The Kissinger Connection
You may have noticed that George Tenet prefers to talk about the aftermath of “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, to wit, the U.S. occupation and the Iraqi insurgency. He admits that the CIA did get some things wrong—such as certifying the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when, in fact, those weapons and stockpiles had been destroyed years before, under UN supervision. In the next breath, Tenet takes pride that the CIA began warning the Administration early on about the insurgency. He deeply regrets that the White House, the National Security Council, and the Pentagon were not interested, and ignored the warnings.
What happened, it seems to me, was that prior to the invasion, Tenet was acting the part of a politician and policy maker, enabling a dumb project with bogus justifications. He was a participant in a fraud. Everybody was on board. Why would any CIA Director be at an Oval Office brainstorming session, trying to make the case for a preemptive war, and proclaim that the effort should be a “slam dunk”? Under any context, this remark is out of context for a CIA director. Afterward, to hear him tell it, he took on the traditional CIA Director’s role as an impartial intelligence gatherer, and reverted to the facts. Quite a change. Did he expect his former co-conspirators to respect the truth and reality post invasion, when they had been consumed with mendacity pre invasion? The same characters were in place and running the show.
A similar dichotomy applies to the Democratic Establishment in Congress, pre and post invasion. This is important. It is a major reason which explains why there will be no impeachment of Bush and Cheney. As best exemplified by John Kerry in his 2004 Presidential campaign against G.W. Bush, the Washington Democrats, with few exceptions, have been content and comfortable to criticize the execution of the policy, that is, �the conduct� of the war during the occupation. The Democrats thereby imply that they would somehow have done a better job. Up until relatively recently in this long war, there has been only mild criticism of the terrible idea to go to war in the first place, and no effort to examine the real motives behind the decision to invade. The Democrats don’t go there, except to say that they were misled. Why not?
As is well known but often conveniently forgotten, the Democratic Leadership in both houses of the U.S. Congress made a calculated political decision to authorize the Cheney/Bush White House to invade Iraq. The vote for war took place on Capital Hill on October 11th, 2002. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt led the charge. Senators Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden, John Edwards, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman, among other ambitious Democratic mediocrities, big shots and blowhards, voted to authorize this ruinous war.
There was only one principled Senator of either party who stood up to the juggernaut, and made a fight of it. That man was Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia. He attempted to mount a filibuster against the war resolution, but he was cut off by a 75 to 25 vote. Byrd was regarded as an eccentric, a foolish old timer. He steadfastly refused to succumb to the hysteria. He knew what he was talking about, and recognized the Administration’s pack of lies for what it was when it was proffered. Byrd should now be regarded as a hero. He was right all along, but at the time his views were ridiculed.
Supposedly, all those brilliant Democrats in the Senate who voted to invade Iraq were alarmed by the Administration’s full-court-press propaganda campaign about Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction”. This is most unlikely. It assumes a level of ignorance and gullibility which is not credible. It is more likely that the Democrats and the brain-dead Republicans voted to invade and take over Iraq not because they regarded Saddam as a threat to the United States, but rather because, first and foremost, (a) they felt Washington could get away with it and (b) because the political payoff for war in the Congressional midterm elections of 2002 was deemed significant.
If you voted against the Administration, you could be smeared as soft on terrorism and national security. More important, you would be bucking the outsized political clout of the Israel Lobby, which was pushing for war on Iraq to the max, and had been for years. Moreover, after a decade of devastating economic sanctions, Iraq was going to be a cake walk, in any event. So it was a low risk proposition. To the professional politicians making their career calculations, the downside of launching the war appeared small and very manageable. The upside was impressive.
Well, the invasion itself, the fall of Baghdad and the toppling of Saddam, was a cake walk from a military standpoint. In point of fact, the U.S. won that war. This victory was a foregone conclusion. But Washington is not getting away with it. The rub has been the aftermath, the occupation and pacification of the country. That is the problem which confronts America today, an urban guerilla war, fueled by religious fanaticism and Arab nationalism. On top of that is a sectarian civil war among the inhabitants of the occupied country.
The UK medical journal The Lancet estimated back in September, 2006 that Iraq has endured over 600,000 deaths since the conflict began, and the UN has reported the displacement of 1.5 million Iraqis inside the country. These are some of the fruits of “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. For the average Iraqi, it has been a disaster. The Democrats on Capitol Hill and everybody else are now focused upon how to deal with this catastrophe. The Democrats cannot address their initial, intellectually dishonest “me too” support for the invasion of Iraq in 2002 without drawing attention to their own gross hypocrisy and negligence. Instead, like George Tenet, they dwell upon the aftermath of the invasion and the current predicament.
Fine. Let’s focus upon the aftermath of “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, the occupation, which every sane, objective observer now agrees is a train wreck. Who was in charge of that phase? It turns out that the granddaddy of the American foreign policy establishment, the former Secretary of State for Richard Nixon, the Mitteleuropa import, Dr. Henry Kissinger, was a prime architect of the occupation. This is something extraordinary which has been kept under wraps.
If nothing else, Bob Woodward’s last fat book on Iraq, State of Denial, has performed a valuable public service by ejecting the furtive Kissinger from the shadows. Woodward reports that vice president Dick Cheney confided to him (Woodward) in the summer of 2005: “I probably talk to Henry Kissinger more than I talk to anybody else. He just comes by and I guess at least once a month, Scooter [Libby] and I sit down with him.” [Page 406.] Woodward goes on to state: “The president also met privately with Kissinger every couple of months, making the former secretary the most regular and frequent outside adviser to Bush on foreign affairs.”
Why has this fact been kept sub rosa? One wonders. Why did Cheney telephone Woodward and blast him for revealing it in the book, before hanging up on him? What is going on behind the scenes? Rest assured, something rotten.
Please note that it was Kissinger’s protégé and partner, Ambassador L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer III, the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates, Inc. for more than a decade, whom Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush placed in charge of the occupation of Iraq when Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush inexplicably cashiered the honest and fair-minded Lt. General Jay Garner, after scarcely a few weeks on the job. An item from the Sunday Telegraph of London dated October 15th, 2006 [”There was a plan for Iraq, but it was torn up”] is most informative. It summarizes the Kissinger connection to the Green Zone in Baghdad, as uncovered by Woodward…
When, in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the retired US Army General Jay Garner was asked to take over the post-war humanitarian mission, he certainly possessed the credentials for the job. In 1991 he had headed Operation Provide Comfort, rescuing thousands of ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. Who better, then, for the American Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to appoint to the job second time round.
