2/24/2008

The best thing about Ron Paul...

  He will never be elected. There just aren't enough Nazi's and stoners to make it happen. So I don't need to care one way or the other.

  The worst thing about Ron Paul?

He is a republican:

  1. I am pro-choice. Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe ~v~ Wade. I can't get behind that no matter what. "First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly. We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them. Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government." Ron Paul
  2. The Christian right bugs me, Ron Paul will be their stooge. "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." and "I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."Ron Paul
  3. I believe everyone should have the right to gain citizenship in the good ol' USA. Yep, I mean give amnesty to 12 million or so immigrants.  "I strongly disagree with the president that opposing this legislation is unpatriotic. I believe we have an obligation to reject any legislation that promises amnesty to those here illegally, and that undermines the sovereignty and privacy of American citizens." Ron Paul
  4. Ron Paul has also spoken against gay marriage and any federal involvement in protecting people from racial discrimination.
  5. Ron Paul also calls himself the ultimate conservative. I would not vote for anyone that would use that term to describe themselves.

These quotes were take directly from Ron Paul's webpage, without any alteration.  He sounds very republican to me Andrew.

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

5 Comments:

Blogger iTod said...

ZING!

12:18 PM  
Blogger andrew said...

he is a republican but more of an eccentric/outlyer, btw i elected obama in illinois i know the man the messiah better than anyone.

5:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama's top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, 'Well, don't you think this might have had some bad consequences?' And Brzezinski replied, 'Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets.' ...

"Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, was the main force behind the U.S. invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.

"Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, was the man overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of U.S. fighter planes not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in '91.

"Another key Obama adviser, Dennis Ross, advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli government -- in other words, their desire to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories.

"And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter is no peacenik -- Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.

"Another Obama adviser is Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official. She wrote the introduction to General Petraeus's Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by U.S. troops in various killing operations."

That's the Obama team. But Nairn demonstrates that the Clinton and Edwards teams are equally loaded with Washington insiders who in one way or other have contributed to our current national predicament.

There is another message coming out of Iowa that is aimed directly at Black people. Former Clinton presidential adviser and columnist Dick Morris wrote that with Obama's victory in Iowa, "race is no longer a factor in American politics." Tell that to the Black folks living in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, or who are facing "Hurricane America" in cities and communities all across the country.

Bill Bennett on CNN said that Barack Obama is the kind of Black person Blacks should be -- not like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. This is the way to go if you want to get somewhere in this country, Bennett said.





Obama's advisor... Zbigniew Brzezinski, "Lord of War"

"The Technocratic Age is slowly designing an every day more controlled society. The society will be dominated by an elite of persons free from traditional values (!) who will have no doubt in fulfilling their objectives by means of purged techniques with which they will influence the behavior of people and will control and watch the society in all details". "... it will become possible to exert a practically permanent watch on each citizen of the world". - Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of Trilateral Commission



..


1970 - Zbigniew Brzezinski [who later became President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor] writes a book entitled "Between Two Ages." He has nothing but praise for Marxism: "Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision...Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief...Marxism, disseminated on the popular level in the form of communism, represents a major advance in man's ability to conceptualize his relationship to the world." He also describes how war can be waged against a nation without its citizens even realizing they are under attack: "Technology will make available to the leaders of major nations a variety of techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of security forces need be appraised. One nation may attack a competitor covertly...techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm, thereby weakening a nation's capacity and forcing it to accept the demands of the competitor."



Zbigniew Brzezinski is Obama's foreign policy advisor!!!!! Gotta read this ...
Quote

Obama's foreign policy advisor and vocal supporter is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, who says that Obama offers 'a new definition of America's role in the world'.

This is the same Brzezinski who created the Illuminati's Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller in 1973. The Trilateral Commission is dedicated to a world government dictatorship and closely connects with other strands in the web like the Council on Foreign Relations (member: Barack Obama) and the Bilderberg Group.

Brzezinski's foreign 'policy' during the Carter administration, as he has since admitted without regret, was to entice the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan in December, 1979. The idea, he said, was to weaken their rival superpower and the result was a ten-year occupation that cost the lives of an estimated 1.3 million Afghans and spawned the Mujahedin, Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

Deep breath: he's now advising Barack Obama on foreign policy ...

