(1) Seymour Hersh, "Selective Intelligence," New Yorker, May 5, 2003
 http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052803H.shtml
(2) Media Transparency
 http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/comment_string_search_results.php?Message=Shulsky
(3) Project for the New American Century: Search: Shulsky
 http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=2557452&pid=r&mode=ALL&query=shulsky&SUBMIT=Find%21&t=s
(4) GroupWatch: National Strategy Information Center
 http://www.publiceye.org/research/Group_Watch/Entries-99.htm
(5) Abram N. Shulsky and Gary J. Schmitt, Silent Warfare: Understanding the World of Intelligence (Dulles, VA: Brassey's Inc., 2002), p. 176(6) Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt, The Future of U.S. Intelligence: Report Prepared for the Working Group on Intelligence Reform (Washington: Consortium for the Study of Intelligence of the National Security Information Center, 1996)

speaking of neo-cons...here is this one>>> 01.Jan.2004 05:31

YEAR OF THE LIARS from www.antiwar.com

WE REPOST, YOU DECIDE

-Caveat Lector-  http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
December 31, 2003

YEAR OF THE LIARS
2003 was a bad year for truth. Will 2004 be any better?

They lied us into war - and now they're lying about the lies. Yes, my friends, it's come to this. Having exhausted, for the moment , their supply of fabrications, the War Party is now rationalizing - in effect, recycling - previously exposed lies. The Guardian reports:

"British officials are circulating a story that Saddam Hussein may have been hoodwinked into believing that Iraq really did possess weapons of mass destruction. The theory, which is doing the rounds in the upper reaches of Whitehall, is the result of an attempt to find what one official source called a 'logical reason' why no chemical and biological weapons had been found in Iraq."

Logical reasons for the apparent absence of WMD in Iraq - that they never existed in the first place, or else were destroyed after Gulf War I, as Hans Blix and Scott Ritter aver - are completely inadmissible, but logic has little to do with it. My theory that the 9/11 terrorist attacks ripped a hole in the space-time continuum - and fundamentally altered the laws of nature, and the structure of the human mind - is here, I fear, proved all too true. In the upside-down Bizarro world we're living in, only illogic can help us understand events.

The idea, according to British officials, is that Saddam had his scientists and second tier military leaders so cowed that they vied with each other in exaggerating their achievements and capabilities. In a modern-day version of "The Emperor's New Clothes," the Iraqi dictator's obsequious subordinates assured him of his military prowess when in reality there was nothing there. Unfortunately for British intelligence, their sources of information were supposedly all in Saddam's inner circle, while it was the second and third-tier apparatchiks who authored the deception. We are asked to believe that the effects of this massive and longstanding charade rippled outward, reaching all the way to London and Washington.

Setting aside the impossibility of maintaining such a large-scale deception, involving thousands of people over an extended period of time, one has to agree with former UN weapons inspector David Albright, who now heads the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, cited by the Guardian as arguing that "the system in which those scientists worked was guaranteed to produce misleading information. 'Scientists would hoodwink their own bosses with all sorts of exaggerations of their achievements.'"

Authoritarian systems break down because they are based on lies, but the same principle applies to ... us.

In manufacturing the case for war, the neoconservatives in the top echelons of the Defense Department set up their own parallel intelligence apparatus, as Seymour Hersh, Jim Lobe, Robert Dreyfuss, and Julian Borger have reported, devoted to churning out war propaganda rather than objective analysis. Rather than discover the facts, the "Office of Special Plans" and Vice President Cheney's staff "cherry-picked" data to suit their agenda.

As Karen Kwiatkowski details in her multi-part account of life inside the Pentagon's policy bunker during the run-up to war, the system in which OSP chief Abram Shulsky and his policy shop worked was guaranteed to produce misleading information. It was created for that purpose.

Saddam isn't the only ruler with self-serving and disloyal subordinates. After all, somebody hookwinked a clueless President into repeating outright lies based on a forgery in his State of the Union address.

As millions marched against war, the neocons whispered in the presidential ear, reassuring him that they had the goods on Iraq. Thousands of troops - who might have been used to keep order - were diverted to the task of finding the missing WMD - and retroactively justifying the invasion. While looters carried away the ancient treasures of Iraq's museums, and much else, the WMD-hunters came up empty-handed. Leaving our empty-headed President, pressed by Dianne Sawyer on the question of WMD as hard fact rather than mere possibility, to blurt out his essential indifference to the truth:

"So what's the difference?"