Garner drew up detailed plans and, at his first briefing with President Bush, outlined three essential “musts” that would, he asserted, ensure a smooth transition after the war. The first “must”, he said, was that the Iraqi military should not be disbanded. The second “must” was that the 50,000-strong Ba’ath party machine that ran government services should not be broken up or its members proscribed. If either were to happen, he warned, there would be chaos compounded by thousands of unemployed, armed Iraqis running around. And the third “must”, he insisted, was that an interim Iraqi leadership group, eager to help the United States administer the country in the short term, should be kept on-side.
Initially, no one disagreed, according to State of Denial, the new book by the veteran Washington reporter, Bob Woodward. But within weeks of the invasion, Garner’s tenure as head of the post-war planning office was over: he was replaced by Paul Bremer, a terrorism expert and protégé of Henry Kissinger. Bremer immediately countermanded all three of Garner’s “musts”. [My emphasis.] When, eventually, Garner confronted Rumsfeld, telling him: “There is still time to rectify this,” Rumsfeld refused to do so.
And who was assisting Dr. Kissinger to program the new U.S. proconsul in Baghdad? Who was Paul Bremer’s primary contact at the Pentagon, overseeing the occupation from Washington, with the blessing of Don Rumsfeld? None other than the award winning hyperZionist zealot, Douglas “clean break” Feith, the man who had advised Likud icon, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (aka Bibi Nut & Yahoo) to attack Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in 1996 and tear up the Oslo “peace process”. Even Bibi regarded that advice as over the top.
According to Woodward’s initial book on the Bush Administration and the Iraq war, Plan of Attack, Douglas J. Feith, Esq., was characterized by General Tommy Franks, as “the f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth”. Perhaps U.S. General Franks, the man who directed the invasion of Iraq on the ground, misunderstood where Feith was coming from and what his priorities were. To Franks, Feith only looked stupid, because Franks did not understand him.
Feith was a protégé of “neocon” geopolitical grandee, Richard Perle. Feith is on the Advisory Board of the (U.S.) Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Feith is a face card in the deck of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, headquartered in Jerusalem. The law office he founded in 1986, Feith & Zell, is based in Israel, catering to Jewish-American “settlers” on the West Bank. Colonel Larry Wilkerson, who was aide-de-camp to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has stated he looked upon Feith as a card-carrying member of the Likud party. How did these important items in Feith’s background qualify him to oversee the U.S. military? In his capacity as the “undersecretary for policy” at the Pentagon, Doug Feith was the number three civilian in charge of the entire U.S. Defense establishment, behind Professor Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld. Was that appropriate? Whose idea was it to put him there, creating such an obvious and enormous conflict of interest? Inquiring minds would like to know.
If “Operation Iraqi Freedom” may accurately be regarded as Wolfowitz’s War in its conception, then the aftermath of the war should be viewed as the Kissinger-Feith Occupation. It is the aftermath to the conquest, highlighted by the disastrous ukases delivered by Kissinger’s partner and frontman in Baghdad, Paul “Jerry” Bremer, which has effectively destroyed Iraq as a nation-state, brought about an internecine civil war, and created a quagmire for the United States military as well as a serious drain on the U.S. Treasury. The Democrats love to denounce this phase of the conflict, the occupation, but without naming names, aside from Bush and Cheney. Kissinger’s invisible hand in the undertaking was completely unknown until Woodward blew Kissinger’s cover. But most everyone on Capital Hill, every casual Washington intenditore, and every member of the American foreign policy community knew that Wolfowitz and Feith were the point men in charge of Iraq.
Could all of this destruction, bloodshed and anarchy in Iraq be due to gross incompetence? Is Doug Feith really “the f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth”? Or is he something else? Is Henry Kissinger the realpolitik genius which the Establishment press presumes him to be, or is he something more? Why was Paul Wolfowitz suddenly transferred from the Pentagon to the sanctums of the World Bank, when it became clear that Iraq was a debacle? Wolfowitz is not a banker or an economist. Like Kissinger, Wolfowitz is a history professor, specializing in international relations.
While we are asking perplexing questions, here are a few more. Is it possible that the entire fraudulent enterprise of Iraq--from “shock and awe” to “cut and run”--is not an accident caused by ignorance, hubris and mistakes? Could it be that the tragic end-result for Iraq and its people is not considered a disaster in certain geopolitical circles? Has it dawned on anybody that the destruction of oil-rich Iraq as a viable entity in the Middle East may have been on the short list of somebody’s private agenda, an agenda perhaps unknown even to Messrs. Cheney, Rumsfeld and the ever-clueless G.W. Bush?
Do not forget that the immiserization of Iraq by Washington commenced not with Wolfowitz’s War in 2003, but with the slaughter of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. It continued most dramatically but quietly with the meddlesome and insane policy of embargo and sanctions carried out during the reign of the “liberal” Democrat, Bill Clinton, and his meretricious Middle East foreign policy team of Samuel “Sandy” Berger, Madeleine “it’s worth it” Albright, Dennis Ross, and Australian import, Martin Indyk. This appalling chapter in U.S. Middle East policy has been delineated in the 1998 book by the English writer, Geoff Simons, entitled The Scourging of Iraq. A few lines from the preface to the second edition will give you and idea of what the people giving orders inside the White House were doing to Iraq in America’s name…
The US-contrived economic siege of Iraq has now lasted well over seven years, as I write, with, according to all estimates, millions of casualties--perhaps 2,000,000 dead through starvation and disease, more than half of them children, and many millions more emaciated, traumatised, sick, dying....
The United States is the conscious architect of this years-long genocide. Knowingly, with a cruel and cynical resolve, US officials work hard to withhold relief from a starving and diseased people. And the grotesque facts are not even disputed by Washington. Madeleine Albright, now Secretary of State, was prepared to assert in public that the killing of 500,000 Iraqi children was justified.
All this because Saddam Hussein deposed the Emir of Kuwait, the fake statelet concocted by the British, which every leader of Iraq going back to the 1930’s had regarded as a province of Iraq? All this because Saddam was a bad guy? Was Saddam a bad guy when he engaged in a near ten-year war against Iran, a war in which Washington supplied him with all manner of weaponry and material via Washington’s special envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, while at the same time, Tel Aviv provided Tehran with similar supplies from its American stockpiles? Was Saddam a bad guy then? Was he somehow a worse guy when he invaded Kuwait? What does Kuwait have to do with anything? Was the brouhaha over Kuwait a cover story and a godsend for those in Tel Aviv and Washington who were seeking an excuse to destroy Iraq, after its war with Iran had run its course? It looks that way.