... Whether America votes for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton the outcome will be the same because they won't dictate policy - the Shadow People will. Obama says he stands for 'change' and Clinton responds by saying she also stands for 'change', but she has the experience to make the 'change' happen.

In truth, they stand for the status quo because that's the position of those who control them. All the rest is fakery.



The Trilateral Commission


David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski..

The Trilateral Commission (click here for membership list), officially founded in June 1973[3] by David Rockefeller (Illuminati) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Illuminati), was created because the already established organizations, like the UN, were too slow in establishing a World Government. This commission consists of the industrial and commercial giants of the "trilateral nations"; USA, Japan and Western Europe. The members all are of the Elite, coming from different branches of Freemasonry world-wide to give the Bilderbergers a broader political basis. The 200 members are permanent and in this case different from the Bilderbergers, who are invited, except for the Steering Committee.
The Trilateral Commission controls through the CFR members (see below) the whole U.S. economy, politics, military, oil, energy and media lobbies. The members are chairmen of different companies, bankers, real estate agents, economists, scientists, lawyers, publishers, politicians, union leaders, presidents of Foundations and newspaper columnists. ..

If you still don't believe that these people want a World Government and destroy America and sovereignty in general, please read David Rockefeller's Biography, Memoirs [2002]. In this book he says, among a lot of other interesting things:..

..
..
..


"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it [my emphasis]."




January 31, 2007
Zbigniew Brzezinski Calls Iraq War a Historic, Strategic and Moral Calamity & Says Stop the Trappings of Colonial Tutelage


TWN has secured testimony being offered by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski tomorrow morning in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at 9:30 a.m.

Brzezinski will be paired with former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft who will testify about their views on the strategic context of America's actions in Iraq.

This may be covered by C-Span but will also be available in full at CNN's Pipeline:

SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITEE TESTIMONY -- ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI
February 1, 2007

Mr. Chairman:

Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.

It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:

1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran -- though gaining in regional influence -- is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about "a new strategic context" which is based on "clarity" and which prompts "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles's attitude of the early 1950's toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture.

It is obvious by now that the American national interest calls for a significant change of direction. There is in fact a dominant consensus in favor of a change: American public opinion now holds that the war was a mistake; that it should not be escalated, that a regional political process should be explored; and that an Israeli-Palestinian accommodation is an essential element of the needed policy alteration and should be actively pursued. It is noteworthy that profound reservations regarding the Administration's policy have been voiced by a number of leading Republicans. One need only invoke here the expressed views of the much admired President Gerald Ford, former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and several leading Republican senators, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith among others.

The urgent need today is for a strategy that seeks to create a political framework for a resolution of the problems posed both by the US occupation of Iraq and by the ensuing civil and sectarian conflict. Ending the occupation and shaping a regional security dialogue should be the mutually reinforcing goals of such a strategy, but both goals will take time and require a genuinely serious U.S. commitment.

The quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq should involve four steps:

1. The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time.

Ambiguity regarding the duration of the occupation in fact encourages unwillingness to compromise and intensifies the on-going civil strife. Moreover, such a public declaration is needed to allay fears in the Middle East of a new and enduring American imperial hegemony. Right or wrong, many view the establishment of such a hegemony as the primary reason for the American intervention in a region only recently free of colonial domination. That perception should be discredited from the highest U.S. level. Perhaps the U.S. Congress could do so by a joint resolution.

2. The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation.

It is necessary to engage all Iraqi leaders -- including those who do not reside within "the Green Zone" -- in a serious discussion regarding the proposed and jointly defined date for U.S. military disengagement because the very dialogue itself will help identify the authentic Iraqi leaders with the self-confidence and capacity to stand on their own legs without U.S. military protection. Only Iraqi leaders who can exercise real power beyond "the Green Zone" can eventually reach a genuine Iraqi accommodation. The painful reality is that much of the current Iraqi regime, characterized by the Bush administration as "representative of the Iraqi people," defines itself largely by its physical location: the 4 sq. miles-large U.S. fortress within Baghdad, protected by a wall in places 15 feet thick, manned by heavily armed U.S. military, popularly known as "the Green Zone."

