|
FOCUS | When Henry Kissinger Makes Sense |
 |
|
Thursday, 13 November 2014 11:05 |
|
Parry writes: "Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger disputes the mainstream U.S. media's view of the Ukraine crisis, noting that Russia's response was reactive to the West's actions."
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. (photo: AP)
When Henry Kissinger Makes Sense
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
13 November 14
 he American public is faced with an information crisis as the New York Times and other mainstream U.S. media outlets have become little more than propaganda organs on behalf of the neoconservative agenda and particularly the rush into a new Cold War with Russia – so much so that even ex-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has broken ranks.
MSM articles consistently reek of bias – and in some cases make little sense. For instance, Times correspondent David M. Herszenhorn, one of the leading propagandists, wrote an alarmist story on Wednesday about a new Russian “invasion” of Ukraine but curiously he had the alleged Russian tank column heading east toward the Ukrainian city of Donetsk which would be back toward Russia, not westward into Ukraine.
According to Herszenhorn’s article, “The full scope of the Russian incursion is not clear, [NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Philip M. Breedlove] said, though the convoys seemed to be heading east toward Donetsk, an O.S.C.E. spokesman, Michael Bociurkiw, said Wednesday.”
Typical of his anti-Russian bias, Herszenhorn also cited Ukrainian government complaints that the Russians had been using a shaky cease-fire to bolster the ethnic Russian rebels in the east, but the reality is that both sides have been accusing the other of such maneuvering. Herszenhorn surely knows this but he wrote only:
“Ukrainian officials have complained all along that Russia was taking advantage of the so-called truce to reinforce the rebels in eastern Ukraine with more fighters and equipment.”
The reality is that there has been widespread alarm among eastern Ukrainians that the Kiev regime was using the relative lull in the fighting to resupply and reposition its forces for a new offensive like the one that killed thousands over the summer. Though human rights organizations have criticized Kiev for indiscriminate shelling of cities and unleashing brutal militia forces on the population, the Times and other mainstream U.S. newspapers have either ignored or downplayed such facts.
On Wednesday, Herszenhorn also compared the alleged new Russian incursion with the “invasion” of Crimea, although there really was no “invasion” of Crimea since the Russian troops that were involved in supporting Crimea’s popular referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia were already in Crimea under an agreement with the Ukrainian government regarding the Russian naval base at Sebastopol.
Herszenhorn’s use of the word “invasion” is just an exaggeration like the rest of the imbalanced reporting that has made a rational U.S. public response to the crisis in Ukraine nearly impossible.
Since the start of the crisis in February, the New York Times’ coverage has been remarkable in its refusal to present the Ukraine story in anything like an objective fashion. For example, the Times has largely ignored the substantial public evidence that U.S. government officials and agents helped orchestrate the Feb. 22 coup which overthrew the elected President Viktor Yanukovych. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Whys Behind the Ukraine Crisis.”]
The Times also has buried evidence that extreme right-wing and neo-Nazi elements played key roles in firebombing police, forcing Yanukovych and other government officials to flee for their lives, and spearheading later attacks on ethnic Russians. When this reality is referenced, it is usually presented with little meaningful context or tacked on in the last few paragraphs of long articles on other topics.
Mocking Medvedev
Herszenhorn himself has been a leading violator of journalistic standards. For instance, in mid-April, early on in the crisis, he penned a mocking story from Moscow ridiculing Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev for predicting a possible civil war.
In the article entitled “Russia Is Quick To Bend Truth About Ukraine,” Herszenhorn accused Medvedev of posting an item on Facebook that “was bleak and full of dread,” including noting that “blood has been spilled in Ukraine again” and adding that “the threat of civil war looms.”
Herszenhorn continued, “He [Medvedev] pleaded with Ukrainians to decide their own future ‘without usurpers, nationalists and bandits, without tanks or armored vehicles – and without secret visits by the C.I.A. director.’ And so began another day of bluster and hyperbole, of the misinformation, exaggerations, conspiracy theories, overheated rhetoric and, occasionally, outright lies about the political crisis in Ukraine that have emanated from the highest echelons of the Kremlin and reverberated on state-controlled Russian television, hour after hour, day after day, week after week.”