The liars who rule us have taken their art to a whole new level. Truth, falsehood, it's all the same to this White House. Denying everything, conceding nothing, when caught in a lie they brush it off as irrelevant. This kind of brazen arrogance, combined with such power, has no real precedent in world history: not even the maddest of the Roman emperors, who claimed to be divine, exhibited such a lordly disdain for truth.

The Greeks had a word for the illness that afflicts the warlords of Washington: they called it hubris. This sin was always punished by the gods, who struck down the offender in his tracks: but instead of a bolt of lightning, divine blowback aimed at the Bush administration may come in the form of a Special Prosecutor by the name of Patrick J. Fitzgerald. His appointment by the Justice Department to look into the matter of who outed CIA agent Valerie Plame to columnist Bob Novak may teach this administration the meaning of humility, a word often used by candidate Bush in speaking about his foreign policy views. My prediction for the new year: the Fitzgerald appointment will reacquaint him with this virtue.

Plame is the wife of Joseph C. Wilson, a former diplomat, who believes her name was leaked in retaliation for his statements that the administration hyped phony "intelligence" on Iraq's nuclear capability to bolster the case for war.

L'Affaire Plame disappeared beneath the media's radar for what seemed like an awfully long time, but has now resurfaced with a vengeance. The trail leading to the leaker could take us to the office of the Vice President - or higher.

More importantly, the investigation into the attempt to discredit Ambassador Wilson could well unearth a number of other crimes committed by over-zealous officials who sought to make the case for war. Wilson's allegations about the hyping of Iraq's allegedly active nuclear program were validated by the provenance of the "evidence" - documents that turned out to be crude forgeries. Perhaps now we'll find out who lied to George W. Bush and told him that Saddam had procured uranium in the African nation of Niger - an allegation that somehow made it into the President's 2002 State of the Union address.

I can hardly wait to see if my own hunch is proved correct.

No matter what direction the investigation takes, one thing seems increasingly likely, if not certain, as far as the Bush White House is concerned: the Plame quagmire will soon come to mirror and exacerbate the one that ensnared them in the Middle East.

2003 was a bad year for the truth. Perhaps, with a bit of luck, 2004 will be a lot better

ding dong!...here's more>>>> 01.Jan.2004 05:46

KNOW YOUR NEOCONS

we repost, you decide...more "Know Your Neocons"

-Caveat Lector-  http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski57.html

Ad Hominem?
by Karen Kwiatkowski


As part of the occasional series "Know Your Neocons," we have Max Boot on Monday's edition of C-Span's Washington Journal. It was quite informative.

Max was busy fending off a series of caller comments regarding the war-mongering and war-profiteering of neoconservatives in America. Max seems quite the reasonable man, but he refused to address a caller who asked why people around the world sometimes see Israel as a threat to peace in the region. Instead, he resorted to a cry of ad hominem.

By this he meant that callers complaining about neocons in Washington or neoconservative assumptions are simply "appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason." Why not acknowledge how 200 nukes and a very tough occupation might legitimately be considered a factor that detracts from the image of "liberalism and a beacon of regional democracy" that Max claims? There are several valid arguments that may be made, and Max could have made them, but he did not.

Never mind.

Max likes to discuss evil, as did several callers. Max says amorphous dictatorial evil like Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein must be addressed militarily, and now. This fight against evil, in all of its Manichean simplicity, gives powerful meaning to the wars sought by neoconservatives in the Bush Administration. Several callers, however, felt that evil was more accurately perceived as a beam in our own eye. Callers mentioned that Saddam's purported WMD, if they existed at all, were the degraded residuals of our own sale and gifts of WMD to Saddam-the-ally over a decade ago. They mentioned the lies we used to justify the 2003 adventures in Mesopotamia. Callers mentioned the evil of institutional and executive disrespect of the Constitution, of our leaders failing "to seek peace and pursue it" and instead fomenting war, in the extreme and reckless waste of American taxpayer contributions, past-present-future, by George W. Bush and his minions. Max felt these were all ad hominem attacks, not appealing to logic or reason. Max apparently has a very narrow definition of logic and reason.

Max fended off a question about Richard Perle's war profiteering, again, as an ad hominem insult against a major neoconservative. For future reference, Max, intellectuals like yourself who do not, I assume, personally profit from the current foreign policy of government subsidized contracts to rebuild what government funded destruction has wrought, ought to seriously consider putting some daylight between yourselves and profiteering neoconservatives like Richard Perle. If you can.

A Democrat calls up. He fully supports the war in Iraq as justified (even if started and continued ad nauseum on a foundation of lies and propaganda, devoid of reality on the ground or in the region). This caller advocates a "two-party system" for Iraq. Can you imagine? Max likes this idea. Iraq will be resolved and all will be well if we could just put in place a two-party system there. Kind of like the great two-party system we have today in America. The same two-party system that brought us the pre-emptive war against a fourth-class military power that did not threaten us, and Patriot Acts I and II at home to keep dissenters in line.