3. The United States should issue jointly with appropriate Iraqi leaders, or perhaps let the Iraqi leaders issue, an invitation to all neighbors of Iraq (and perhaps some other Muslim countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan) to engage in a dialogue regarding how best to enhance stability in Iraq in conjunction with U.S. military disengagement and to participate eventually in a conference regarding regional stability.

The United States and the Iraqi leadership need to engage Iraq's neighbors in serious discussion regarding the region's security problems, but such discussions cannot be undertaken while the U.S. is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration. Iran and Syria have no reason to help the United States consolidate a permanent regional hegemony. It is ironic, however, that both Iran and Syria have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting thereby the self-defeating character of the largely passive -- and mainly sloganeering -- U.S. diplomacy.

A serious regional dialogue, promoted directly or indirectly by the U.S., could be buttressed at some point by a wider circle of consultations involving other powers with a stake in the region's stability, such as the EU, China, Japan, India, and Russia. Members of this Committee might consider exploring informally with the states mentioned their potential interest in such a wider dialogue.

4. Concurrently, the United States should activate a credible and energetic effort to finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace, making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a final accommodation ought to involve.

The United States needs to convince the region that the U.S. is committed both to Israel's enduring security and to fairness for the Palestinians who have waited for more than forty years now for their own separate state. Only an external and activist intervention can promote the long-delayed settlement for the record shows that the Israelis and the Palestinians will never do so on their own. Without such a settlement, both nationalist and fundamentalist passions in the region will in the longer run doom any Arab regime which is perceived as supportive of U.S. regional hegemony.

After World War II, the United States prevailed in the defense of democracy in Europe because it successfully pursued a long-term political strategy of uniting its friends and dividing its enemies, of soberly deterring aggression without initiating hostilities, all the while also exploring the possibility of negotiated arrangements. Today, America's global leadership is being tested in the Middle East. A similarly wise strategy of genuinely constructive political engagement is now urgently needed.

It is also time for the Congress to assert itself.


The President of the United States and Secretary of State would restore some of their lost luster by making some combination of James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Brent Scowcroft co-Middle East Envoys to help take this penultimate quagmire we are in a direction that might start a virtuous cycle of possibilities rather than the disaster that is unfolding.

-- Steve Clemons




ON THE ROAD TO TEHERAN
The Rationale for War

“…a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran…”
Zbigniew Brzezinski 02 Feb 2007

By Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, D.C.

The National Security Advisor to former President Carter testified before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 1 Feb 2007. Dr.Zbigniew Brzezinski delivered a scathing assessment of the core mistakes made by the Bush administration in the Middle East. Just before describing what he termed the mythical historical narrative of the policy, he offered a scenario that the Bush administration might use as a convenient invitation to attack Iran.

War may result fromIraqi failures at governance attributed to Iranian interference followed “…by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran…” The “act” would lead to a “lonely America” into a conundrum of conflict across Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Further isolation and estrangement from the world would be the end game for the United States.

18 Fateful Words




a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran

Brzezinski doesn’t waste any time setting off his own fire works. This phrase appears in the third paragraph (see full text below). He posits a possible justification for attacking Iran; clearly outside the bounds of rationality and built upon a foundation of myths. .

Look at the use of “terrorist act in the U.S.” in the context of his prepared statement:


If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.. (.pdf of Brzezinski’s testimony) Note: The emphasis by underlining and the use of quotation marks around defensive is found in the original copy and presumed to be that of Dr. Brzezinski.


The remarkable wording is that Iran is “blamed.”

“…blamed on Iran…” Does that mean that they did it?

Brzezinski refers to “a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action” adding emphasis and meaning by the use of quotation marks highlighting defensive. This answers the question about Iran’s blame in the scenario. The quotation marks around defensive indicate something other than that. This defines the meaning of “blamed” as somewhat akin to saying Iran would be the patsy, fall guy, or stooge for whoever actually committed the act.

Brzezinski’s prepared testimony is a chilling and highly evocative analysis offered by a major player in the U.S. foreign policy establishment. Before serving in the Carter administration, he was the first director of the Trilateral Commission. This isn’t speculation by an outsider supporting human rights or a peace activist, its insider information from the highest level of the United States foreign policy establishment.

