David Icke Newsletter, July 16th 2006
Subscribe to David Icke's Newsletter

What Is Really Happening in the Middle East

Due to overwhelming requests we are making David's two recent newsletter specials detailing the background to the Middle East war available to everyone, such is the importance of the information.

We only ask that people do all they can to circulate the articles to every person and website they think would benefit from the content.

Thank-you.

Part 1

I was watching CNN the other night and a report on the foreign policy 'crisis' faced by the Bush-puppet administration. They listed all the trouble-spots - Israel-Gaza, Israel-Lebanon, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc. - and claimed that rarely had a U.S. government faced so many major problems around the world.

Well, it depends on what you mean by 'problems'.

We are back to my old friend 'coordinates' here. If you don't have the right coordinates you don't have perspective. If you believe that the goal of American 'foreign policy' is to bring peace and freedom to the world - if that is your coordinate - then it does indeed seem like the United States is faced with enormous challenges.

But if you know that the U.S. government is merely a tool of a global secret society network - the Illuminati - and the idea is to create as much war and suffering as possible to destroy peace and freedom, you will understand that the chaos and conflict is anything but a 'problem'. Quite the opposite, it's all going according to plan.

Without the coordinates - knowledge of the Illuminati agenda and the techniques used to advance it - people have no chance of understanding world events

So let us go through some key coordinates here:

1.) The Illuminati use the technique I have dubbed problem-reaction-solution to 'justify' actions that would otherwise be widely opposed. For instance, without the lie about 'weapons of mass destruction' (an invented problem), they would never have been able to sell the 'solution' - the invasion of Iraq.

2.) The Illuminati want to seize control of the planet and crucial to that is to control the Middle and Near Eastern oil fields - Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and so on, plus the massive oil and gas reserves around the Caspian Sea.

3.) To do the above they need excuses to invade those countries if they will not, like Libya, come quietly with their hands up.

4.) Israel is an Illuminati-created and controlled state through its manufactured political movement called 'Zionism', which is not the same as Judaism nor being Jewish. Large numbers of Jewish people oppose Zionism (see below), which is a political claim for a Jewish homeland in Israel.

5.) The state of Israel was bombed and terrorised into existence by invaders coordinated and manipulated by the Illuminati House of Rothschild. The incumbent population, the Palestinians, were removed from power in their own country and forced into little more than slavery by their invading masters.

6.) The Illuminati want to bring the United States and allies into a war with China to create a massive global problem in need of a global solution - the creation of a world government and world army to stop it ever happening again (hence the focus on China's associate state, North Korea).

7.) Chaos = control; Harmony = freedom.

8.) The goal is for a planet controlled by a world government and army that would impose its will on a micro-chipped, constantly watched and controlled population, described brilliantly by George Orwell in his book, 1984.

Now we can look again at current events and see foreign policy 'problems' in a different light to the brain-dead at CNN.

I have highlighted in detail in my books the so-called neo-con organization, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the plan for global conquest that it produced in September 2000 called Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, And Resources For A New Century (pdf). This document called for:

U.S. military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power: 'While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The U.S. to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

U.S. forces to be 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'.

Action to discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging U.S. leadership or aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

Permanent U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Increased military pressure on China: 'It is time to increase the presence of American forces in South East Asia' which will lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China'.

The 'creation of "U.S. Space Forces", to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the Internet against the U.S.'.

'New methods of attack - electronic, "non-lethal", biological. These, it says, will be more widely available and combat is likely to take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.'

The development of a 'world-wide command-and-control system' to contain the 'dangerous' regimes of North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran.

September 11th, the 'new Pearl Harbor' the neo-cons needed to implement their plans. Coincidence? No way.

David Frum ... coined the phrase 'Axis of Evil' - Iraq, Iran and North Korea - for his neo-con masters and the George Bush speech

The document highlighted the need for a 'New Pearl Harbor' without which the 'process of transformation' was likely to be 'a long one'. 9/11 came one year to the month after this document was published and nine months after those behind it came to power with Bush. Since then it has been used to justify the imposition of their agenda. Coincidence? Oh, please.

Bush's State of the Union speech in January 2002, in which he dubbed Iraq, Iran and North Korea 'the Axis of Evil', was written by David Frum, one of the neo-cons closely connected with the Project for the New American Century and its interlocking organisations like the American Enterprise Institute. All of these groups are arms of the Illuminati.

The neo-con godfather is Leo Strauss, a German-born Jewish 'philosopher', who believed that people must be governed by a 'pious elite'. He must have missed the fact that they already were. This Internet article summaries the world according to Strauss and, therefore, the neo-cons:

'Strauss thought that the best way for ordinary human beings to raise themselves above the beasts is to be utterly devoted to their nation and willing to sacrifice their lives for it. He recommended a rabid nationalism and a militant society modelled on Sparta. He thought that this was the best hope for a nation to be secure against her external enemies as well as the internal threat of decadence, sloth, and pleasure. A policy of perpetual war against a threatening enemy is the best way to ward off political decay. And if the enemy cannot be found, then it must be invented.'

Leo Strauss

Exactly - for the full article see: http://www.secularhumanism.org/
index.phpsection=library&page=drury_24_4

The Project for the New American Century personnel are highly significant to past and current events. It was established in 1997 by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. Kristol is editor of the Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard that campaigns for the neo-con agenda. He is a regular contributor to the Murdoch-owned Fox News, the most blatantly biased television channel anywhere in the 'Western' world. Robert Kagan is an American neoconservative 'scholar' and 'political commentator'. He graduated from Yale University in 1980, where he joined the infamous Illuminati Skull and Bones Society and he is a member of the Illuminati Council on Foreign Relations.

Kristol & Kagan

Both of these founders are Jewish with close ties to Israel and they are pushing an agenda for 'American' control of the Middle and Near East (and further) which is precisely what Israel wants to happen. Yet to highlight this crucial fact is to be called 'anti-Semitic' - the constant slur used by Illuminati fronts like the Anti Defamation League (ADL) to discredit those who point out the obvious unfairness and bias of this situation.

Well, bollocks to the ADL and anyone else in the same category. It is a fact and it needs saying to get some perspective on what is happening here.

And it goes further. These are some of the other members of the Project for the New American Century:

Abrams, Elliot: A member of the National Security Council and top advisor on the Middle East. As Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs under Reagan, he was responsible for covering up war crimes committed by the U.S.-backed Contras. He was charged in connection with the Iran-Contra affair and pleaded guilty to lesser charges. Abrams was later pardoned by father Bush. The British media reported that Abrams was behind the attempted Chavez coup in Venezuela.