Of the Clinton years, the scourging of Iraq, one would do well to stop at this vantage point and ask three basic questions. (1) What in the world could possibly have motivated or justified the U.S. Government to take such a drastic course of action, resulting in the deaths of so many innocent civilians? (2) Why was there no outcry and virtually no protest in America against this policy at the time it was being carried out? (3) Were the American people deliberately kept in the dark about what was going on? These same three questions should be asked now, concerning current policies, which have resulted in the crucifixion of Iraq, perpetrated under the nominal leadership of G.W. Bush, but at the actual direction of Richard Cheney and his cabal of “neocons”.
Whatever the truth, one thing is certain. There is absolutely no accountability for this whole affair. None. Not for Clinton or his handlers and enablers. Not for Wolfowitz and Feith, who have left the Pentagon and washed their hands of the whole business. Not for Dick Cheney and George Bush, who are twisting in the wind, with nowhere to hide. Not for the Democrats who voted for Wolfowitz’s War, who then capitalized on the war to regain control of Capital Hill in 2006, and who hope to ride that wave to regain the White House in 2008.
And not for the teflon Professor Kissinger, who worked with Cheney and Bush in secret to devise an endgame for this outrageous and consistent policy--a policy spanning three Presidents and both political parties. Note that Kissinger can correctly point out that he was just offering advice from the sidelines and has no official responsibility for anything. Last but not least, there is no accountability whatever for Washington’s Israel Lobby and its minions, fronts and fellow travelers, whose fingerprints are all over the crime scene.
Do not hold your breath waiting for a long-overdue Congressional investigation into how and why America was railroaded into invading Iraq and who is responsible for destroying that country in the aftermath of the invasion, because there is not going to be one. Not now, not ever, no matter who is in charge of Congress.
Everybody is guilty, going back to 1990. Some individuals and groups are just far more guilty than others. Mission accomplished, indeed. But whose mission was it, what has been accomplished, and at what cost? It is clear that Uncle Sam has been taken for a ride, big time. The Iraqis, the American troops on the ground, and the American taxpayers are paying the price, in spades. There is no end in sight.
Patrick Foy is author of The Unauthorized World Situation Report.
Comments
But aren’t we still beating around the Bush and can’t see the tree because of the forest?
The War in Iraq has turned out absolutely perfect from the point of view of Kissinger, Wolfovits, Perl, Feith, Bremer etc. How else can you secure Israel’s domination of the Middle East unless by destroying the backbone of the Arab Nation? This situation of perpetual chaos and bloodshed is what was planned all along. And that is what is going to continue, just listen carefully to our sorry would-be presidents: we are in Iraq to stay (huge military bases and an enormous embassy which none of them question)
The marvellous thing about all this is that there are still those around who have doubts about it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
outstanding commentary—our leaders in washington are too ignorant & naive to come up with their own foreign policy—our leading universities cower before the neocons among their alumni & alumnae, making cetain they blackball any professor who knows anything about the middle east—but they’ll all be shocked when israel, led by its russian-born immigrants, stabs america in the back in order to get russia’s oil & gas
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Patrick,
I take it you’ve cleared this essay with Taki!
Taki has strange friends, Kissinger, Buckley, and other low-lives. All the more reason to admire him for your being permitting to write the truth about them on his web site.
Dan Hayes
Click to flag this comment as abusive
the Iraq war was to stop the flow of oil from iraq in order to increase demand and raise the overall price of oil Qui bono baby
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It doesn’t suprise me that Kissinger was behind the Iraq debacle. Now it makes sense to me why Bremer was so incompetent: “They” planned it that wa. As a result of “the perpetual war,” if history isn’t turned around, It will be the demise of our once great country. This demise has been in the works for at least a hundred years if we the people don’t wake up, it will be the death song of freedom and the end of a great country who crafted the greatest form of Government that has ever been or ever will be again. May God wake us all up in saving our freedom for our children’s children.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hoo Boy. “George”, your patriotic concern is admirable, but let’s keep some historical perspective:
First of all, the phrase, “greatest form of government” is almost as oxymoronic as “the greatest Gangsta-Rapper”, and even MORE oxymoronic than “the greatest whorehouse.” And a nation’s greatness (or a civilisation’s greatness) is never determined by its government. Second - and this regards the kind of American Exceptionalist thinking which worries me most of all - America is NOT the “last best hope of Mankind”, and the world will be better off when Americans stop believing in that dreadful Gothic apocalyptic superstition. Jesus said his Kingdom is not of this world, and the Kingdom of God sure as hell has never been headquartered in Washington DC. So, please, let’s stop thinking of the end of the American Republic as the end of history, or even as the end of “Freedom”. And on that note, even among temporal states, the USA has never been the ultimate, or even penultimate exemplar of “freedom.” A great country
with an especially ingenius constitution and extraordinary liberities? Yes, and it will be remembered as such for centuries or (God willing) millenia to come. But civilisation, and Christendom, and liberty will carry on and be reborn in new forms and in new nations long after the USA ceases to exist.
As for the original topic, am I the only American who noticed Kissinger trudging onto the podium at the Republican National Convention in 2000 when Bush’s foreign policy team were introduced? As soon as I saw Kissinger in that group - along with the ridiculous Condoleeza Rice - I started telling my friends the Bush administration would “create a foreign policy disaster.” That was back in summer 2000. It should have been bloody obvious at that time, long before 911 happened.
Ah, and as for Taki having “low-life” friends like Kissinger - good point about Taki’s magnaminity! And Jesus Christ also had low-life friends, so, Taki is part of a great and noble tradition in being friends with a thick-witted criminal like Kissinger. ;-) Yes, it’s to Taki’s credit that he publishes this article - AND that he actually has truly intelligent friends too, not just intellectual mediocrities like Kissinger, who (in the words of one TRULY great historian who will remain nameless here) “would have remained a third-rate bureaucrat in the Foreign Service” back in the days when the US Foreign service consisted of real scholars rather than bolt-headed mechanical-minded Gothic-Freaks like HK.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
So Jay Bremer, Kissinger’s protege, reverses the plan
for Iraq’s occupation with the results we see today,
ably assisted by Likudnik Feith from within the
Pentagon. An internally rent Iraq surrenders its oil
to the US/UK giants and is neutered as a regional
threat. Additionally, the Sunni-Shia conflicted is
ignited to (hopefully) spread like wildfire throughout
the region. Sounds like a well executed plan with
multiple, mutually cooperating beneficiaries…
Business as usual.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Good piece.