Shortly after testifying Brzezinski was approached by Barry Grey, reporter for the World Socialist Web. Grey recounts the exchange:



Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?
A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.
Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?
A. I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.


“I have no idea” in response to the “provocation” is certainly not comforting since it implies the blaming of Iran would be arbitrary. Brzezinski’s answers above indicate that the terrorist act “can be spontaneous” or “the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations” can lead to the act. At one end of the spectrum of anti U.S. terrorist acts, we have something totally random which the administration grabs and runs with as an excuse for war. At the other end, we have out of control “calculations” which at the extreme might be taken to include something like Operation Northwoods given the absence of a denial to Grey’s assertion in the second question above.

The plan swings into action…blaming Iran


Gates Says Bombs Tie Iran to Iraq Extremists
Lolita Baldor Associated Press 9 Feb 2007MUNICH, Germany (Feb. 9) - Serial numbers and other markings on bombs suggest that Iranians are linked to deadly explosives used by Iraqi militants, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in some of the administration’s first public assertions on evidence the military has collected.


Just a week after Brzezinski outlined the modus operandi for the Bush crew, the supposed voice of reason at the Pentagon is selling a story of Iranian subversion. Trying it out on the road in Munich, Germany before the homeland premier, Gates indicated that weapons were found with Iranian serial numbers.



U.S. Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates on his European tour.

“I think there’s some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found” that point to Iran, he said.Gates’ remarks left unclear how the U.S. knows the serial numbers are traceable to Iran and whether such weapons would have been sent to Iraq by the Iranian government or by private arms dealers.



Compare Gates’ tentative assertion to this whopper used to justify Gulf War I: “They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die” said the Kuwaiti Ambassador’s daughter, who, by the way, had never seen anything of the sort. Gates’ tentative serial number claim is no way to whip up war fever. Even the AP reporter bluntly questioned his ability to know just what it is about those serial numbers that gives them that tell-tale Iranian look.

So it begins - the rationale for war. The political basis for this scenario explains why the tactics must, of necessity, be so completely inept.

“…9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor…”

After defining the specific dangers from the ill begotten Bush tactics, Brzezinski unveils the mythology that justifies the rush to war.



A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II. (Author’s emphasis)


This short paragraph is the epitaph for the widely rejected neoconservative policies adopted by the White House. One can only wonder if the last line of the paragraph is a reference to the often quoted line from the Project for a New American Century anticipating the arrival of the brave new world of United States dominance. That PNAC goal will evolve slowly “…absent some catastrophic and crystallizing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” (p. 51).

Corporate Media Response

Reporter Grey complained vigorously about the lack of corporate media coverage for this testimony. This is one of the minor ironies of this event – a Socialist writer advocating for wide spread coverage of one of the most ardent anti-Communists of our time.

The silence was quickly broken when Barry Schweid of the Associated Press covered the story on the same day of the hearing, 01 Feb:



Brzezinski set out as a plausible scenario for military collision: Iraq fails to meet benchmarks set by the U.S., followed by accusations that Iran is responsible for the failure and then a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran. This scenario, he said, would play out with a defensive U.S. military action against Iran.


They included “blamed” on Iran. The only less than representative element is the absence of quotation marks around defensive to imply something other than real defense. Banner headlines would have helped also.

The AP article appeared on MSNBC’s web page, in the Guardian, and other media outlets.

The St. Petersburg Times (Times Wires) story on 2 Feb completes the process AP began and clearly represents the testimony:



While other former U.S. officials and ex-generals have criticized administration policy in committee hearings, none savaged it to the degree Brzezinski did. He set out as a plausible scenario for military collision: Iraq fails to meet benchmarks set by the administration, followed by accusations Iran is responsible for the failure, then a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran, and culminating in so-called defensive U.S. military action against Iran. (Author’s emphasis)


This clearly represents the most provocative statement in the testimony. It places the former national security advisor at the head of a pack of distinguished critics. This isn’t headline news yet but in just 72 hours we have an honest reading of the implication that a “so-called defensive…action” will arise from a terrorist act of questionable origin.

Now it’s time for the White House Press Corp to move in and fully expose the story:

Mr. President, what do you think of a former National Security Advisor Brzezinski’s claim that you’re cooking up a war with Iran based on a questionable terrorist act?