Armitage, Richard: Former Deputy Secretary of State and former board member of CACI, the private military contractor whose employees were responsible for torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs during the Reagan Administration and Deputy Secretary of State to Colin Powell at the time of the Iraq invasion.

Bernstein, Robert L.: Professor at the National Defense University (a government facility). Worked at the Naval War College (government facility), and in the Defense Department.

Bolton, John R.: Senior Vice President of the American Enterprise Institute. Major player at the Pentagon at the time of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq and now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations calling for action against neo-con target countries, like Iran.

Boschwitz, Rudy: Presidential appointee to the Holocaust Memorial Council. One of the top fund-raisers for boy Bush in 2000.

Bush, Jeb: Governor of Florida who banned convicted felons from voting in the 2000 presidential election, using an extremely inaccurate system to remove voting rights and allowed ineligible absentee ballots to be counted. The vote was rigged, in other words, to get his brother 'elected'.

Carlucci, Frank: Chairman of the father Bush Carlyle Group at the time of 9/11. He was Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration, Deputy Director in the CIA and CIA agent and was accused of plotting the assassination of two African leaders.

Cheney, Dick: Secretary of Defense for father Bush and now Vice President to his son. Cheney was behind the appointments of Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Elliot Abrams to government. All are PNAC members. His wife Lynne is a senior fellow with the neo-con American Enterprise Institute and daughter Elizabeth became Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. He was Halliburton CEO from 1995 to 2000, the company that has received billions in Iraq contracts not tendered to other companies.

Cohen, Eliot A.: Professor at Johns Hopkins University, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and formerly worked for Rumsfeld.

Khalilzad, Zalmay: Ambassador to Afghanistan and now Iraq. Accused by candidates in the Afghan elections of arranging President Hamid Karzai's victory. Worked for Paul Wolfowitz at the State Department from 1984 to1985. Advisor to oil giant Unocal for their proposed gas pipeline project through Afghanistan.

Libby, I. Lewis: Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the Vice President. Worked for Paul Wolfowitz at the State Department and the Pentagon. Now under investigation for obstruction of justice.

Perle, Richard N.: Pentagon Policy Advisor (resigned February 2004) and member of the Defense Policy Board. On the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan/Bush. FBI suspected Perle of spying for Israel in 1970 but he was not prosecuted. Extremely close to former Israel Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for whom he worked as an 'advisor'.

Rumsfeld, Donald: Secretary of Defense and a key player in the 'War on Terror', the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the targeting of other nations. He was on the board of the European engineering giant, ABB, when it sold nuclear technology to North Korea and visited Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in 1983 to arrange for chemical and biological weapons shipments from the U.S. to Iraq.

Weinberger, Caspar W.: Secretary of Defense under Reagan. Indicted on felony charges for his role in supplying missiles to Iran, but pardoned by President Bush Sr, who was also involved!

Wolfowitz, Paul: Deputy Secretary of Defense at time of 9/11 and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. He was the real power in the Pentagon, not Rumsfeld. Now head of the World Bank.

Zakheim, Dov S.: Member of the advisory board for the American Jewish Committee, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Adjunct Scholar for the [Illuminati] Heritage Foundation. He was Under Secretary and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense until 2004.

Zoellick, Robert B.: U.S. Trade Representative and member of President's Cabinet. Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs, then White House Deputy Chief of Staff in the Bush Sr. administration.

All of the above are either Jewish with fundamental ties to Israel or vehement supporters of Israel, often through membership of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). This calls itself a 'non-partisan' organisation, which is a sick joke after even a cursory glance at its website - http://www.jinsa.org/home/home.html.

For more PNAC names, see http://www.reasoned.org/e_PNAC2.htm, but the same theme applies.

So, in summary: The neo-con groups like the Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute are awash - utterly dominated - by supporters of Israel and they have orchestrated a U.S. government policy of invasion and threats to countries in the Middle and Near East that suits the agenda of Israel.

Can you imagine what would be said - and done - if it was found that a U.S. administration controlled by fundamentalist supporters of Islamic countries had orchestrated an American invasion of Israel??

But because it is Israel doing the manipulating - silence. Don't speak out and state the clear facts or you will be called an 'anti-Semite'. Well, they can call me what they like, I don't give a shit, because unless these issues are faced these sick people will set the world ablaze.

Now perhaps we can understand why, when an atrocity is commited against Israel, the media calls it Islamic terrorism, but when staggering numbers of Palestinian or other Arab civilians are killed it is reported as Israel 'defending itself from' or 'retaliating to' terrorism. Why? Because the mainstream media is controlled by the same forces - like Murdoch - and so gives the neo-con line.

What chance do the Palestinian people have of fairness and justice when the major governments of the world and the major media sources are dictated to by the very force that is dropping bombs on them and killing their children? What chance have they ever had since their country was invaded and their nation turned into slaves?

None.

And it is about time someone said so without fearing the consequences in slurs and attacks from the purveyors of hate like the ADL.

I ask people to put themselves in the position of the Palestinians for a moment. They had their country stolen from them by force and terrorism soon after the Second World War and they have been subjected ever since to grotesque and horrific suppression, constant violence and domination. The Israeli government and military can do virtually whatever they like to them while the pathetic 'World Community' looks the other way.

The first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, summed up their aims in 1937 when he said: 'We must expel Arabs and take their places.' Imagine if another people invaded your land and did this to you, refusing even to acknowledge the injustice. What would we do?

The Palestinians believe they are without hope and they feel understandable fury at what is happening to their land, their homes, their families and themselves. Why wouldn't they? And, given the scale of provocation, it is a wonder that their own violent response comes only from a small minority, not the vast majority of decent and intelligent Palestinian and Arabic people who just want peace and justice.

It is an old, old truth. Ignore injustice for long enough and violence will surely follow. The way to stop violence is to remove the injustice, not respond with even greater violence.

Israel and the United States government - of both parties - are one and the same, controlled by the Illuminati network, and that is why Israel can basically do what it likes while the Palestinians are condemned at every turn.

So when we look at the events of this week they seem less foreign policy 'problems' and more foreign policy goals. The Project for the New American Century, just one of the voice pieces for the agenda of racist hatred, called in 2000 for the conquest of Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and so on.

With the nightmare unfolding by the day in Iraq, the public in America and Britain have no stomach for invading anyone else. Bush and Blair have also had their credibility shot by the blatant lies they told to justify the Iraq invasion. Thus, if the conquest agenda is to roll on in the Middle and Near East, another trigger is necessary to keep it moving.