See:
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh01162006.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have said all along that from the Neocon prospective
the war against Iraq has been a resounding success.
The Neocons never planned on anything other than totally
destroying a country they all considered as a threat
to Israel.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And was Michael Ledeen connected to the Italian Niger disinformation?
Sue/Seattle
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Excellent, excellent article. Mr. Foy deftly ties together in one place many threads that others have highlighted, but rarely, if ever, have so concisely summarized. He hints at the real, underlying motivations of our disastrous “bipartisan” foreign policy of the last generation (at least).
My own take is that the neocons work not for Israel (although they support a rabid right-wing form of Zionism), but USE Israel, and were/are not concerned primarily with oil (although enriching cronies is a secondary , but important concern). No, they work for the realization of the global “great game” of the supra-national oligarchical elite. That is, the destruction of the post-Westphalian nation-state system and the creation of a neo-feudal globalized system not beholden to the general welfare of pesky citizens of pesky republics. This means they take actions which seem confusing to anyone operating on the assumption that such actions should be in our national interests, but are not. Yes, I agree with the author that the destruction of the Iraqi nation-state WAS the main point here, not that these guys are complete geniuses and could foresee every result of their mad plan, or are happy with every outcome. The chaos has thrown a wrench into their plans, as the neocons have become outcasts. But that is the point - they conspire to end our republican form of government and any other form of government on earth (be it nominally capitalist or socialist) that has an impulse for serving the needs of its citizenry, which thereby impedes the creation of their glorious global feudal empire. There is nothing new here. It is the struggle of thousands of years of republican forces (however imperfect and disconnected) against the imperial systems of Persia, Rome, Byzantium, Venice, Great Britain, et.al. This is the continuation of the British Great Game to contain and squelch the development of Eurasian powers in the updated cloth of “Globalization”. Their end-game is to destroy and loot the wealth of the great powers of the US, Russia, China, India and allied smaller nations, ala the looting of the former Soviet sector. Their new empire will fail, as all do, and someday reconstituted republican impulses will come back to the fore. But if we allow this to happen due to narrow self interest and greed, what is the cost? Billions dead, civilization raped and looted, a new dark age. The end of history, as a famous neocon once opined? No, but a useless carnage and a permanent and unforgivable stain on the soul of the human race.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Having grown up as an American in the Middle East, may
I congratulate you on your excellent and very accurate
assessment of the current situation in Iraq today.
My parents had a friend, a Jewish woman and Holocaust
survivor, who used to tell us all the time: “One day
Israel will be responsible for the downfall of the
United States.” I hear those words every day when I
see what is happening in a part of the world that, at
one time, used to idolize everything American.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
O.K.! Here is a great account of the SECOND part of the conspiracy delineated clearly here. What I’m interested about, is the first part, “the catalyzing event” To wit, were there any “guiding hands” which were gently steering various pieces on the world stage to initiate the desired result(s).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Great essay. I hope Mr. Foy gets it into a book form for a wider international audience. Maybe he could interest Professors Mearsheimer and Walt.
I too am interested in the “catalyzing event” , namely 911. The nexus I believe is Cheney, beginning at the time he was recruited to AEI in 1995, at which time he also journeyed to Israel and apparently reached certain understandings with the PNAC group. Before this, there is no record of him carrying the cabal of neocons under his wing. After 911, Cheney was undoubtedly instrumental in securing the release and safe deportation of the dozens of Israeli spies the FBI had caught, including the 5 Mossad agents caught celebrating the destruction of the twin towers. Through his Mossad and AEI connections, he probably had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen and the Mossad’s role in it. And he and they at the very least let it happen, no doubt. They knew that it would lead to their empowerment and that of Israel. Temporary to be sure.
As pointed out in the article, the neocon/Israeli/AEI infiltration of the American government had started much earlier. The present generation got their start with Washington US Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, and it is truly incredible that Richard Perle has been around for all of it, even though he was exposed as an Israeli agent early on and denied a security clearance.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Nice work, Mr Foy. The Kissinger angle is nicely done, deftly explained.
What shocks me above all this is the bizarre twist of fate lurking in the shadows…
* Israel was nominally established to provide a global safe-haven for Jews everywhere.
* Anti-Semitism continues to be a problem, although it is largely overstated when employed by Zionists to silence critics of AIPAC and the more bellicose powers within the Israeli government.
* The chief architects of the current American foreign policy [i.e. neocons] are all Jewish men.
* Therefore, by plotting in a secret cabal to achieve their own nefarious ends at the huge monetary and human life expenses incurred by EVERYONE involved in “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” these architects have REINFORCED the idea that propelled Hitler’s desire to extinguish Jews—namely, that they are greedy, power-mad, secretive, and dangerous.
How’s that for sad comic irony?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
erggghh....ohhh....(groan).....
...Ah, look. Yes this IS a GREAT article.
And yes, some of you above commenters make good points. But, ahhhh, guys?....
...if you dwell on the crimes of the state of Israel TOO much, then you just give too much power to that shitty little country.
There are more important things to think about in the world, other than Israel. Wouldn’t America - and all the world - be better off if we just IGNORED Israel and got down to the serious business of saving Planet Earth from destruction?
Israel just sucks up too much of our time and our attention and our energies.
Wouldn’t Planet Earth be better off if we Americans just regarded Israel as just one shitty little country among many, like Ethiopia or Fiji?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
An excellent piece, thank you Mr. Foy. I believe that someday neoconservatism will be understood as the latest manifestation of a long history. As one poster put it, the State of Israel was formed to provide safe haven for Jews everywhere - and where, presumably, Jews would demonstrate the capacity to live peacably with their neighbors. It has not exactly turned out that way, and perhaps neoconservatism is the result of a disillusioned Zionism - another in a long series of disillusionments. Douglas Reed explores this history in his book, “The Controversy of Zion,” -available on the Internet for anyone who cares to become familiar with this sobering history.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I desagree with “Unmitigated Audacity”.
There is a profound difference between the present situation and the past history.
First, the empires in the past were playing their own “Great Game”, minding strictly their own selfish interests. Today, we have an empire which doesn’t mind jeopardizing its own interests for the benefit of an alleged ally which doesn’t have any strategic significance
for it.
Second,the empires in the past were not hell bent to destroy the social structure of a conquered nation, as America is trying to do with Iraq.( Here, I reject completely Washington Goebelsian claims to the contrary).