The author acknowledges the contributions of these early analysts of Dr. Brzezinski’s remarks.

END




"Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, was the main force behind the U.S. invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.

"Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, was the man overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of U.S. fighter planes not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in '91.

"Another key Obama adviser, Dennis Ross, advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli government -- in other words, their desire to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories.

"And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter is no peacenik -- Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.

"Another Obama adviser is Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official. She wrote the introduction to General Petraeus's Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by U.S. troops in various killing operations."

That's the Obama team. But Nairn demonstrates that the Clinton and Edwards teams are equally loaded with Washington insiders who in one way or other have contributed to our current national predicament.

There is another message coming out of Iowa that is aimed directly at Black people. Former Clinton presidential adviser and columnist Dick Morris wrote that with Obama's victory in Iowa, "race is no longer a factor in American politics." Tell that to the Black folks living in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, or who are facing "Hurricane America" in cities and communities all across the country.

Bill Bennett on CNN said that Barack Obama is the kind of Black person Blacks should be -- not like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. This is the way to go if you want to get somewhere in this country, Bennett said.




His chief financial supporters are the billionaire Pritzker family (Zionist Jews out of Chicago). Abram Nicholas Pritzker founded the Hyatt hotel chain. The Pritker family is one of the wealthiest in the USA. They’ve owned Braniff Airlines, Royal Caribbean Cruises, and so forth.


Obama’s primary bank is Penny Pritzker (Zionist Russian-Ukranian Jew) who is one of the richest women in the USA. Pritzker is a treasurer for the “Real Estate Roundtable,” an AIPAC offshoot in Washington that lobbies for legislation to help commercial landlords.


Almost all members of this “Roundtable” are Zionist Jews.


Since the days of the Rothschilds, when powerful Jews team up to influence a nation, they form a cabal they call a “Roundtable” (their word, not mine). For example, the Jewish bankers that financed World War I and Bolshevism cooperated through an organization they called the “Roundtable.”


Thus, when Obama went home to Illinois on February 12, he was met at the airport by 7,300 anti-war protesters who shouted and held signs that read, "Cut the Funding." Obama immediately departed to attend a personal fundraiser hosted for him by Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker.