Enter Israel, stage right and left, with the invasions of the Gaza Strip and Lebanon and the blame pointed at both Syria and Iran for supporting those who kidnapped three soldiers - acts which have unleashed Israeli firepower (paid for by U.S. 'aid') on civilian populations.

It was all planned long before any soldiers were taken hostage.

A family of ten, including eight children, died in this Israeli air strike in Lebanon in retaliation for two soldiers being kidnapped (but not by the family of ten, including eight children).And have you noticed something? The Illuminati target the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and North Korea and events happen at just the right time to support the agenda. Soldiers are kidnapped that lead to the invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, with blame for the kidnaps handed to Syria and Iran; an Iran 'election' is 'won' by a man who then says all the right things for the neo-con propaganda to exploit; and North Korea starts launching missiles.

This story, and the global conspiracy, is far, far bigger than almost anyone imagines.

To be continued ....

Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki is a popular Islamic teacher and speaker. He was born in New Mexico, and has received most of his Islamic education in Yemen where he currently resides. Shaykh al-Awlaki was an Imam at several masajid in the United States including Dar ul-Hijrah in Falls Church, Virginia which is one of the larger masjids in the United States. At one point, Shaykh al-Awlaki was definitely a rising star amongst the Orthodox Muslim mainstream in the U.S., Shaykh al-Awlaki's captivating teaching style made his cd sets on The Lives of the Prophets, The Hereafter, The Life and Times of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, the Life and Times of Umar bin al-Khattab, and the Seerah of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) extremely popular especially among the Orthodox Muslim and activist Muslim youth. Shaykh al-Awlaki was a major speaker at at least one ISNA convention (sorry ISNA, but I don't think this is a secret) and was a spokesperson for the Muslims following the 9/11 attacks. Since that time Shaykh al-Awlaki's outspoken clarity concerning the Global War on Islam has resulted in him spending time in a Yemeni prison and being as best as I can tell barred from returning to the United States. It has also made him basically unmentionable by the mainstream Muslim establishment, although his popularity amongst the Orthodox Muslim youth, especially those who are activists and those who are interested in seeking knowledge, has only continued to grow as a result. Shaykh al-Awlaki is one of those rare speakers that combines articulateness with being blunt and clear and fearless in his analysis. Most people who are articulate and can speak well use those skills in order to make less clear what they are actually saying or in order to speak to multiple audiences at once, or to create "plausible deniability" in the future if someone wants to come after them for what they "seem to be saying." There may be reasons for all of this, but when someone speaks clear and directly (as Allaah (swt) says speak clearly and directly to the point Surah Ahzab Ayah 70) then it naturally appeals to people, even when people don't agree with everything you say. This is why someone like Al Hajj Malik Shabazz became beloved even by people who did not agree with some of his message, because they knew where he stood, knew he was on their side, and loved how he spoke the truth. All of which makes Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki and his thought a perfect topic for my "Alternative Visions" series!

Although Shaykh al-Awlaki has a good deal of audio on many topics which is available on the internet (here is a good place to start for those interested), for the purposes of this post in this series I'm going to focus on Shaykh al-Awlaki's lecture "The Battle of Hearts and Minds" and a recent post on his website in which he answered a question about the method for establishing the Khilafa.

In the Battle for Hearts and Minds (.pdf transcript here) Shaykh al-Awlaki's first public lecture since he was released from his imprisonment, he basically focused on addressing the infamous (at least in the Muslim community) Rand Report entitled Civil Democratic Islam (.pdf here). This report, written by Cheryl Benard, the wife of Zalmay Khalilzad (who also worked at Rand for many years when the Democrats were in power). Khalilzad is a long time neocon (who was born in Afghanistan) who served as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, and is currently the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Shaykh al-Awlaki talks about how the report discusses the ongoing struggle amongst Muslims generally to define what exactly Islam means and how it relates to the political systems in Muslim lands. Ms. Benard calls for the United States to get involved in this 'struggle' and to actively back Muslim voices which are seen as being more friendly to the U.S. Specifically, Ms. Bernard calls for financial backing for so-called "moderate" Muslims. Shaykh al-Awlaki makes it clear that the Rand definition of a "moderate" Muslim is really not a Muslim at all and so he coins the term "Rand Muslim" to describe those who meet the tests set out by Rand. These include:

1) Being in favor of liberal democracy as understood in the west.

2) Being opposed to the Shari'ah as the source of law.

3) Not being now in favor, nor ever having favored the use of force, even in defending Muslim lands which have been invaded by foreign forces or are currently occupied by foreign armies.

Ms. Benard also specifically mentions favoring "Sufi" versions of Islam, in the vastly oversimplified belief that Sufis are supposed to be pacifist and less likely to favor jihad as physical struggle. Shaykh al-Awlaki specifically mentions that there have also been Sufis who have favored and led jihad, but these are not the type of Sufis that Ms. Benard and Rand are interested in backing.

Of course, it is the mere idea that the United States government and its agents, who do not believe in Islam, do not believe in the Prophet Muhammad (saw), or the Qur'an should take an active role in trying to "change Islam" is what is most offensive to the believing Muslim (while it may make perfect sense to the Machiavellian disbelieving servant of empire).

Ms. Benard and Rand recommend that the U.S. should subsidize publication of the works of these "Rand Muslims." It should especially promote their ideas to the Muslim youth. It should introduce their ideas into Islamic educational curriculum. It should encourage the celebration of pre-Islamic culture in Muslim societies. As I mentioned previously, it recommends that the teaching of pacifist, quietist Sufis should be promoted.

Rand Muslim "Shaykh" Hisham Kabbani

For those who are not Rand Muslims, they are thereby obviously "extremists." These people should be labelled always as terrorists and cowards, and we see that this is something the West constantly practices and which, according to Shaykh al-Awlaki many Muslims have followed in this like "parrots." As Shaykh al-Awlaki mentions in a particularly powerful passage of his lecture:

"According to Bernard, we are not supposed to show such an admiration, we should never even cast them as “evil heroes”! And then she specifically wanted them to be presented or cast as disturbed, and cowardly. And this “cowardly” thing, we have been hearing it again and again. And I am amazed to see that some Muslims, like parrots, are repeating this accusation, and praise is to Allah, I fail to understand how, the Israeli soldier wearing
his bullet proof vest, and his steel helmet, cowering behind the pile of sand bags and still runs away from the stones thrown by Palestinian children is courageous! While the Palestinian children charging at the soldiers full speed, armed with nothing but rocks and wearing nothing but trousers and t-shirts are cowards! I fail to understand that! And the American “heroic” soldiers, fighting from the comfort of their armored Bradleys and Strikers but nevertheless boiling inside layers of bullet proof gear in the boiling heat
of the Iraqi summer, are “courageous” while the Iraqi Mujahideen armed with nothing but the light weapons of Guerilla war-fare are “cowards”!
And what I really fail to understand, is how can the martyr, the Shaheed, who willingly and happily, hands over his soul to Allah, who walks towards his faith, with pleasure, and faces death with a smile, what I fail to understand is how can you call such a person a “coward”! But that is what they have been called. And that is what the parrots in the Muslim world have been repeating, that these peoples are cowards."