Third, there has never been a case of small ethnic group stirring the whole empire in the direction of its own vested interest, which is totally opposed to the interests of the empire.
Fourth, to create chaos one doesn’t have to do much planning or supervision, (which is true for building). It is enough to form few death squads ( like those of “Iraqi Ministry of Interior"- BTW, run by the Cia-Mossad tandem) to perpetuate the fratericide.
Chaos ( entropy ) is a degradation which can always be triggered with minute disturbances. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
In other words, there is no need to be genius to destroy.
The chaos in Iraq was the plan.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
However culpable the Neoconservative cabal may be, blaming Israel and Jews for all of the U.S. Government’s foreign policy ills smacks of an effort to avoid responsibility and shift blame with that flimsiest of all excuses, “The Devil made me do it.”
Clearly, our our government, our nation, indeed human civilization faces serious challenges. The more useful responses may be spiritual, based on a willingness to accept and shoulder responsibility rather than on efforts to assign blame.
I’m reminded of the final paragraphs of Wendell Berry’s elegant essay, “Tuscany”, and his warning that, “It is understandable that we should have reacted to the attacks of September 11, 2001 by curtailment of civil rights, by defiance of laws, and by resort to overwhelming force, for those actions are the ready products of fear and hasty thought. But they cannot protect us against the destruction of our own land by ourselves. They cannot protect us against the selfishness, wastefulness, and greed that we have legitimized here as an economic virtue, and have taught to the world.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Regarding Senator Byrd’s treatment - what about the
countries America has been ostracizing and ridiculing
for saying right from the start, that Iraq was a bad
idea and refused to go along?
Canada, France, Brazil, Turkey..etc.. have had to endure subtle American persecution for not towing the line.
Is this treatment finally going to stop???
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Oh hell, it worked much better than they ever dreamed. Oil prices are way up, they have raided the US Treasury for their super rich friends, put religious right zealots that are extremly malleable in positions of power ad nauseum.
And the war has distracted the public from it all. The Democrats won’t do much because they will inherit money and power in the illicit wire taps.
Of course none of the folks in the admistration are smart enough to have done this by themselves. Need I say more????????????
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Peter Rv, I don’t think our disagreement is a fundamental one. Whereas you see the empire as being an American one, I see it as a (virtually) invisible elite USING the US to achieve its ends. This elite doesn’t want an American empire; it wants to use American military might and economic power to build its own supra-national empire. In the process it plans to destroy our republican institutions and lay bare our wealth for looting, as well as the wealth of the rest of the world. And whereas you and many others here seem to think the Israelis and perhaps Jews in general are behind getting us embroiled in this senseless and amoral war, and many other sins besides, I can agree that many neocons are Jewish and Zionists, and are crazy, but I disagree that Israel are the driving force to our madness. Yes, Israelis manipulate the US and use the US (and get lots of $$ from us). Everyone tries to play that game. They are unusually successful at the game, for a host of reasons. I agree that we should limit their influence for our own good and national security. And for their own good, as well, as this game will end with the destruction of the Israeli state. But it is a fact that most US Jews, and Israelis, for that matter want to see peace between Israel and the Pals and Arab states, and are opposed to the US policy in Iraq.
Yes, they are using us for their own perceived ends, but THEY have always been used, since the creation of Israel, as a hand grenade to destabilize the ME. Remember, it was the British Empire which set the creation of Israel into motion. They carved up the ME, including Iraq into a horrible mishmash that has embedded chaotic tribal and ethnic tensions which can be activated when needed to destabilize any movement for peace and progress. Divide and conquer has always been the imperial motto and modus operandi. The global oligarchy is a continuation of the British Empire, seeking a truly planetary empire beyond the reach of national sovereignty.
To survive and thrive in the new century, humanity must foreswear war except as a purely defensive measure and create an alliance of sovereign nation states, led by the 4 great powers of the US, Russia, China and India, to develop the Eurasian land mass, where the bulk of humanity lives. Imperialism in all its forms must be ended once and for all, and the joint task of uplifting the mass of poverty- and disease-stricken peoples will provide the economic driver to create a wave of prosperity that will crush the imperial party decisively. Submitting to either a US empire, or a globalization empire will end in the ruination of our civilization. Our nation is both being used, and is being rotted from the inside out. Little time is left to end our self-destructive course. Where is the leadership we require? The GOP is currently hopeless. The Dem candidates may be a little better, but don’t recognize the fundamental crises we are in, or understand who the enemy is. This is not a hopeful time, to say the least.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Peter Rv, I don’t think our disagreement is a fundamental one.
Whereas you see the empire as being an American one, I see it as a
(virtually) invisible elite USING the US to achieve its ends. This
elite doesn’t want an American empire; it wants to use American
military might and economic power to build its own supra-national
empire. In the process it plans to destroy our republican
institutions and lay bare our wealth for looting, as well as the
wealth of the rest of the world. And whereas you and many others here
seem to think the Israelis and perhaps Jews in general are behind
getting us embroiled in this senseless and amoral war, and many other
sins besides, I can agree that many neocons are Jewish and Zionists,
and are crazy, but I disagree that Israel are the driving force to
our madness. Yes, Israelis manipulate the US and use the US (and get
lots of $$ from us). Everyone tries to play that game. They are
unusually successful at the game, for a host of reasons. I agree that
we should limit their influence for our own good and national
security. And for their own good, as well, as this game will end with
the destruction of the Israeli state. But it is a fact that most US
Jews, and Israelis, for that matter want to see peace between Israel
and the Pals and Arab states, and are opposed to the US policy in Iraq.
Yes, they are using us for their own perceived ends, but THEY have
always been used, since the creation of Israel, as a hand grenade to
destabilize the ME. Remember, it was the British Empire which set the
creation of Israel into motion. They carved up the ME, including Iraq
into a horrible mishmash that has embedded chaotic tribal and ethnic
tensions which can be activated when needed to destabilize any
movement for peace and progress. Divide and conquer has always been
the imperial motto and modus operandi. The global oligarchy is a
continuation of the British Empire, seeking a truly planetary empire
beyond the reach of national sovereignty.
To survive and thrive in the new century, humanity must foreswear war
except as a purely defensive measure and create an alliance of
sovereign nation states, led by the 4 great powers of the US, Russia,
China and India, to develop the Eurasian land mass, where the bulk of
humanity lives. Imperialism in all its forms must be ended once and
for all, and the joint task of uplifting the mass of poverty- and
disease-stricken peoples will provide the economic driver to create
a wave of prosperity that will crush the imperial party decisively.