This argumentative “news” story spilled from the front page to the top half of an inside page, but Herszenhorn never managed to mention that there was nothing false in what Medvedev wrote. Indeed, as the bloodshed soon grew worse and escalated into a civil war, you might say Medvedev was tragically prescient.
It was also the much-maligned Russian press that first reported the secret visit of CIA Director John Brennan to Kiev. Though the White House later confirmed that report, Herszenhorn still cited Medvedev’s reference to it in the context of “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories.” Nowhere in the long article did the Times inform its readers that, yes, the CIA director did make a secret visit to Ukraine.
In this upside-down world of MSM disinformation, there has been very little criticism of the glaring biases of the mainstream Western media but instead continued attacks on the professionalism of the Russian media, including an adverse finding this week by an official British agency that monitors alleged bias in news outlets operating in the UK. The agency, known as Ofcom, accused Russia’s RT network of failing to meet standards for “due impartiality” in early Ukraine coverage.
Interestingly, Ofcom did not judge any of the RT reports false in their description of neo-Nazi thugs participating in the Feb. 22 coup, a possible role of coup-related snipers in the slaughter of scores of people at the Maidan, and the unconstitutionality of the new government.
But Ofcom faulted RT for not meeting the fuzzy concept of “due impartiality” and threatened regulatory sanctions against RT if it didn’t shape up. Ofcom defined “due impartiality” as “impartiality adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme.”
The image of a British regulatory body threatening RT with sanctions for not toeing the pro-Western propaganda line that nearly all UK and U.S. news outlets do has an Orwellian feel to it, singling out one of the few sources of news that doesn’t accept the prevailing “group think.”
It would be one thing if the same standards were applied to Western media outlets for their one-sided reporting on Ukraine, but that apparently would ruffle too many important feathers.
Kissinger’s Dissent
Curiously, one of the few prominent Westerners who has dared question the prevailing wisdom on Ukraine is former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who said, in an interview with the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, that the West was exaggerating the significance of the Crimean annexation given the peninsula’s long historic ties to Russia.
“The annexation of the Crimea was no bid for world domination,” the 91-year-old Kissinger said. “It is not to be compared with Hitler’s invasion in Czechoslovakia” – as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others have done.
Kissinger noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had no intention of instigating a crisis in Ukraine: “Putin had [spent] tens of billions of dollars for the Olympic Winter Games … in Sochi. Russia wanted to present [itself] as a progressive nation. … It does not make sense that Putin, a week later, [launches] the Crimea attacks and a war for Ukraine begins.”
Instead Kissinger argued that the West – with its strategy of pulling Ukraine into the orbit of the European Union – was responsible for the crisis by failing to understand Russian sensitivity over Ukraine and making the “fatal” mistake of quickly pushing the confrontation beyond dialogue.
But Kissinger also faulted Putin for his reaction to the crisis. “I do not want to say that Russia’s response was appropriate,” Kissinger said.
Still, Kissinger told Der Spiegel that “a new edition of the Cold War would be a tragedy. … We must keep in view, that we need Russia to solve other crises, such as the nuclear conflict with Iran or Syria’s civil war.”
When Henry Kissinger starts to sound like the voice of reason, it says a lot about how crazy the New York Times and the rest of the MSM have become.
 |
|
FOCUS | This Is How Bernie Sanders Will Run for President |
|
|
Thursday, 13 November 2014 09:30 |
|
Nelson writes: "The first time Tad Devine met Bernie Sanders, in 1996, the political consultant did what he does best: gave him advice for how to win."
Likely 2016 presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Sanders.gov)
This Is How Bernie Sanders Will Run for President
By Rebecca Nelson, National Journal
13 November 14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2LiaNlmhUs#t=76
The Vermont senator is going for the win, and a longtime friend and veteran media consultant is already strategizing his path to victory.
he first time Tad Devine met Bernie Sanders, in 1996, the political consultant did what he does best: gave him advice for how to win.
Then a House member from Vermont running for his fourth term, Sanders was skeptical of Washington political types, of which Devine was the epitome. An experienced Democratic media strategist, Devine had worked on the campaigns of Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis. He told Sanders, now Vermont's junior senator, that to keep his seat in the House, he needed to make sure that voters knew which side he was on.