Source: http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/trib30.html




CHICAGO MAYOR DALY BACKS BARACK OBAMA - Alliance could make Obama next president


12 October 2007


The Daley political machine in Chicago has thrown its support behind presidential candidate Barack Obama, forging an alliance that could make him the next president.
Although the machine supported Obama’s rivals early in his political career, viewing him as an outsider, Obama’s success on the national stage has changed all that.
“It’s a simple political calculus,” Jay Stewart, executive director of the Chicago-based watchdog group Better Government Association, said.
“Here is a popular guy with a reasonable shot at winning, from the same party. It’s good for Illinois if he wins. So the machine [and] the mayor [are] backing Obama.”
Stewart adds that Obama has cultivated a “peaceful coexistence” with the Daley machine, without becoming one of its operatives. So who controls Obama? And to whom might he be beholden?
Obama’s charisma and savvy have given him more flexibility in dealing with the realities of getting elected, sources reported.
His charm has elicited geysers of support from smitten voters. The conventional wisdom holds that Obama’s political fortunes aren’t dependent on ward bosses, meaning that the senator can distance himself from the political corruption for which the city is infamous.
“There is no back-room cabal that engineered the Obama candidacy,” says Stewart.
“He has been swept along by his own personal popularity, and clearly his campaign has been driven simply by his own personal appeal to many. The old rules don’t apply to this guy.”
Some political veterans say that Obama “had to play the game as it existed” in Chicago and Illinois. They add that Obama has so many powerful friends that he should be viewed as more of an insider than an outsider.
“He has never been viewed as a total guy one way or the other in the various camps here in the state,” says one longtime observer of Chicago’s political scene, who asked not to be identified.
“He is a very savvy guy and negotiated his way through numerous elections, doing so by making as many friends and playing it clean enough. But he knows how to raise money.” <
The Daley Power
John Kass, a Chicago Tribune political columnist, has described “the Chicago way,” in which the Daley machine gets every public project, large or small, completed only after the proper palms have been greased — and “in which business and real estate become dependent on politics and favors.”
Obama’s relationship with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley illustrates how he has carefully joined hands with Chicago’s power wielders.
Daley had little use for Obama when he first entered Illinois politics. His organization already had its candidates lined up, and didn’t need Obama’s help.
In 2000, Obama ran against Rep. Bobby Rush, trying to win his seat in Congress. Obama had little support from the Daley machine. Rush received the support of the powerful Cook County Board president, and defeated Obama and other rivals in the primary.
In 2004, when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate, he faced the Daley machine once again. Daley didn’t support Obama.
Daley’s brother, Cook County Board Finance Committee Chairman John Daley, sided with Obama’s opponent in the primary, State Comptroller Dan Hynes. Hynes is the son of longtime Democratic machine pol Tom Hynes.
It is a measure of Obama’s strength among African-American voters — augmented by his close friendship with Chicago talk show host Oprah Winfrey, and his prominent membership in a black megachurch led by his mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright — that he defeated Hynes in the primaries.
Obama won 53 percent of the primary vote to Hynes’ 24 percent. In the general election, Daley reluctantly threw his support to Obama, who went on to win the general election in a landslide.
He owed his victory largely to a coalition of African-Americans, Chicago “lakefront liberals,” and other progressives. That the large primary field split the white vote helped as well.
Hynes later urged Obama to run for president. “Barack Obama is a man for these times,” Hynes said in September 2006, as reported by the Chicago Sun-Times.
“He and he alone can restore the hope and optimism that made this country great.”
As Obama started winning elections and acquiring powerful friends, the word got back to Daley: This guy can keep winning.
By that point, however, others had invested in Obama’s future, and Daley’s opportunity to control Obama had slipped away.
A Bump in the Road
The Obama-Daley détente was nearly derailed in August 2005, according to the Sun-Times.
Obama told the newspaper that an investigation of alleged corruption at City Hall would give him “huge pause” about endorsing Daley’s mayoral re-election campaign.
“An hour after making those remarks,” the Sun-Times later reported, “he called the Sun-Times saying he wanted to clarify his remarks.”
Obama clarified that while Daley was “obviously going through a rough patch right now,” Chicago had “never looked better.” He added that talk of an endorsement was premature.
That all changed in December 2006, when Daley said he planned to endorse Obama over Sen. Hillary Clinton.
A month later, Obama returned the favor, endorsing Daley’s mayoral re-election campaign in glowing terms.
“I don’t think there’s a city in America that has blossomed as much over the last couple of decades than Chicago — and a lot of that has to do with our mayor,” Obama said.
With those words, the courtship of Obama and Daley had officially begun. Daley could dream of having a close ally in the Oval Office, while Obama knew he would need Daley’s help to get there.
“This is a make-up endorsement,” Larry Sabato, one of the nation’s premier political scientists, told sources.
Sabato, whose most recent book is A More Perfect Constitution, explains that the marriage of convenience simply suits both candidates’ interests. Of Daley’s reversal, given his past support for Obama’s rivals, Sabato says: “It’s the logical thing for Daley to do; it’s the logical thing for anyone to do.” The African-American Factor