Submitting to either a US empire, or a globalization empire will end
in the ruination of our civilization. Our nation is both being used,
and is being rotted from the inside out. Little time is left to end
our self-destructive course. Where is the leadership we require? The
GOP is currently hopeless. The Dem candidates may be a little better,
but don’t recognize the fundamental crises we are in, or understand
who the enemy is. This is not a hopeful time, to say the least.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
...In view of the long term fact that The United States is an extension of Israel; and that this present debacle born of AIPAC, and Jewish Dominion of The US has become the worst Foreign Policy disaster in its history. Only now are some slow learners realizing that the best concealment, is in the broadest publicity. Nonetheless, it is a situation that should not, and can not be tolerated further
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thank you for saying what I’ve been saying for years. The destruction of Iraq has done more to make me hostile to Israel than anything else. Remember that there were calls for destroying Iraq over the WMD issue as soon as President Hussein, on April 1 1990, said “If they attack, our fire will eat half of Israel”.
Indeed, it is absurd to think that these ostentatious punishments have been implemented for the sake of Kuwait. When the Kuwaiti emir died recently, who noticed?
I think that some Jews and Israelis believe in committing monstrous crimes because the more monstrous the crime, the harder it is to accuse them because those making the accusation is reluctant to expose Jews to danger through publicising the crimes.
Those who do make the accusation also are accused of being motivated out of a desire to harm Jews.
It’s also true that many Jewish leaders are acting out Jewish stereotypes, with the perfect cover that should someone call them for their actions, they would be accused of promoting Jewish stereotpyes and canards. Thus, a perfect cover for monstrous crimes.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This article does a fair job of illuminating the courses of action of various personalities working on the sidelines of power, who in truth have never been enitrely secretive concerning their aims. An amazing and stupefying fact one faces when investigating the modus operendi within the motives behind the events of either 1914 or 67 to 2001-11 (take your pick) is that all the secrets required to deduce the goals wished by this supposed cabal have been hidden in plain sight. And a fair job of the tricky task of suspending judgement before descending into the ludicrous and anitsemitic lunacy of the like of ‘the protocols of zion’.
This fact, that nothing is really hidden - lends any conclusions an almost overwhelming inertia…
That is, unless your blind to the obvious and so you continue to run the maze according to plan...but so you see..well then, what then?
Continue the maze but down paths chosen selfconciously? Or reactionism, continue the maze, choosing your path - but awarely?
You, me, Garner, Byrd...we are all only pawns in this game.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Very interesting post indeed!
Unfortunately, it reinforces my anxiety about Israel’s hardliners and the Lobby in the US and elsewhere.
I earnestly and truly want to believe that our fate is not being determined by what happens in Israel. And yet after I read that implementation of the neocon strategy (or neoliberalism) started with Britain’s Thatcher (and yet he said that “she didn’t have a clue” and he should know as he was her mentor/guru/what have you), who then briefed Reagan; that all that is happening is part of a war on societies using a ‘template’ devised in Israel; and then this, I cannot help but wonder.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Someone mentioned Cheney membershp in AEI as perhaps the beginning of his conversion to neoconism. But I also did notice during his debate with Sen. Joe Lieberman he was wearing a star of David in his coat label. I wanted to know what was the purpose and consulted the papers the next day. But none made any mention of it, nor did the TV newscast. I imagined the viewing public were confused, presuming it to be the American star (which is a five point and not a six). In any case it seemed to bave been overlooked. Incidentally, I was once employed with the old AT&T;as an engineer and worked on the installing of 911. The purpose was to have a single number in which the public could call for help. I imagine the perpetrators thought it would be a very convenient (and easy number to remember)for their little scheme. The even use another telephone number--311--for their Madrid, Spain,scheme. Before I depart let me congratulate you on a great pience.
John Kurius
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m not sure it’s clear that Kissinger was behind the scenes before and in the early stages of the occupation. What was his position in fall 2002-summer 2003 on the Bush administration and Iraq? I got the impression when State of Denial came out that Cheney et al. looked to him for friendly advice and more importantly, moral support for a hardline anti-withdrawal position, than for serious political advice that was taken seriously.
Kissinger was a crafty, cynical, ruthless S.O.B. But he was damn effective for the power elite. The neocons seem to be just as cynical and ruthless but with 0 effectiveness for the power elite whatsoever. That’s why I’m not convinced the failure in Iraq can in any way seriously be contributed to Kissinger’s influence over Team Bush.
Garner got canned when he started talking about universal health care for Iraqis (which the U.S. doesn’t even have) and really dumb statements like: “We ought to be beating our chests every day. We ought to look in the mirror, stick out our chests, suck in our bellies, and say, ‘Damn, we’re Americans,’ and smile.”
Lastly, on the Dems: they are pro-war/pro-occupation because they are pro-American empire. They only brought us WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Kosovo in the 20th century. Did we think Y2K would change them into some kind of peace party? They want those permanent bases in Iraq just as much as the GOP does, they just think a partial withdrawal would get them closer to that goal.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have been onto these bastards for years. I go to Antiwar.com every morning and read articles such as the one you just read. You would best served by not thinking that Iraq was the end game. Last month at the annual AIPAC meetingtop candidates meet before this mostly Jewish audience and said that war should not be off the table in dealing with Iran. After each speaker spoke these words the audience gave them a standing ovation.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
From reading all the comments it is quite obvious that, at least among the commentators - and perhaps by extrapolation among many more people who visit Taki’s Top drawer - there is an agreement about the sinister role and mission of the cabal of “Israel First” Likudniks in US, Neocons, AEI, JINSA and others and that Israel is now at the center of most of what is wrong with American policy. The question I would like to see answered is: Are these people, with whose views I am agreement, a pathetic minority unable even to budge the huge majority of Americans who hold the exactly opposite view of the world and therefore are insignificant? If there is even a modicum of parity between the two groups (assuming that those favoring Israel are just as committed), then can a civil war be too far off? And when the dust settles after the second American civil war, regardless of who wins, what can American Jews and Israel expect from a humiliated, demoralized, impoverished (and perhaps physically divided) America?
...
Let us all (including the decent majority of American Jews, the ones I call Samaritans as opposed to Judeans) work together to inject some reason and balance in American foreign policy before an incalculable catastrophe strikes this great nation.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
When I became aware that Iraq was descending into anarchy while U.S. trrops stood with US troops standing by and Rumsfeld told us that
“things happen”, it seemed to me that there was a
plan in place for the complete destruction of Iraq.
