Saturday, July 15, 2006

Paul Craig Roberts gets it right this week: (and other update)

Update: Biden gets it right on Russert as well. Please watch Gingrich and him on Meet the Press.

Christ almighty, it is certainly nice to listen to people that have fucking brains. I didn't agree with everything that Newt said, preferring Biden's comments overall, but at least they have something to say. Bush can't even string together two sentences and the Neo-clowns are fucking up the entire world..

Couple of clipped paragraphs from Roberts column:

A terrible thing is happening, and not enough Americans are aware to be able to do anything about it. Zionists in Israel and in the Bush administration are leading America into war with Iran, Syria, Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. The consequences for America, Israel and the Middle East will be disastrous, but as long as Washington is in thrall to Zionist paranoia, nothing can be done about it. Bush made this clear on July 14 when he rejected the plea from Lebanon's prime minister to pressure Israel to stop its attack on Lebanon.

The war began when Bush's neoconservative government invaded Afghanistan and Iraq under the pretense of "fighting terrorism." Neither front has gone well for America. The Israelis, seeing the growing domestic opposition to Bush's wars of choice, concluded that they are in danger of losing America's military intervention in behalf of their Middle East interests. Israel decided to force the issue.

Israel's American agents, the neoconservatives, have made it clear for years that their goal is to eliminate every Middle Eastern government that is not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel. The people who hold the important positions in Bush's government have frankly stated this position over and over. For example, a decade ago in 1996 a group of American neoconservatives who have comprised much of the sub-cabinet in the Bush administration wrote that Israel could gain American sympathy by blaming aggression on Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran and then seizing the strategic initiative by "engaging Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."

Read it all here.

Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury (under Ronald Reagan). He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

26 comments:

KnightErrant said...

And yet, there is no public debate. Our founding fathers put the power and responsibility for declaring war in Congress so that the most important act a nation can engage in, entering war, would be a public matter, publicly debated. They had seen how monarchies in Europe had made war the private indulgence of a handful of people and wanted none of it.

The prospect of war is considered none of the people's business. We have a president who doesn't give a rat's ass for the Constitution. Congressmembers are so frightened of being on the wrong side of an issue, they refuse to take any positions whatsoever.

Mike V. said...

this non-checks and balances has been a dangerous path and I don't think we have seen the worst of it.

Ricardo said...

None of this will work. This is all New American Century nonsense that was made up by people who are way out of touch with reality. These American agents he speaks of do not speak for the entire people of Israel but a small few maybe. Again, I'd rather have real peace then then artificial stuff. This won't work.

Mike V. said...

If people read and understood everything that is on the PNAC webpage, I think they would be shocked.

Ricardo said...

It's frightening. It's like an evil plot out of a Bond film.

Joy said...

Did Israel try a diplomatic solution to the abducted soldiers before bombing Beirut?

It is getting too easy to initiate war..

Tom Harper said...

Yup, this is frightening. This is what the neocons have been wetdreaming about for decades. To them, worldwide Armageddon equals -- the Rapture!

LA said...

Joy raises a good point; unfortunately, "diplomacy" doesn't seem to be a word in the vocabulary of war mongers.

I am truly frightened.

Fight The Good Fight! said...

All of you sound discontented with the current Administration...name me one thing that ex-president Clinton did that was any good in the Mideast?

smirking chimp...its just his opinion.

"Israel's American agents, the neoconservatives, have made it clear for years that their goal is to eliminate every Middle Eastern government that is not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel."

It is NOT the goal of the United States to eliminate current Mideast Governments.
One example:
We supported Suadia Arabias desire for protection against the Dictatorial Leadership of Saddam who be all intentions indicatedthat he was ready to invade that country.

I can't believe you people listen an believe this baloney.

"engaging Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."

They ARE the principal agents of aggression!

Islamic Militants are out to do even you in!
Wake up!

Mike V. said...

do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem?

Christ, you even quoted it:

"their goal is to eliminate every Middle Eastern government that is not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel."

by pulling Saddam out and not stablizing the country, they pulled a huge thorn out of Syria and Iran's side.