The next recommendation is that stories of corruption, immorality, etc. should be promoted about the "extremist" Muslims. This of course means, that if these Muslims, have not committed any crimes you simply make things up or take basic Islamic beliefs and actions and criminalize them. Shaykh al-Awlaki specifically cites what the govenrment did with Imam Jamil Al-Amin (May Allaah free him!) in this context. One can also look to examples like Shaykh Ali al-Timimi (May Allaah free him!), John Walker Lindh (May Allaah free him!), or Muhammad Salah (May Allaah free him!). The only notion of criminalizing any aid or support for a "designated terrorist" organization and then being able to designate whomever you wish as a terrorist organization is nothing less than the criminalization of being a Muslim and daring to support any cause not approved by the U.S. government. (I continue to believe that the only response to this that will be effective at the end of the day is to demonstrate the pure injustice of such laws by mass civil disobedience in which the Muslims in hundreds of thousands publicly and openly support these groups in ways which are clearly moral and right, daring the government to punish us for it. Until then, it will continue to pick off the truly strong among us, but those seen to be weak because they are not supported by the community).

Imam Jamil Al-Amin

Also among their techniques are to instigate and promote infighting amongst the Muslims, including promoting certain thinkers that they like. Also, spreading wicked reports about any Muslims that dare to stand for the implementation of Islamic Law, or Shari'ah. The United States spends more than 50 percent of the world's total defense spending. The United States spends more on killing and warfare than the next 14 greatest spending countries combined. Both presidential candidates in the U.S., including the great Muslim hope, Barack Obama, are calling for "INCREASING" U.S. military spending? Really? Really.

But despite all of that, the plans of the United States are not working. The Islamic revival is continuing. The evil nature of U.S. plans are clear to most Muslims, especially the youth and especially the active practicing Muslim youth living in the U.S. itself. They plot and plan, but Allaah is the Best of Planners. In fact, the popularity and understanding of the true message of Islam continues to grow in the Muslim world and the concept of re-establishing the Islamic State, or re-establishing the Khilafah is everywhere seen as much more realistic and likely than it was even 15 years ago.

Still, the road ahead will not be easy. Here are Shaykh al-Awlaki's recommendations:

1) We should present the Islamic point of view on contested issues, speaking clearly on the nature of the Islamic State, the supremacy of Shari'ah, the necessity of Khilafah, and our true points of difference with the concept of democracy.

2) We should beware of anything American, since the U.S. government has made clear its strategy and desire to use many different means including cultural sources such as music, comics, television stations, etc. to promote its own agenda.

3) If the enemies of Islam have set it as their strategy to discredit Muslims with unacceptable views, it should be our obligation to promote the courageous scholars and da'ees (callers to Islam, Islamic speakers and teachers) who are upon the truth.

4) Promote and spread the material of Truth.

5) Engage in Jihaad of wealth and of the tongue as the Prophet (saw) said to engage in Jihaad with our lives, our wealth, and our tongues. Spreading the truth is a jihaad of the tongue.

6) Encourage Muslims awareness of their true identity and history.

In my second post on Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki I will talk about Shaykh Anwar's recent statements about the method of re-establising Khilafah and a few minor areas where I perhaps disagree with Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki (May Allaah (swt) protect and preserve him and keep him free!)

Jon Stewart recaps the current situation in Georgia (and the media’s ridiculous coverage of it),

Jon says what needed to be said about the short term memory problems affecting Bush, Rice, and McCain and about the complete non-presumptuousness of McCain’s dispatching a team of envoys to Georgia.

Anti-Olympic Update - In Europe

It's amazing how adding the phrase "in Europe" makes our military actions more palatable, even fun.

Stewart: “It’ll be very interesting to see what the United States does here. Our invasion of Iraq somewhat hamstrings our options in Georgia, not just militarily, but also dimplomaticly, and I guess you would say, morally? Let’s watch our UN Ambsassador Zalmay Khalilzad dance the delicate dance…

Khalilzad: We want to make sure our Russian colleagues understand that the days of overthrowing leaders by miulityary means…

Stewart: Careful, Khalilza. Steady…steady…

Khalilzad: The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe, those days are gone…

Stewart: Yes! He did it! Those days are gone…in Europe. In the Middle East, it’s morning in America.

By HELENE COOPER and MARK MAZZETTI

Published: August 25, 2008

Courtesy and Thanks: The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to the United Nations, is facing angry questions from other senior Bush administration officials over what they describe as unauthorized contacts with Asif Ali Zardari, a contender to succeed Pervez Musharraf as president of Pakistan. Mr. Khalilzad had spoken by telephone with Mr. Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, several times a week for the past month until he was confronted about the unauthorized contacts, a senior United States official said. Other officials said Mr. Khalilzad had planned to meet with Mr. Zardari privately next Tuesday while on vacation in Dubai, in a session that was canceled only after Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, learned from Mr. Zardari himself that the ambassador was providing “advice and help.”

“Can I ask what sort of ‘advice and help’ you are providing?” Mr. Boucher wrote in an angry e-mail message to Mr. Khalilzad. “What sort of channel is this? Governmental, private, personnel?” Copies of the message were sent to others at the highest levels of the State Department; the message was provided to The New York Times by an administration official who had received a copy.

Officially, the United States has remained neutral in the contest to succeed Mr. Musharraf, and there is concern within the State Department that the discussions between Mr. Khalilzad and Mr. Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, could leave the impression that the United States is taking sides in Pakistan’s already chaotic internal politics.

Mr. Khalilzad also had a close relationship with Ms. Bhutto, flying with her last summer on a private jet to a policy gathering in Aspen, Colo. Ms. Bhutto was assassinated in Pakistan in December.

The conduct by Mr. Khalilzad, who is Afghan by birth, has also raised hackles because of speculation that he might seek to succeed Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan. Mr. Khalilzad, who was the Bush administration’s first ambassador to Afghanistan, has also kept in close contact with Afghan officials, angering William Wood, the current American ambassador, said officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter of Mr. Khalilzad’s contacts. Mr. Khalilzad has said he has no plans to seek the Afghan presidency.