"Remember, Bernie's an independent. I'm a Democrat," Devine told National Journal. "I asked Bernie, 'Listen, if it's tied between the Democrats and Republicans, are you gonna vote for Gingrich, or are you gonna vote for Gephardt for speaker?' And he was like, 'What, are you kidding? What, are you crazy?' He came back full Bernie on that."
Of course, Devine recalled, he'd vote for Missouri Democrat Dick Gephardt. Devine got a kick out of Sanders's direct, unequivocating style, he said, and the two hit it off.
Eighteen years later, Sanders has all but announced that a presidential run is in his future—and longtime friend Devine is on board. A few months ago, the senator broached the possibility with the veteran media consultant, who, since advising Sanders's 1996 House campaign, has worked on both Al Gore's and John Kerry's bids for the White House. Ever since, the two have been talking about the prospect. "I think we have a meeting scheduled sometime next week," Devine said.
The self-proclaimed socialist is widely considered a long-shot for the Democratic nomination—though he's an independent, he has implied he wouldn't run as a third-party candidate so as not to play spoiler—let alone for the Oval Office. A Sanders campaign would surely move the national conversation to the left, ensuring that the progressive issues he's championed for decades—such as wealth inequality, the outsize role of special interests in politics, and campaign finance reform—get airtime, and push Hillary Clinton, the Democratic heir apparent, to address them. Beyond that, it's assumed, he wouldn't gain real traction. For Devine, though, success is absolute.
"My view of campaigns is, you get in them to win," he said. Extensive research, sustained voter contact, and technology for mobilization are key elements of that. "You bring all those things together, not to make a statement, but to make a difference in people's lives. And the way you do that is not just seeking political office, but winning political office."
The GOP's midterm romp proves just how ready the country is for a politician like Sanders, Devine said. Republicans didn't win because voters want to embrace their policies; people were voting for a different direction—and voting against President Obama.
Likely Republican presidential contenders, such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, have tried their hardest to tie Clinton, their assumed opponent, to Obama, whom many voters disdain. This, too, seems to be an emerging strategy for Sanders's impending campaign.
"If a better alternative was offered," he said, "an alternative that put people ahead of powerful interests, that made it clear who's side of the fight you were on, that laid out a set of policies that could work in the real world, in favor of people, I think a lot of those people who voted for Republicans would make a different choice."
Devine also repeatedly stressed the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire, the two key early-primary states. Sanders, a longtime proponent of campaign finance reform, would have a head start in those states because of the massive outside spending in the midterms there.
"People in Iowa and New Hampshire have just gone through this experience, have seen it up close in their Senate races," Devine told National Journal. "So this isn't gonna be some theory about how money affects politics. It's very practical and very immediate for people in those states. And I think Bernie is really going to frame his message by talking about those things.
"Like a lot of issues he's been talking about for a long time, they're catching up with him," he added. "He's been talking about them for years, and now they're coming into focus for people in a much more meaningful way."
Still, a big hurdle for a Sanders campaign would be the senator's hard-left political views. Devine admits that while Sanders is beloved in Vermont, he would face some struggle transitioning to a national stage. Devine is confident, however, that Sanders could gain not only name recognition, but also credibility as a serious contender.
"The way you get over that skepticism and not be considered a fringe candidate," Devine said, "is by putting together the resources that you need to communicate a message, putting together a campaign mechanism that people can look at and can see that there is the capacity to run a serious campaign on the ground in the early states, through mass media, and through the new tools of politics which President Obama has succeeded so well with in two presidential campaigns."
Devine said Sanders, a gruff man who, at 73, says what he means and could easily be described as crotchety if he didn't talk so lovingly about his grandkids, is "easily misunderstood." When people have the chance to really get to know Sanders, and spend time with him, "you realize why people like him," he said. "He's direct with them, he connects with them, he very much provides a voice for people who don't have a lot of voice in Washington."
Though unofficial 2016 campaigning has already started for many contenders—including Sanders, who has paid visits to early-primary states—voters across the country won't have years to personally get to know the senator. That's why Devine would hammer the early primary states—Iowa and New Hampshire, in particular—with "hundreds of tow-hall meetings, a format that he will be extremely comfortable in."
