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.

17 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.

Unknown 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.

Unknown said...

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

Anonymous 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.

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?

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.

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.

Mike V. said...

read the other links, then go to bed.

you have a problem.

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.

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?