Through his spokesman, he said he had been friends with Mr. Zardari for years. “Ambassador Khalilzad had planned to meet socially with Zardari during his personal vacation,” said Richard A. Grenell, the spokesman for the United States Mission to the United Nations. “But because Zardari is now a presidential candidate, Ambassador Khalilzad postponed the meeting, after consulting with senior State Department officials and Zardari himself.”

A senior American official said that Mr. Khalilzad had been advised to “stop speaking freely” to Mr. Zardari, and that it was not clear whether he would face any disciplinary action.

In 1979, Andrew Young was forced to resign as the American ambassador to the United Nations over his unauthorized contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Administration officials described John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, and Mr. Boucher as angry over the conduct of Mr. Khalilzad because as United Nations ambassador he has no direct responsibility for American relations with Pakistan. Those dealings have been handled principally by Mr. Negroponte, Mr. Boucher and Anne W. Patterson, the American ambassador to Pakistan. Mr. Negroponte previously was the United Nations ambassador, and Ms. Patterson the acting ambassador.

“Why do I have to learn about this from Asif after it’s all set up?” Mr. Boucher wrote in the Aug. 18 message, referring to the planned Dubai meeting with Mr. Zardari. “We have maintained a public line that we are not involved in the politics or the details. We are merely keeping in touch with the parties. Can I say that honestly if you’re providing ‘advice and help’? Please advise and help me so that I understand what’s going on here.”

This is not the first time Mr. Khalilzad has gotten into trouble for unauthorized contacts. In January, White House officials expressed anger about an unauthorized appearance in which Mr. Khalilzad sat beside the Iranian foreign minister at a panel of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The United States does not have diplomatic relations with Iran, and a request from Mr. Khalilzad to be part of the United States delegation to Davos had been turned down by officials at the State Department and the White House, a senior administration official said.

Richard C. Holbrooke, a former ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton, said the administration was sending conflicting signals. “It is not possible to conduct coherent foreign policy if senior officials are freelancing,” he said.

It has long been known that Mr. Zardari, who has been locked in a power struggle with Mr. Musharraf and Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister whose party left the governing coalition on Monday, planned to run for president, administration officials and foreign policy experts said.

“I know that Zardari’s interest in becoming president has been clear for quite some time,” said Teresita C. Schaffer, a Pakistan expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The Bush administration has long been uneasy with the idea of Mr. Sharif as a potential leader of Pakistan, and now that Mr. Musharraf is out of the picture, the administration, despite public protestation of neutrality, is seeking another ally.

“It distresses me that the U.S. government has not learned yet that having ‘our guy’ is not a winning strategy in Pakistan,” Ms. Schaffer said. “Whoever ‘our guy’ is isn’t going to be the only guy in town, and if we go into it with that view, we’ll bump up against a lot of other guys in Pakistan.”

A senior Pakistani official said that the relationship between Mr. Khalilzad and Mr. Zardari went back several years, and that the men developed a friendship while Mr. Zardari was spending time in New York with Ms. Bhutto.

The Pakistani official said the consultations between the men were an open exchange of information, with each one giving insight into the political landscape in his capital.

“Mr. Khalilzad, being a political animal, understood the value of reaching out to Pakistan’s political leadership long before the bureaucrats at the State Department realized this would be useful at a future date,” the official said. The ambassador “did not make policy or change policy, he just became an alternate channel,” the official said.

Of Mr. Khalilzad’s Pakistan contacts, Sean I. McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said, “Our very clear policy is that the Pakistanis have to work out any domestic political questions for themselves.” Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said, “The Pakistani elections are an internal matter for the Pakistani people.”

Courtesy and Thanks: The New York

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/washington/26diplo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STILL THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF RACISTS?

Without holding any brief for United States’ UN ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, or for that matter for Asif Ali Zardari, a New York story on how State Department officials, like Richard Boucher and others had ganged up on a US citizen of Afghan origin, does show up the racial and ethnic divide that rules in Bush administration. The Anglo-Saxons, Europeans and Jews hold first class citizenship, while Asians and Africans are treated like dirt. Even though laws on US books are very stringent on any such discrimination, this real life story will bring out how even a Newspaper of the status of New York Times, does not feel any qualms in reporting open discrimination in Administration ranks.

The story also shows up; in comparison, how blatantly American Jewish officials keep their private communications open with Israelis authorities and nobody gets any wiser.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/washington/26diplo.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

U.N. Envoy’s Ties to Pakistani Are Questioned

By HELENE COOPER and MARK MAZZETTI

Published: August 25, 2008

WASHINGTON — Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to the United Nations, is facing angry questions from other senior Bush administration officials over what they describe as unauthorized contacts with Asif Ali Zardari, a contender to succeed Pervez Musharraf as president of Pakistan.

Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, a longtime friend of a leading Pakistani politician.

Mr. Khalilzad had spoken by telephone with Mr. Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, several times a week for the past month until he was confronted about the unauthorized contacts, a senior United States official said. Other officials said Mr. Khalilzad had planned to meet with Mr. Zardari privately next Tuesday while on vacation in Dubai, in a session that was canceled only after Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, learned from Mr. Zardari himself that the ambassador was providing “advice and help.”

“Can I ask what sort of ‘advice and help’ you are providing?” Mr. Boucher wrote in an angry e-mail message to Mr. Khalilzad. “What sort of channel is this? Governmental, private, personnel?” Copies of the message were sent to others at the highest levels of the State Department; the message was provided to The New York Times by an administration official who had received a copy.

Officially, the United States has remained neutral in the contest to succeed Mr. Musharraf, and there is concern within the State Department that the discussions between Mr. Khalilzad and Mr. Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, could leave the impression that the United States is taking sides in Pakistan’s already chaotic internal politics.

Mr. Khalilzad also had a close relationship with Ms. Bhutto; flying with her last summer on a private jet to a policy gathering in Aspen, Colo. Ms. Bhutto was assassinated in Pakistan in December.

The conduct by Mr. Khalilzad, who is Afghan by birth, has also raised hackles because of speculation that he might seek to succeed Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan. Mr. Khalilzad, who was the Bush administration’s first ambassador to Afghanistan, has also kept in close contact with Afghan officials, angering William Wood, the current American ambassador, said officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter of Mr. Khalilzad’s contacts. Mr. Khalilzad has said he has no plans to seek the Afghan presidency.