That, most of all, would be the key to Sanders's success on a national stage: voters getting to know who the senator really is. Unlike Devine, though, they won't have 18 years to do it.
|
|
|
Ted Cruz Wants to Shut Down the Internet Just Like He Shut Down the Government |
|
|
Wednesday, 12 November 2014 13:39 |
|
Seay writes: "If Obama is for it, then Cruz must be against it. It's a predictable political move for an aspiring presidential candidate from the Tea Party. It also demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how the Internet works."
Ted Cruz. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
Ted Cruz Wants to Shut Down the Internet Just Like He Shut Down the Government
By Bob Seay, Reader Supported News
12 November 14
 t was not by coincidence that Texas Senator Ted Cruz came out against Net Neutrality almost immediately after President Obama made public comments in support of an open Internet. If Obama is for it, then Cruz must be against it. It's a predictable political move for an aspiring presidential candidate from the Tea Party. It also demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how the Internet works. Fortunately for Ted Cruz, The Oatmeal does a great job of explaining it.
Nor is it coincidental that Cruz compared Net Neutrality to Obamacare. "Obamacare" is the strongest pejorative in the admittedly limited Tea Party vocabulary. Once again, Cruz's dog whistle language was carefully chosen to incite low-information voters to act against their own economic interests and personal freedoms. Never mind that the end of Net Neutrality will result in higher Internet rates, restrictions on Internet content, potential First Amendment violations, and limited access to markets for struggling small businesses and Internet startups. The only time Right-wing Republicans feel more patriotic than when they are giving money to giant corporations in exchange for substandard services is when they are denying some type of service or basic human right to people who live in poverty. In the mind of Ted Cruz, the same Tea Partiers who rejected Obamacare must now reject Net Neutrality.
If Cruz wants to compare Net Neutrality to the Affordable Care Act, then he should go all the way and point out that his home state's rejection of Obamacare has resulted in the loss of billions of health care dollars for Texas and left Texas with more uninsured people than any other state. The rejection of Net Neutrality would have a similar effect on the quality of the Internet, except it would not be limited to Texas.
Cruz may also have been motivated by his obligations to campaign donors. Federal Election Commission records show that Cruz received donations of $5000 from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, $5000 from Time Warner Cable, $1000 from Verizon, $1000 from Viacom, and thousands of dollars from other donors in the cable industry. These reported donations do not include so-called "dark money" contributions from donors that are protected by the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizen's United from having to disclose their political donations. The proposed two-tiered Internet would mean the end of Net Neutrality and would give preferential treatment to large corporations while relegating small companies and startups to an Internet slow lane, killing the web presence of small businesses. As Republicans are fond of pointing out, small businesses are the real job creators in the United States. By killing Net Neutrality, Ted Cruz is essentially killing small businesses and job creators that are too small to pony up a minimum contribution of $1000. A statesman would put the needs of his constituents ahead of the demands of his corporate donors. Ted Cruz is no statesman.
Ted Cruz is trying to convince people that Net Neutrality is Obama's latest attempt at a government takeover of private industry. In reality -- a word that is not often connected to Ted Cruz -- Net Neutrality is the original state of the Internet, the Internet as it was intended to be and as it has been since its inception. It has allowed the Internet and Internet-based businesses to flourish. Without Net Neutrality, it is unlikely that there would be a YouTube, Facebook, or Amazon. Ted Cruz wants to kill the next generation of Internet entrepreneurs.
Unfortunately, while Cruz is not a statesman, he is a member of the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. As such, he is in a position to shut down the Internet as we know it. Let your Senators and Representatives know that Net Neutrality is important, even if your Senator is Ted Cruz and one of his friends. This is not just about the Internet. This is about giving all Americans equal access to the same opportunities, the same information, and the level of same services. It's about Democracy, Free Enterprise, Innovation, and Free Speech -- things that Republicans at one time stood for, before they simply stood for being against the president.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
The Neocon Plan for War and More War |
|
|
Wednesday, 12 November 2014 13:35 |
|
Parry writes: "Buoyed by the Republican electoral victories, America's neocons hope to collect their share of the winnings by pushing President Barack Obama into escalating conflicts around the world, from a new Cold War with Russia to hot wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and maybe Iran."