I didn't vote for Clinton. Next question?

Fight The Good Fight! said...

Don't you even read your'e own blog(?)...

"BTW, if Bush was smart (which he's not) he would call up a couple ex-presidents to work on this shit between Israel and their friends in Lebanon and elsewhere"

This is why I asked the question.(!)
...'name me one thing that ex-president Clinton did that was any good in the Mideast?'
Your statement still gives the impression that the U.S. wants to "eliminate every Middle Eastern government..."

..."that is not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel."

Do you know what this implies (?)
It is the same accusation!

Mike V. said...

Clinton kept Saddam in check and the region stable.

He spent real money and used real resources to go after terrorists rather than a trillion dollars looking for WMD in the sand. Or rather oil in the sand.

PNAC spelled it out on their web page and everything they wanted to do has come to light.

Eisenhower.

Military Industrial Complex.

Google is your friend.

Fight The Good Fight! said...

"Clinton kept Saddam in check and the region stable."

"He spent real money and used real resources to go after terrorists"...

Clinton went after terrorists? When did he do this? What terrorists?
What resources?

I as I remember he only shot a cruise missle into an Afghan training camp.
what did that accomplish?

Clinton did not help to inact the U.N. resolutions to keep Saddam in check, President Bush Sr. did!!

Why should I do your research, prove it to me!

Mike V. said...

When one calls the other person a liar, one has to do his own research.

Your perception of the world is.. skewed.

Are you medicated?

Mike V. said...

Here you go, one quick google search.

Oh, BTW, pay special attention to this paragraph, you nutcase:

http://www.twf.org/News/Y1999/0118-RobPoor.html



""Here we go again," says Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, USN (Ret.), Deputy Director, Center for Defense Information. "The U.S. already spends substantially more for military forces than any other nation, with no significant threats to our national security. We're engaged in an arms race with ourselves."

Mike V. said...

Here's some more:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/23/terrorism/

Oh, here's a good one. "Defense experts" also quoted as saying Clinton was crazy for spending on terrorists:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/09/phantom.html

"News: Could terrorists attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction? Highly unlikely, say defense experts. So why is the Clinton administration spending billions to foil a most improbable threat?"

Oh, and here's some copy from Bloomberg:

http://www.landfield.com/isn/mail-archive/1999/Jan/0074.html

Do I need to go on?

Medicate. That's what you need to do.

Fight The Good Fight! said...

Back to name calling again.
Just what I expect from people like you.
Arm chair Generals...

'Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, USN (Ret.), Deputy Director, Center for Defense Information. "The U.S. already spends substantially more for military forces than any other nation, with no significant threats to our national security. We're engaged in an arms race with ourselves."

What a dumb thing to say.

Desperate to fend off the Republican led impeachment process, President Clinton has agreed to an $124 billion...

Yeah read it...desperate to fend off an impeachment process? THIS IS WHY HE INCREASED SPENDING!?

'But this immensely popular Democratic president, crippled by his private behavior, caved in to the Pentagon. Mr. Clinton squandered, what may have been his last chance, to leave a positive mark on history.'

Listen to the comments...sounds like Clinton was corhersed! He couldn't make up his own decisions!

"A privately launched spy satellite has revealed what American Intelligence has kept secret for years -- that North Korea's only operational missile test centre is a PRIMITIVE facility consisting of a 'shed, a dirt road, a launch pad and a rice paddy.' Missile experts in the United States dismissed Washington's fears that the rogue nation now posed a serious threat to America's security." -- Michael Evans, "Spy Pictures Show Korea's Empty Threat," Times, January 12, 2000]

WOW HOW THE TIMES HAVE CHANGED sir!
N.Korea just launched missles from a shed recently, can you honestly say they are NOT a threat today!?
Absurd!

Clinton did that right thing to increase spending, what he didn't do enough was to deter the terrorists, so he left that to the current Bush Admnin.

Mike V. said...

read the other links, then go to bed.

you have a problem.

Fight The Good Fight! said...