In addition to Daley’s support and unprecedented donations from small donors, Obama has relied on influential African-Americans to open doors.
According to Capitol Hill sources, atop the list is Vernon Jordan, who chaired Bill Clinton’s presidential transition team after the 1992 election.
Jordan, a fixture among D.C. power brokers, opened the door for Obama in the fall of 2003, holding a fundraiser at his house for about 20 key fixers, donors, and lobbyists.
That started the D.C. dominos falling.
Jordan led Obama to Gregory Craig, an attorney with the Williams & Connolly firm and another longtime Democratic heavyweight. Craig had worked with Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, a pivotal figure still in the progressive circle.
Craig, who also served as special counsel in the White House where he had coordinated Clinton’s impeachment defense, met Obama at the Jordan event.
Another early navigator was Mike Williams, vice president for legislative affairs at The Bond Market Association and a member of an African-American lobbying association.
Williams set up a conference call between Obama and a group of financial-industry lobbyists. Later, Williams helped organize a fundraiser for Obama at The Bond Market Association that drew more than 200 Washington insiders.
One of those insiders was Larry Duncan, an African-American lobbyist for Lockheed Martin. He helped Williams organize the affair and touted Obama at several D.C. law firms, including Venable LLP. Venable is considered one of the top firms in the country, and includes Lockheed Martin among its powerful clients.
The next domino attending that fundraiser was Tom Quinn, a senior partner at Venable and widely considered one of the top lobbyists in town.
Quinn works closely with the Democratic National Committee and has been a party power broker since the late 1960s, when he worked on the presidential campaign of then vice-president Hubert Humphrey. Quinn contributed money and later made calls to raise donations.
Next to come was Robert Harmala, another huge player in Democratic circles and a colleague of Quinn’s at Venable. Harmala donated money to Obama and made calls to a number of political donors in California to help open that state up to Obama.
Obama’s latest power-broker addition: Moses Mercado, a big-time lobbyist with Ogilvy Governmental Relations. Mercado’s clients include the National Rifle Association, Pfizer, the Blackstone Group, Monsanto, the Carlyle Group, and Constellation Energy.
Despite having challenged the power brokers by previously taking on incumbents, or opposing Daley-anointed candidates, Obama has cunningly mended fences. He now has almost all of the state’s most important politicians lined up to support his run for president.
An example of the Illinois senator’s ability to turn rivals into allies: His former rival, Rush, now supports Obama’s White House bid.
Obama has also won the support of William Daley, one of the mayor’s brothers. A former U.S. Commerce Secretary during the Clinton administration who also was chairman of Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, Daley is a key player on Obama’s team and brings massive business connections to the table.
William Daley has been widely described in media reports as a “friend” of Obama’s, and he lends substance to the candidate’s economic policies.
One Chicagoland insider who appears to have mixed feelings about Obama’s success is Rep. Rahm Emanuel, one the reigning Democratic strategists.
“The running joke is that Rahm wants to hide under his desk at this point,” one political observer comments with a laugh, a reference to Emanuel’s loyalties to both Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Emanuel owes a debt to the Clintons for his success, yet has helped Obama become a rising national star. To date, Emanuel has withheld giving either candidate his endorsement.
Crossing Lines
Although Obama insists he is the candidate of change, the old-fashioned ways of Chicago politics — having powerful friends in high places — have suited Obama well in his bid to win the highest office in the land.
Obama astutely realized that he needed big money to be taken seriously, and enlisted big-name supporters — from Oprah to D.C. lobbyists — to help him magnify his visibility, and his bank account.
His ability to win converts has extended to people like Penny Pritzker, the Hyatt Hotel heiress. A huge name in Chicago business circles, she bumped into Obama at a sporting event, and now heads his national finance team.
Another powerful Obama ally is Emil Jones, who became the Illinois state Senate president and was one of Obama’s first patrons and mentors.
Those friends are one reason Obama broke fundraising records early in the 2008 presidential race.
“It’s the black base,” says Gerald Rosenberg, a professor of political science and law at the University of Chicago. Having that initial base support permitted Obama to do what he does very well, Rosenberg says — “cross racial lines and to give people hope.
“In the [Senate] primary, what was surprising is how well he ran downstate, against white opponents,” Rosenberg notes.
Rosenberg says Obama’s ability to bridge diverse cultures may enable him to avoid the snares of corruption and financial chicanery that seemingly festoon the Second City’s traditional, machine-driven politics.
That’s important, because voters are weary of scandal and looking for a change.
“Illinois is not Louisiana,” Sabato says.
"There probably is less to uncover to Obama. I’m not saying there is nothing there. He doesn’t have that many elections under his belt; he has not had to go out and campaign election after election. He is relatively fresh and this is where ‘inexperience’ helps.”
Sabato adds that Obama’s newcomer role also will make it easier for him to weather the storm, if and when he has to jettison a controversial financial supporter.
“There isn’t a major politician who hasn’t had a financial scandal or two, or who doesn’t have one to uncover,” Sabato says. “It’s still out there.”

2:01 PM  
Blogger iTod said...

damn anon. with comments like that you need your own blog....

3:03 PM  
Blogger Skip Bernet said...

Damn, and me without my tinfoil hat.

6:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home