Influential neocon theorist Max Boot. (photo: greatdecisionsonpbs.com)
The Neocon Plan for War and More War
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
12 November 14
 uoyed by the Republican electoral victories, America’s neocons hope to collect their share of the winnings by pushing President Barack Obama into escalating conflicts around the world, from a new Cold War with Russia to hot wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and maybe Iran.
The new menu of neocon delights was listed by influential neocon theorist Max Boot in a blog post for Commentary magazine, an important outlet for neocon thinking. Boot argued that the Republicans – and thus the neocons – have earned a mandate on national security policy from the electoral repudiation of Obama’s Democratic Party.
“I am convinced [national security policy] was as important a factor in this election as it was in the 2006 midterm when, in the midst of Iraq War debacles, the Republicans lost control of the Senate,” wrote Boot, who then blamed Obama for pretty much everything that has gone wrong:
“The president did himself incalculable damage when he set a ‘red line’ for Syria last year but failed to enforce it. That created an image of weakness and indecision which has only gotten worse with the rise of ISIS and Putin’s expansionism in Ukraine.”
Boot’s recounting of that history is, of course, wrongheaded in several ways. It may have been foolish for Obama to set a “red line” against chemical weapons use in Syria, but there is growing evidence that the Syrian government was not behind the lethal sarin attack of Aug. 21, 2013, and that it was instead a provocation by rebel extremists. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case.”]
Further, Putin’s approach to the Ukraine crisis in February 2014 was reactive, not provocative or expansionistic. It was the European Union and the United States (led by neocons such as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and Sen. John McCain) that set out to overturn the Ukrainian status quo.
Neocon support for political disturbances in Kiev, including Nuland plotting how to “glue this thing,” contributed to the putsch that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych and touched off a bloody civil war. Putin was supporting the status quo, i.e., maintaining the elected government, not instigating its overthrow. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Powerful Group Think on Ukraine” and “Treating Putin Like a Lunatic.”]
And, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria arose not from Obama’s timidity but from the neocon-inspired invasion of Iraq last decade. ISIS emerged from the hyper-violent Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which didn’t exist until President George W. Bush followed neocon advice to invade and occupy Iraq. The terrorist group, rebranding itself as the Islamic State, moved on to Syria where the neocons were seeking another “regime change” in the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Neocons Revive Syrian ‘Regime Change’ Plan.”]
If Obama had bombed the Syrian military in summer 2013, as Boot and other neocons wanted, not only might Obama have been attacking the wrong people for the sarin attack, he might well have precipitated the collapse of the Syrian government and a victory for either ISIS or al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, the only two effective fighting forces among the anti-government rebels. There would have been a good chance that jihadist banners would be flying over Damascus, creating a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East.
In other words, Boot is working not only from a false narrative but a dangerous fantasy. Nevertheless, it is a narrative that is widely accepted inside Official Washington where one of the favorite sayings is “perception is reality.” So, although Boot’s perception is factually unhinged, it is regarded as “reality” by many “smart people” in the world’s most powerful capital.
Dangerous Prescription
After laying out his false diagnosis – that Obama’s supposed failure to destroy the Syrian military in 2013 led to the crises of Ukraine and ISIS in 2014 – Boot then prescribes what needs to be done.
First, he wants the Republican-controlled Congress to pour more money into the U.S. military or, as he puts it, “Save the defense budget from the mindless cuts of sequestration, which are already hurting readiness and, if left unabated, risk another ‘hollow’ military.”
Second, launch a full-scale economic war against Russia while dispatching the U.S. military to defend the Ukrainian regime now in control of Kiev and to other nations on Russia’s borders. Or, as Boot says: “Impose tougher sanctions on Russia, freezing Russian companies entirely out of dollar-denominated transactions, while sending arms and trainers to Kiev and putting at least a Brigade Combat Team into each of the Baltic republics and Poland to signal that no more aggression from Putin will be tolerated.”
Third, keep the U.S. military fighting in Afghanistan indefinitely. Or, as Boot says, “Repeal the 2016 deadline for pulling troops out of Afghanistan and announce that any drawdown will be conditions based.”