Through his spokesman, he said he had been friends with Mr. Zardari for years. “Ambassador Khalilzad had planned to meet socially with Zardari during his personal vacation,” said Richard A. Grenell, the spokesman for the United States Mission to the United Nations. “But because Zardari is now a presidential candidate, Ambassador Khalilzad postponed the meeting, after consulting with senior State Department officials and Zardari himself.”

A senior American official said that Mr. Khalilzad had been advised to “stop speaking freely” to Mr. Zardari, and that it was not clear whether he would face any disciplinary action.

In 1979, Andrew Young was forced to resign as the American ambassador to the United Nations over his unauthorized contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Administration officials described John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, and Mr. Boucher as angry over the conduct of Mr. Khalilzad because as United Nations ambassador he has no direct responsibility for American relations with Pakistan. Those dealings have been handled principally by Mr. Negroponte, Mr. Boucher and Anne W. Patterson, the American ambassador to Pakistan. Mr. Negroponte previously was the United Nations ambassador, and Ms. Patterson the acting ambassador.

“Why do I have to learn about this from Asif after it’s all set up?” Mr. Boucher wrote in the Aug. 18 message, referring to the planned Dubai meeting with Mr. Zardari. “We have maintained a public line that we are not involved in the politics or the details. We are merely keeping in touch with the parties. Can I say that honestly if you’re providing ‘advice and help’? Please advise and help me so that I understand what’s going on here.”

This is not the first time Mr. Khalilzad has gotten into trouble for unauthorized contacts. In January, White House officials expressed anger about an unauthorized appearance in which Mr. Khalilzad sat beside the Iranian foreign minister at a panel of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The United States does not have diplomatic relations with Iran, and a request from Mr. Khalilzad to be part of the United States delegation to Davos had been turned down by officials at the State Department and the White House, a senior administration official said.

Richard C. Holbrooke, a former ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton, said the administration was sending conflicting signals. “It is not possible to conduct coherent foreign policy if senior officials are freelancing,” he said.

It has long been known that Mr. Zardari, who has been locked in a power struggle with Mr. Musharraf and Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister whose party left the governing coalition on Monday, planned to run for president, administration officials and foreign policy experts said.

“I know that Zardari’s interest in becoming president has been clear for quite some time,” said Teresita C. Schaffer, a Pakistan expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The Bush administration has long been uneasy with the idea of Mr. Sharif as a potential leader of Pakistan, and now that Mr. Musharraf is out of the picture, the administration, despite public protestation of neutrality, is seeking another ally.

“It distresses me that the U.S. government has not learned yet that having ‘our guy’ is not a winning strategy in Pakistan,” Ms. Schaffer said. “Whoever ‘our guy’ is isn’t going to be the only guy in town, and if we go into it with that view, we’ll bump up against a lot of other guys in Pakistan.”

A senior Pakistani official said that the relationship between Mr. Khalilzad and Mr. Zardari went back several years, and that the men developed a friendship while Mr. Zardari was spending time in New York with Ms. Bhutto.

The Pakistani official said the consultations between the men were an open exchange of information, with each one giving insight into the political landscape in his capital.

“Mr. Khalilzad, being a political animal, understood the value of reaching out to Pakistan’s political leadership long before the bureaucrats at the State Department realized this would be useful at a future date,” the official said. The ambassador “did not make policy or change policy, he just became an alternate channel,” the official said.

Of Mr. Khalilzad’s Pakistan contacts, Sean I. McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said, “Our very clear policy is that the Pakistanis have to work out any domestic political questions for themselves.” Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said, “The Pakistani elections are an internal matter for the Pakistani people.”

Helene Cooper reported from Washington and Mark Mazzetti from New York.

Russia, before agreeing to a cease-fire this afternoon, had been ignoring diplomatic talks and suggestions, and the United States, without threats of action, really ramped up the sternly worded declarations.

President Bush said Monday:

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state. ... Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century ... We have no doubts about it. This is a deliberate attempt to destroy an entire country and change the regime."

Invading a sovereign state, destroying a country, regime change, why is this sounding so familiar? Oh, right, because these "unacceptable in the 21st century" actions are the very actions of President George Bush in his war against Iraq.

I imagine that not only the Russians snicker at such absurdities from our Commander in Chief. We have no moral authority. And Russia knew that we would not take action. But, OH the hypocrisy.

[[EDIT: 8/15]]

On Wednesday, John McCain also proved he has no recollection of his loud support of the Iraq War by saying about Russia:

"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations"

Along with Bush, does he actually realize how ridiculous this sounds? Anyway, as pointed out on the Daily Show, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Zalmay Khalilzad seemed to straighten things out for us all by saying:

"The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe -- those days are gone,"

It's so clear now. Overthrowing leaders by military means in the Middle East is totally still the rage. But lets remember that those days are gone in Europe. (As an aside, there aren't many people who would consider Georgia a European nation anyhow...)

It has become clear that Russia is completely devoted to the complete destruction of the Georgian government. The city of Georgian city Gori is being evacuated out of fear that Russia will invade across the border from the already decimated South Ossetia.
 The American ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, has said that Russia is seeking "regime change" in Georgia. He also told Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice that the Russian Foreign Secretary said the Georgian President (Mikhail Saakashvili) "must go".

Russia has also sank a Georgian boat that had the capacity to launch missiles. The port that this Russian ship will dock at is located in the Ukraine. Ukraine has openly told the Russian military that any naval action against the Georgians would jeopardize Russia's docking privileges. Ukraine has openly supported Georgia in the conflict with Russia. Denial of permission to dock could result in heightened tensions and yet another destabilizing conflict in Eastern Europe. It would also bring the conflict to the border of the European Union, drawing the EU and America closer to involvement.

The question is this:  Is Russia trying to rebuild the Iron Curtain?

I don't think Bayh is a terrible choice, though I'd favor someone else. I also thought Obama should have named his pick a few weeks ago, as I wrote some time back. McCain also seems unlikely to pick the woman I thought would be his best choice, though I did suggest that he should wait to name her until Aug. 24, the day before the Democratic Convention begins. I now think McCain will name his running mate within about a week of whenever Obama makes his choice.

If neither candidate names his choice within the next couple of days, I predict they'll wait a couple more weeks until the Olympics are over--though I disagree with many pundits and think it wouldn't be a bad idea to name a running mate during the Olympics. After all, the VP choice isn't supposed to overshadow the nominee, anyway, though I suspect that will be more of a potential problem for the apparently stuck-in-the-mud McCain campaign than for Obama.