But there is hope - a female caller claims that Bush is really playing the man behind the green curtain, except the difference is that the Wizard of Oz meant no harm, and Bush does. She is a Wes Clark supporter, and she believes that Bush should be charged with treason. Hear, hear!

Max responds that treason is an unreasonable charge, because, thanks to the two/one party system we have, both houses of Congress supported Bush in this war. The argument that Max hopes we will follow is that it is unreasonable to charge both houses of Congress with treason. Actually, Max, it's not unreasonable at all! You are, for this moment, approaching a clarity of perception worthy of your intellect.

Finally, Max brings up the alleged anti-Semitic aspect of those who criticize the neoconservative program. Earlier on the show, Max admitted that neocons are mainly present in Washington thinktanks and exist only as policy-makers, who neither have nor seek a domestic constituency, a neocon "voting bloc" so to speak. Yet, when people criticize or question the national "democracy" inherent in such a small, non-representative, and powerful policy making group, Max is very sensitive that we have ignored all the non-Jewish members of this policy bloc. Max mentions the virtuous gambler Bill Bennett, former Director of Central Intelligence under Bill Clinton, Jim Woolsey, and Catholic policy writer Rev. John Neuhaus.

Max failed to mention a far more substantive fact that separates neoconservatism from any of the great Semitic religions - Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Neoconservatism springs from a 1930s atheistic communist/Marxist-leaning world revolution movement transformed throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s by a Cold War-driven domestic agenda, and crowned by the current global military ascendance of the United States. Neoconservatives indeed have a religious bent, but it's not monotheistic in the tradition of the great religions. If neoconservatism has a religious aspect, it may be found in its general anti-traditionalist roots, or perhaps in its apparent worship of several lesser gods. Gods of unilateral power and this idea of a holy American-enforced "democracy" spread all over the world come to mind. There are probably other idols that animate neo-cons in the privacy of their own minds, but I don't want to go ad hominem on good old Max.

Neoconservatism, Max, is a historical pinprick. It rose on the wings of domestic tactical success in America only to be foiled by its remarkable ability to create foreign and domestic policy disaster after disaster. These disasters include falsely justified invasions and occupations of other countries, as well as the profligate Bennett-ese gambling away of this nation's assets, in blood and treasure. Our immediate political future looks to be one of painful, at times violent and angry, recovery from the neoconservative era. An era that, logically, reasonably, and thankfully, is at the cusp of its sorry existence.

December 30, 2003

... 01.Jan.2004 10:14

this thing here

i cannot think of a single neo-"conservative" policy and straussian adherent that has been a.) successful so far b.) an example of integrity, honesty and fair play. iraq is not yet a success. the war in iraq was built on the manipulative lie of WMD's.

PNAC, without communists to call the boogeymen, desperately needs a war on terrorism if it is to have any chance of gaining traction. perle wants more wars in iran and syria because he is in a position to make money off of them. as is wolfowitz (though for different reasons), PNAC, AEI, and all the other groups, think tanks, pundits and authors. this is an example of the lack of integrity, the underlying disingenuousness of their positions.

straussians, who view democracy as an obstacle to policy, believe that democracy can and should be manipulated, subverted or demeaned in order to acheive policy goals. the most pure example of this, exhibit #1, was none other than all the DEMONSTRATED lies and button pushing the american people, the british people and the world were put through before the war on iraq began in march.

so all in all, to be neo-"conservative", to be an adherent of straussian beliefs, is to be a manipulative, war-mongering liar who loathes democracy because it sometimes poses an obstacle to policy. as well, i detect in men such as mr. wolfowitz, a bit of an attitude of superiority, a "can't you appreciate my brilliance and laud my brilliant schemes?" kind of thinking, and when this need is not met, a definite anger and disgust towards the people, groups or philosophies, such as democracy, that deny it. sadly, they are men who believe they are genuises, who believe they should be treated as special and superior, but are utterly incapable of understanding the consequences (wars, more terrorism, net increase in death and violence, etc.) of their supposed genuis.

So the Eye of Sauron turns next to Syria... 02.Jan.2004 10:36

Feanaro Elensar

And to Iran, North Korea and even Cuba! The greed of Bu$h clearly knows no boundaries and he will not rest until all the world is covered in a second Naziism. No matter what it takes, no matter what the odds, this evil must be resisted.

Fortunately, it is getting so obvious to the world that anybody can be next on the Neocons' menu that we will have a lot of help.