Fourth, recommit a larger U.S. military force to aid the Iraqi military and to invade Syria. Or, as Boot says, “Increase the tempo of airstrikes against ISIS, and send a lot more troops to Iraq and Syria to work with indigenous groups – we need at least 15,000 personnel, not the 1,400 sent so far.” [Emphasis added to point out that sending U.S. troops into Syria would amount to an invasion.]
Though the Syrian government has tolerated U.S. airstrikes against ISIS, the idea of sending U.S. soldiers into Syria would be a game-changer and underscores how casually neocons call for committing the U.S. military to war and how disdainful they are of international law. If Boot’s intentions on Syria aren’t already obvious, he further recommends “launching airstrikes on Iran’s proxy, [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad.”
Despite the breathtaking quality of this recommendation, Boot tries to tamp down any alarm by adding: “This isn’t a call for U.S. ground combat troops, but we do need a lot more trainers, Special Operators, and support personnel, and they need to be free to work with forces in the field rather than being limited to working with brigade and division staffs in large bases far from the front lines.”
Apparently Boot foresees a Libya-style operation in which the U.S. military and its allies destroy a government’s armed forces from the air while rebels on the ground ultimately take power. In 2011, the Libya strategy led to the ouster and murder of Muammar Gaddafi followed by the country collapsing into violence and chaos, including the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi and the decision by Western governments to abandon their embassies in Tripoli.
In Syria, such a scenario would likely lead to a victory by Islamic extremists, but it would fit with the Israeli strategy of favoring the ouster of Assad, an Iranian ally, even if the conflict ended with al-Qaeda-related radicals in power.
Boot’s recommendations match closely the strategic interests expressed by Israel’s Likud leadership. As the Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post in September 2013, “The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. …
“We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” Oren added that this was the case even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.
Bomb, Bomb Iran
And, if instigating a new Cold War with Russia and expanding wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria aren’t enough for you, Boot also advocates what would amount to a military ultimatum to Iran, saying:. “Make clear that any deal with Iran will require the dismantlement of its nuclear facilities – not just a freeze that will leave it just short of nuclear weapons status.”
And what if Iran refuses to dismantle its nuclear facilities or throws out international inspectors? Then, presumably Obama would have to enforce this new “red line” with yet another war, this one against Iran, just as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and neocons have long favored. Remember Sen. McCain breaking into a Beach Boy tune to extol the idea to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”
Boot makes it clear that what is important for Obama is to realign U.S. foreign policy with the desires of Israel and the Sunni states against Shiite-ruled Iran. He says: “End the rapprochement with Iran that has scared our closest allies in the Middle East, and make clear that the U.S. will continue its traditional, post-1979 role of containing Iranian power and siding with the likes of Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE over Tehran.”
In case you’re wondering, Boot is not just some lonely neocon voice in the wilderness. He is a senior fellow at the powerful Council on Foreign Relations and a close associate of the Kagan family of neocon royalty, which includes Robert Kagan’s wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.
Boot is also a friend of retired four-star General and former CIA Director David Petraeus. It was Boot who was moderating a speech by Petraeus on Oct. 30 at New York’s 92nd Street Y when former CIA analyst Ray McGovern was denied entrance and arrested. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Petraeus Spared Ray McGovern’s Question.”]
So, the neocon thinking is now out in the open. Boot has explained how the neocons view the national security implications of the Republican electoral victory and how Obama should bend to this supposed mandate. But Boot also has left little doubt what will follow if Obama does submit to the neocon agenda – a future of endless warfare across the Middle East and even nuclear brinksmanship with Russia.
There has long been a madness to neocon thinking, matching what the most extreme elements of the Israeli government seem determine to create, a roiling chaos across the Middle East amid fantasies of “regime change” somehow producing Arab leaders compliant with Israeli interests.
Yet, to carry out these schemes, which far exceed the capabilities of even Israel’s highly capable military, the American neocons and Israeli hardliners need the U.S. taxpayers’ money to pay for the wars as well as young American soldiers coming from small towns and large cities across the United States to be dispatched halfway around the world to kill and die.
As President Obama heads into the final quarter of his presidency, he must decide whether he will be led down that bloody path or finally stand up to the neocons (and their allies in Congress and within his own administration) and seek reasonable accommodations for peace with the countries on Max Boot’s hit list.
|
|
resident Barack Obama on Monday called on the Federal Communications Commission