My kind of town, Chicago is--this week, anyway

I'm spending much of this week in Chicago for the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication--the largest organization to which I belong, and the one with the bulkiest title. After the convention and a bit of vacation, I'll be back in about a week. In the meantime, especially if you're new to the site, you might want to check out some of my previous posts. Here in no particular order are a "top 20" of my favorites:

Burn a flag for the Fourth

Begging to differ

The Democrats’ best VP choice–and when Obama should name him

McCain’s best VP choice–and when he should name her

Have you ever heard of the “world’s most famous journalist”?

 PUMAs stalk political relevance–and irony

Ignorance and the electorate

The New Yorker’s Obama cover

“Act now”: a new way for candidates to reach the electorate

WOW! Young people access news differently than grandparents

Family values

Speaking for the poor

Rush Limbaugh and Operation Chaos

Curiosity and journalism

Pogo’s enemy, revisited

Democratic self-mutilation

Howard Dean and convention bloggers

Barack Obama, Muhammad Ali, Mos Def, Zalmay Khalilzad & Keith Ellison: Which doesn’t belong?

Utah Phillips and other dead patriots

Why Obama’s success is no surprise, and why McCain may be in trouble

Have a great week!

In Sudan's western Darfur region, a few thousand African peacekeepers continue to wait in parched misery for the 31,000 U.N.-backed reinforcements that the Sudanese government agreed to accept and were slated to begin arriving in December.

In Iran, physicists continue to enrich uranium deep beneath the earth in Natanz, despite three U.N. Security Council resolutions designed to halt the process for fear it would permit Iran to make nuclear weapons.

The inevitable question is: Why do some world leaders and their governments so flagrantly reject supposedly binding U.N. resolutions?

"A Security Council resolution carries a certain weight," said Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

"But the message is often weak or unclear," Mr. Schaefer said. "When [Saddam Hussein] wouldn't cooperate, the council would retaliate by passing yet another resolution.

"The council has been devalued."

On Thursday, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad circulated a draft resolution in the Security Council to impose travel and financial restrictions on Mr. Mugabe and his senior associates.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe

"We have to respond, not only because Zimbabwe is important, and not only because what happens there affects the region, but also the credibility of the council is at stake," Mr. Khalilzad said Monday.

"We spoke loudly and clearly and made demands that were ignored. If we do nothing, if there is no response, what does that say about the council? What does it say about how others should take the council in terms of the seriousness of what we say?" he said.

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/04/
un-ambiguity-adds-to-image-as-paper-tiger/

The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required.

By William Rivers Pitt

02/25/03 ICH

THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana. The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled

"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century."

In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:

Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;

Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;

Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;

8Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;

Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.

Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could? Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."

PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to 22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.

The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.

On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it. Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.

Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.

In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.

Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war.

This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to.

The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.

All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."

There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders of magnitude as our aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks against the homeland. These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense spending, and by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq, AfghaAnistan and elsewhere. Former allies will turn on us. Germany, France and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are fully aware of this game plan. They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire, lest they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush. Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American ally.

As the eagle spreads its wings, our rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous.

Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease.

At home, the social fabric will be torn in ways that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison.

This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.

The plan was running smoothly until those two icebergs collided. Millions and millions of ordinary people are making it very difficult for Bush's international allies to keep to the script. PNAC may have designs for the control of the "International Commons" of the Internet, but for now it is the staging ground for a movement that would see empire take a back seat to a wise peace, human rights, equal protection under the law, and the preponderance of a justice that will, if properly applied, do away forever with the anger and hatred that gives birth to terrorism in the first place.

Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more justice in the world."

"You fight terrorism by creating more justice in the world..."

Tommaso Palladini

The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required. The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it must not cease. These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail.

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA. Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.

 En el momento de escribir este blog la situación en Líbano es la siguiente: en su declaración más reciente, Sayyid Hasan Hasrallah, secretario general de Hizbulá, acusó al gobierno libanés de librar una guerra contra su organización. Ofreció dos soluciones posibles para poner fin a la escalada de tensión en Líbano. La primera implica que el gobierno de Saniora tendrá que revocar su decisión de desmantelar la red ilegal de comunicación de Hizbulá, y la segunda, que conlleva la reanudación del diálogo entre la mayoría y la oposición en Líbano.

 La respuesta de Saad al Hariri, hijo del asesinado primer ministro Rafiq al Hariri y jefe de la coalición de la mayoría, fue la petición de un papel destacado para las Fuerzas Armadas Libanesas, la retirada de toda presencia armada de las calles, la elección del actual comandante del ejército (General Michel Suleiman) como presidente, y una vuelta al diálogo. La mayoría en Líbano acusa a Hizbulá de preparar la derrota política y militar del gobierno actual libanés. 

Estas declaraciones ponen de manifiesto cuan polarizada se encuentra la situación política interna en el país. Pero, a lo largo de su historia contemporánea, Líbano siempre ha sido el escenario de guerra preferido para llevar a cabo los enfrentamientos regionales y globales. 

A nivel regional, nos encontramos con el intento irano-sirio de desbaratar lo que le queda del intento por poner una solución, inspirada por EE.UU., a la situación en Irak, Palestina y Líbano. En Irak, Irán apoya y arma a las fuerzas antiamericanas empeñadas en desestabilizar el esqueleto del gobierno de Bagdad. En Palestina, a pesar del próximo viaje del Presidente Bush a la zona, el proceso de paz entre israelíes y palestinos se encuentra en un punto muerto; a eso hay que sumar el creciente escándalo sobre los negocios financieros que rodea al primer ministro israelí Ehud Olmert.

 A nivel internacional, el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, en la reunión mantenida hoy para debatir la Resolución 1559, la que pide la retirada de las tropas sirias de Líbano y el desarme de Hizbulá, expresó su preocupación por la situación actual en el país y reiteró "su apoyo a las instituciones legítimas en el país, pidiendo cautela a todas las partes."

 La reunión del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU ha tenido lugar en el contexto de tres nuevos hechos:

•  La actual escalada de los enfrentamientos en Beirut y otras regiones de Líbano, lo que ha sorprendido a la comunidad internacional.

• En su informe sobre la implantación de la Resolución 1559 de la ONU, Terje Rod-Larsen, representante especial de la ONU para la implantación de dicha resolución, incluyó un memorando del gobierno libanés aportando detalles sobre el alcance de la red de comunicación de Hizbulá.

• Un ataque verbal y críticas dirigidas a Hizbulá, así como a sus aliados iraníes y sirios. En su discurso, el embajador de EE.UU., Zalmay Khalilzad, apuntó que Líbano se encontraba al borde de una guerra civil, que Hizbulá había creado un estado dentro de un estado en Líbano, y que la negativa de Siria de aceptar una definición final de sus fronteras con Líbano son factores que representan una amenaza muy grande para la seguridad internacional. El diplomático estadounidense no excluyó la posibilidad de más sanciones contra Siria e Hizbulá.