It was the plan of the US to ignore the human cost.
However, I did hope that this would not be the situation.
When Bremer was appointed and countermanded Jay Garner’s
necessary steps to keep Iraq functioning, I hoped
Bremer’s actions would not prove to be deliberate
in destroying Iraq as a nation. Nevertheless, all of
his decisions allowed by the Administration seemed to
be directed towards destroying Iraq forever—determined
to start a civil war. A technique the Israelis used
to their benefit in Lebanon. From Kissinger to
Bremer to Feith, one can only conclude the plan was
to destroy Iraq forever. Forget humanity—Israel
always does!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Bravo! However, lest we forget, Kissinger is often found representing Rothschild money. A truthful bio of Kissinger would be an amazing thing to read (and even more amazing to write)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Touching level of discourse here. The oligarchs have a lot to hide and answer for. Bits of truth come to light, by times, but the noise of everyday America (look at television if you can bear it) serves to keep the street ignorant and confused. Who among us hasn’t suffered a conversation with someone who “just doesn’t know” and, more to the point, refuses to be enlightened? As I’ve followed this dark chapter in American history, the Monroe Doctrine has come to mind more than once. America needs to divest itself of such triumphalism, embrace the virtues of humility and empathy, and reconsider what’s really important.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What was it Eisenhower said? Things are more the way they were ever before?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Good article, but it ignores a huge part of the story.
How did Kissinger get where he is? How did he climb so fast in the US government?
Kissinger is a super agent of the Rockefeller clan. Nixon’s political career was fastered by Rockefeller. Cheney served as director of the CFR and has a history of sucking up to David Rockefeller.
As Joseph Kennedy once said, “No more than 50 men run America.” Kissinger isn’t one of those 50 men, but he serves one, and that man is David Rockefeller.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Peter Rv, I don’t think our disagreement is a fundamental one.
Whereas you see the empire as being an American one, I see it as a
(virtually) invisible elite USING the US to achieve its ends. This
elite doesn’t want an American empire; it wants to use American
military might and economic power to build its own supra-national
empire. In the process it plans to destroy our republican
institutions and lay bare our wealth for looting, as well as the
wealth of the rest of the world. And whereas you and many others here
seem to think the Israelis and perhaps Jews in general are behind
getting us embroiled in this senseless and amoral war, and many other
sins besides, I can agree that many neocons are Jewish and Zionists,
and are crazy, but I disagree that Israel are the driving force to
our madness. Yes, Israelis manipulate the US and use the US (and get
lots of $$ from us). Everyone tries to play that game. They are
unusually successful at the game, for a host of reasons. I agree that
we should limit their influence for our own good and national
security. And for their own good, as well, as this game will end with
the destruction of the Israeli state. But it is a fact that most US
Jews, and Israelis, for that matter want to see peace between Israel
and the Pals and Arab states, and are opposed to the US policy in Iraq.
Yes, they are using us for their own perceived ends, but THEY have
always been used, since the creation of Israel, as a hand grenade to
destabilize the ME. Remember, it was the British Empire which set the
creation of Israel into motion. They carved up the ME, including Iraq
into a horrible mishmash that has embedded chaotic tribal and ethnic
tensions which can be activated when needed to destabilize any
movement for peace and progress. Divide and conquer has always been
the imperial motto and modus operandi. The global oligarchy is a
continuation of the British Empire, seeking a truly planetary empire
beyond the reach of national sovereignty.
To survive and thrive in the new century, humanity must foreswear war
except as a purely defensive measure and create an alliance of
sovereign nation states, led by the 4 great powers of the US, Russia,
China and India, to develop the Eurasian land mass, where the bulk of
humanity lives. Imperialism in all its forms must be ended once and
for all, and the joint task of uplifting the mass of poverty- and
disease-stricken peoples will provide the economic driver to create
a wave of prosperity that will crush the imperial party decisively.
Submitting to either a US empire, or a globalization empire will end
in the ruination of our civilization. Our nation is both being used,
and is being rotted from the inside out. Little time is left to end
our self-destructive course. Where is the leadership we require? The
GOP is currently hopeless. The Dem candidates may be a little better,
but don’t recognize the fundamental crises we are in, or understand
who the enemy is. This is not a hopeful time, to say the least.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The neocons are no conspiracy,they write and speak what they mean.Perle, the Kristols, and Wolfie are are not quiet people.Blame idiots like Cheney Bush and Rumsfeld for listening to them.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Great essay and comments keep up the good work.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
very good point on the HK connection to this debacle
that the USA is in. If history is any good for a
reference then during the Nixon watergate debacle HK
came out of that era smelling like a rose, unscathed at
all. But HK is just a point man for a lager more sinister
group operating out of Europe and Israel. Yes the USA is
not a Country but a Corporation run by the European
Aristicrats since it’s inception nothing more nothing lees
the citizens think it is a country because the have been
lied to by the so-called literary education systems in
this country. HK and is handlers are in controll for now but
not forever and time will tell if the plan worked, so far
it is working. 911 was a symbolic communication msg to the
powers behind the scene that the time was right to start
the breakinf down of America and the destruction of the
republic. ther are 2 universal languages known to the
human mind, and they are numbers and sound, period, and 911
was a msg to the few in the know, and the sound was boom.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Mr. John Ball: Good sir, I saw only a couple of references to Israel (as a state) above, and hasten to underline one novel idea: Criticizing the actions of some Jews is not, in and of itself, anti-semitism, and it is not criticizing Israel. This is elementarily true in the exact same way that criticizing the policies of the current US administration is not anti-Americanism.
Americans, in some goodly numbers, disagree with the heavily interventionist stance adopted by the present US administration. Jews, in some goodly numbers----indeed, Israelis, in some goodly numbers---disagree with the heavily interventionist stance adopted by the present Israeli administration.
AIPAC, in other words, is not Israel, nor is the present Israeli administration a simple shorthand for “Israel” or even “the Jews.”
The present US administration, in other words, is not simple shorthand for “America” but rather “the American government.”
America has stabbed its share of allies in the back (must one really enumerate them? in my abbreviated lifetime we’ve betrayed the Czech, the Hmong, the South Vietnamese and the Iraqi Shia and Kurds after Gulf War 1), and protestations of eternal loyalty always bring to mind Disraeli’s comment (perhaps it was Gladstone) that nations have no permanent friends, nations have permanent interests.