And that is just one link you sent me...
You need to bring it on to the real world today.
ttp://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/09/phantom.html

Indeed, some critics charge that cases of foreign terrorists striking within the United States are so rare that the FBI has been slow to publish its annual report, Terrorism in the United States.

I won't even comment on that!
SO rare??
Remember 9/11??

GAO reports, the antiterrorism drive is "taking place in the absence of sound threat and risk assessment." Without a reasoned evaluation of the likelihood of large-scale terrorist attacks,...

'With no clearly defined government strategy and no identifiable enemy...

I am glad the BUSH ADMIN did actually do something about it!
Bring it up to the present world man! NOW! Currently!
Can't you see?
9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING!

Fight The Good Fight! said...

Dude you have the problem! That's what your blog is all about!

Keep up with the times man!

Fight The Good Fight! said...

The Times (London) January 12, 2000, Wednesday
Spy pictures show Korea's empty threat
However, senior Western military sources said that, although the Nodong site might be primitive, North Korea still had the technology to launch ballistic missiles. "They can still go bang," one source said.

This is the exact source where you got it from...the London Times, the year 2000.

N. Korea is the worlds leader in missle sales today.

'They [the North Koreans] are the No. 1 proliferators of missiles, and also of conventional weapons," Gen. Thomas A. Schwartz, former commander of the United Nations and the US forces in South Korea, told the US Senate Armed Services Committee last year. "

North Korea's Missile Trade Helps Fund Its Nuclear Program
Bertil Lintner
YaleGlobal, 5 May 2003

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1546

Mike V. said...

you seem to have a problem reading english.

clinton was spending money and resourses THEN even though other people thought it was a bad idea.

Bottom line, terrorism has gotten worse under Bush. Everywhere.

as for N. Korea, what exactly is Bush doing about that?
nothing.
what is he doing about what's going on with israel/hamas/palestine? nothing.

Mike V. said...

one more thing.
here's Bush: "Democracy, democracy, democracy!"

ok, Hamas was elected democratically and Bush rejects them rather than trying to work with the democratically elected people.

Fight The Good Fight! said...

'as for N. Korea, what exactly is Bush doing about that?
nothing.'

According to the links that you supllied me with, N. Korea is not a threat.

Ever heard of the six nation talks?
Don't you realize that N.Korea is the most isolated Nation in the world?
Why?

Alll you do is counter react, you do not have any 'real' strategy on anything!

Fight The Good Fight! said...

'A terrible thing is happening, and not enough Americans are aware to be able to do anything about it. Zionists in Israel and in the Bush administration are leading America into war with Iran, Syria, Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. The consequences for America, Israel and the Middle East will be disastrous, but as long as Washington is in thrall to Zionist paranoia, nothing can be done about it. Bush made this clear on July 14 when he rejected the plea from Lebanon's prime minister to pressure Israel to stop its attack on Lebanon.

'The war began when Bush's neoconservative government invaded Afghanistan and Iraq under the pretense of "fighting terrorism."

You are soooo mistaken and deceived!

THE WAR BEGAN WE, THE U.S. WAS ATTACKED UNPROVOKED BY ISLAMIC TERRORIST!

"Neither front has gone well for America.

CLEARLY MISGUIDED! Afghanistan is a FREE Nation because of US!
The Afghan peole are more free that the opressive Government of the Taliban.

Read ALL the news about Iraq!

http://defendamerica.mil/

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/


'the growing domestic opposition to Bush's wars of choice, concluded that they are in danger of losing America's military intervention in behalf of their Middle East interests.'

What a bunch or propaganda bullshit!
That doesn't even make sense!

Mike V. said...

first of all, I didn't write that, Dr. Paul Roberts wrote that.
And as I also quoted in the post, Dr. Roberts is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury (under Ronald Reagan).
Not exactly some kind of left wing liberal, and certainly more versed in foreign policy than you.

You can choose to listen to government propaganda straight from the Bush administration, or you can look elsewhere for the truth.

Why don't you go and swiftboat General Odom?