 Todo esto acontece mientras la lucha constante por influencia en Oriente Medio sigue. ¿Quién cederá primero, el gobierno en Líbano apoyado por EE.UU. y la UE, o Hizbulá, el instrumento conflictivo preferido por Irán y Siria? Y mientras tanto, Beirut arde.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/498/92/PDF/N0449892.pdf?OpenElement

IS BEIRUT BURNING?

As of this writing this is how the situation looks like in Lebanon. In his latest statement, Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's Secretary General, accused the Lebanese government of waging a war against his organization. He offered two possible solutions to stop the escalation in Lebanon. First, the Saniora-led government will have to rescind its decision to dismantle Hezbollah's illegal communication network and two a return to dialogue between the majority and the opposition in Lebanon.

 In his reply, Saad al Hariri, son of the assassinated late Prime Minister Rafiq al Hariri and head of the majority coalition, called for a major role for the Lebanese Armed Forces, withdrawal of all armed presence from the streets, the election of current army commander General Michel Suleiman as president, and a return to dialogue. The majority in Lebanon accuses Hezbollah of scheming a political and military overthrow of the current Lebanese government. 

These statements represent the polarized internal political situation in Lebanon. But, throughout its contemporary history, Lebanon has always been a favourite open theatre for regional and global confrontation. 

Regionally, we have the Iranian-Syrian attempt to derail whatever is left of a US-inspired solution to the situation in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. In Iraq, Iran is supporting and arming anti-US forces that are bent on destabilizing the rump government in Baghdad. In Palestine, despite the forthcoming trip of President Bush to the region, the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians is deadlocked; add to that the mounting financial deals scandal facing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

At the international level in its meeting yesterday to discuss UN Resolution 1559, which calls for Syrian troops' withdrawal from Lebanon and the disarmament of Hezbollah, the UN Security Council expressed its concern for the current situation in the country and reiterated "its support for the legitimate institutions in the country calling on all parties to use restraint."

 The UN Security Council meeting took place amidst three developments:

• The current escalation in fighting in Beirut and other regions of Lebanon which has surprised the international community.
• In his report on the implementation of UN Resolution 1559 Terje Rod- Larsen, UN Special Representative for the implementation of said resolution, included a Lebanese government memorandum detailing the extent of Hezbollah's communication network in the country.
• A verbal attack and criticism directed at Hezbollah and its Iranian and Syrian allies. In his speech US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad stated that Lebanon was on the brink of civil war, that Hezbollah had created a state within a state in Lebanon, and that Syria's refusal to accept a finalized drawing of its borders and Lebanon's are a major threat to international security. The US diplomat did not exclude the possibility of further sanctions against Syria and Hezbollah.

 This is all happening while the constant struggle for influence in the Middle East is still ongoing. Who will blink first? The US-EU supported government in Lebanon? Or Hezbollah, Iran and Syria's favourite disruptive instrument? In the meantime Beirut is burning.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/498/92/PDF/N0449892.pdf?OpenElement

Bush to Nasrallah:

An Offer Hezbollah Cannot Refuse?

Part II: Why the Bush administration wants to negotiate now with Hezbollah

Franklin Lamb,
Dahiyeh

"These fools do not learn from their past mistakes. When they withdrew from Lebanon, they continued to occupy the Shebaa Farms and kept our brothers in custody. Had they released them when they left Lebanon, there would not now be a 'prisoner issue' between Lebanon and the enemy. They opened the door for us."
-- Hassan Nasrallah, January 2004, during a welcome home ceremony for Lebanese and Arab detainees as a result of a Hezbollah-Israel swap.

Creating the proper atmosphere to do 'business'

As discussed below, and contrary to conventional wisdom, the Bush administration is prepared to concede that Hezbollah keep its weapons. Even though it encourages its marionettes to foment this issue, and does so itself publicly, the Bush Administration knows that Hezbollah is not going to disarm until the Question of Palestine is settled to the satisfaction of the Palestinians. Yet it feels that focusing on Hezbollah's militia is still a good pre-negotiation bargaining chip.

The word 'militia' with respect to Hezbollah requires a brief clarification.

The term Hezbollah 'militia' is used by the Bush administration as a substitute for the internationally (except in Israel) accepted term Lebanese Resistance. In private or in front of zionist groups the Bush administration simply refers to 'Hezbollah terrorists' to describe the Lebanese Resistance. The Bush administration has not been able to bring itself to utter the R-word in public. Indeed, the noun Resistance is banned from even the US Embassy Press office here in Beirut ever since former US Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman exclaimed in frustration at last year's Embassy Staff Christmas party (reportedly after a couple of glasses of holiday 'punch'): "even hearing that word gives me gas! ... F—k the Resistance!!", he repeated twice as the Ambassador moved center stage in front of the staff decorated Christmas tree to lead the guests, with his arms raised and keeping time to the music, in the singing of his favorite Carol:

"Old Little Town of Bethlehem".

Those in Lebanon who miss the former US Ambassador may be relieved to know that while Jeffrey did not get the Gulf posting some at the State Department thought he was angling for, he is evidently content to be back in Washington.

As a reward for his three years service in Beirut, Elliot Abrams got him named #2 in the Welch Club, serving directly under David Welch with the new crisp title: Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Near Eastern Affairs.

This post puts Feltman on the front line regarding Hezbollah and in close contact with his long time soul mate, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Kristen Silverberg. Silverberg came out this week with more threats for those who may be indicted and brought before the Hariri Tribunal, a cause long championed by Feltman. Kristen emphasized that Secretary of State Rice had pledged that "The court will try the suspects in Hariri's assassination and related crimes." The "related crimes" language was chosen to signal Hezbollah that its suspected activities in the 1980s and 1990s may be fair game for the Tribunal and its leadership could theoretically be indicted and arrest warrants issued. This is a squeeze presumably calculated to make Hezbollah more receptive to 'offers'.

To reinforce this latter point, Samir Geagea carried the identical threat when he briefed the media on his return from Washington on April Fools Day. The tribunal, according to Geagea, "wouldn't just deal with the Hariri assassination, but would also shed light on what has happened in Lebanon in the past 30 years." (Beirut media wags have suggested Geagea may know something about that subject).

Geagea advised the media that he also raised the issue of Lebanese detainees in Israeli jails and "we were surprised by the answer from the