I for one believe that our American truly vital national interests are better served by pursuing a non-interventionist, non-isolationist foreign policy of the British, Great Game school of “masterful inactivity.” (In sum, watch carefully for emerging threats but do not stir up the hornets’ nest absent good cause.)
I agree that the Likudnik, AIPAC, neocon line is far too accepted in American governance today.
Once more, however, I don’t see any extended discussion on the crimes of the state of Israel in the above comments.
Perle is no more Israel than Richard Cheney is America; Perle is Perle, and Cheney is Cheney, and that is that.
best regards
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Like most attempts to explain the lead-up to the Second Iraq War, this articles overlooks the dog that didn’t bark in the night: the Protestant Fundamentalists and their ideology which promises the imminent Second Coming of Jesus as a result wars in the Middle East. AIPAC (your ‘Israel Lobby’?) is powerful because of Christian Zionists, Dispensationalism, etc. Who else benefits from war and chaos in the Middle East? Not Israelis or oil comoanies.
A couple corrections of fact: Wolfowitz was a philosophy prof., not an historian. Feith could not be a ‘card carrying Likud member’ because Likud is a coalition of parties, and , in any case, has been sidelined by Sharon’s and Olmert’s new party, Kadima.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
ALL of the petrol majors in the Middle East region are
OWNED and or CONTROLLED to this day by British and
Dutch interests.
It stands to reason part of the Plan is the
extermination of the Iraqi population.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I prefer to call Israel a noble little country. Does anybody wish to force my abandoning the honorific and replacing it with a perjorative? If so, you have bitten off a lot more than you can chew.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Lew Rockwell posted, today at LRC, an interesting 15-year-old Murray Rothbard article regarding Henry Kissinger’s machinations. Very timely.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I identify my views with those of writer Peter Rv: “How else can you secure Israel’s domination of the Middle East unless by destroying the backbone of the Arab Nation? This situation of perpetual chaos and bloodshed is what was planned all along. And that is what is going to continue, just listen carefully to our sorry would-be presidents: we are in Iraq to stay (huge military bases and an enormous embassy which none of them question)
The marvellous thing about all this is that there are still those around who have doubts about it.”
One of the leading neocons, at the outset of the war in 2003, observed that no nation was brave enough to stop Hitler, whose murderous designs on the Jewish people were obvious during the ‘30s. The neocon said that such a situation could never again be permitted.
Mission Accomplished? You betcha! And for the modest price of 3300+ American youths dead, 24,000 maimed, $450 billion in lost treasure. A bargain by any measure. If you doubt it, read Norman Podhorez.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Peter Ry—
“Today, we have an empire which doesn’t mind jeopardizing its own interests for the benefit of an alleged ally which doesn’t have any strategic significance
for it.”
Peter, your assumption is flawed. You assume that “the empire” is the same as what the majority of Americans want. The Empire at work now in America is not concerned with what most Americans want or need. They do not care whether America functionally is gutted and left for dead. They are amassing huge wealth and that wealth will enable them to weather any storm of revolution or nation-destruction that may occur.
I suggest you rethink your disagreement with the post by Unmitigated Audacity. He/she is pretty well on the mark. “Pretty well” meaning that there are only insignificant immaterial errors in his/her comment, if there are errors at all.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thank You for the commentary
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The question of whether or not the current situation in Iraq- a bloody chaotic mess- was what was intended all along is a good one. For it really is hard to believe that such astounding incompetence can exist even in government.
As for the Democrats and their “opposition” to this war, one need only look to their current spiel that the Iraqis must prove to us, in some ridiculous subjective manner, why they deserve the sweet attentions of American troops on their soil, as even the collection of quislings our media calls the “Iraqi government” votes on resolutions demanding the withdrawal of the US military from their country.
The “debate” on the war in this country is utterly separated from the reality on the ground. There is no “opposition” in Washington. The two parties and their “differences” are a stage managed Kabuki theater production.
The Daily Burkeman1
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Let’s see if this gets past the censor. No personal attacks, et al.
To save space, see here.
Thanks, Doug
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It was a delight to read Mr. Foy’s article that ties so many strings of our recent past together. The underlying arrogance of Henry Kissenger that comes through whenever he speaks and the media choice to give credence as some magic knowledge and understanding, rather than a personal agenda emminating from the idea that there is a right or correct way to view humanity. That the vast majority of human kind don’t have the time, willingness to think through, and mediate over the trust they place in our leaders has always been the basis of such people. Most of our institutions of society push for the belief that there is only one right way. Professor Roger Corless, PhD of Duke University developed the concept that there might be an alternative. In a little known article given in 1988 at a Colloquium of Buddhist Thought and Culture at the University of Montevallo, in Alabama titled in his usually humorous style, “Becoming a Dialogian: How to do Buddhist-Christian Dialogue without really Trying.”, Professor Corless offers an answer to the problem of Plurality--a discussion of the absolute versus the relative. He posits a plurality of absolutes which he offers the label of “Co-Inherent Consciousness”. Please seek out this article to understand this possibility. I shall return to Mr. Foy’s excellent analysis and how this foray into esoteric thought might be of value. But first, I wish to quote how Professor Corless ends what he considered his most significant work. “I now function as follows, When praying or meditating, I function either as a Buddhist or as a Christian. Occasionally, I engage in a very strange and puzzling meditation on Buddhist-Christian co-inherence. When going about my business, I try to exercise compassion according to the principles of Buddhist karuna and Christian agape. When I study a problem I study either as a Christian or as a Buddhist. Then, if I wish, I can step back from these thoughts and examine the Buddhist and Christian data I have obtained. I have been in dialogue with myself, or as someone once quipped, I have become a Dialogian, and I have done Buddhist-Christian dialogue sponstaneously, without really trying.”
Mr. Foy correctly notices that Mr. Kissenger and his minions hold forth a absolute certainty. Whether personal agenda, honest belief, or psychological need, it allow no discussion and requires the darkness of secrecy. With such influence in leadership, there is little hope that the beautiful thoughts that began our nation can survive.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Blaming “Israel” is akin to blaming the “United States” for the warmongering that goes on in the world. The root problem must be pinned to a moneyed international cabal rather than to any country at large. After all, the jewish people (even if many have been indoctrinated to believe otherwise) were the first victims of the Zionists who let the Holocaust be unleashed upon millions of innocents as the first step to achieve their dream State. On the other hand, Zionist billionaires from around the world bestow upon “Israel” (the Zionist State) a power that is anything but puny. They are the dark forces guiding the Dick’s and W’s of the world.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.