Manifesto or Requiem? - Awesome article

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby FourthBase » Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:54 pm

Yeah, I doubt people like Kissinger give a rat's ass about religion.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:15 pm

Yup. I also doubt he gives a rat's ass about his nominal ethnicity and cultural background, or the ideas of Zionism in themselves, or anyone or anything other than the personal power, influence, wealth and narcissistic perks of being Henry Kissinger, Greatest Servant to Power in All History.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlicetheKurious » Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:33 am

Jack Riddler, your post is an excellent articulation of the latest version of zionist apologia being peddled, particularly in Leftist circles.

It's true that Kissinger's evil is beyond the capacity of most people to even begin to comprehend. Beginning with his work as German translator for the U.S. army as they recruited Nazi scientists after WWII to continue their revolting work under the supervision of the CIA, through his involvement in genocide and the slaughter of millions of innocent people from Africa to Asia to Latin America, engineering the debt enslavement of entire nations, his implication in global networks of pedophilia and human trafficking, his crucial role in the rise of the Russian-Israeli global Mafia networks, and the central part he played in the destruction and pillage of Iraq, his career is truly breathtaking in both scope and depth, in terms of human suffering.

Kissinger is no Typhoid Mary, obliviously leaving death and devastation in the wake of his footsteps: there is a method to his madness, and very specific goals, which happen to coincide with and benefit, those of the zionist state and its agents.

To focus on his work 'on behalf' of American imperial interests without acknowledging accompanying rise of Israel as a regional hegemonic superpower, and the deliberate crushing of Israel's opponents, is to promote a dangerously blinded version of reality.

To say that Kissinger is a Servant to Power, like the so-called "War on Terror", is one of the latest deliberate misdirections being promoted by zionists, to deflect attention into a vague opposition to "Power" and away from the many documented, specific ways that Kissinger consistently served the state of Israel, including the times when its interests conflicted with those of the U.S.

Kissinger's career at the highest levels of American decision-making power has allowed him to function as a stealth zionist, purportedly working for American interests while in reality pursuing exclusively Israeli/zionist goals. One among many, many examples of how Kissinger has worked as a high-level mole for Israel, is his role in facilitating Israel's acquisition of the nuclear bomb, and neutralizing the strong U.S. opposition that had been official U.S. policy since at least the time of John F. Kennedy:

Kissinger noted that the president had emphasized to Meir that "our primary concern was that the Israeli [government] make no visible introduction of nuclear weapons or undertake a nuclear test program." Thus, Israel would be committed to conducting its nuclear affairs cautiously and secretly; their status would remain uncertain and unannounced.

On Feb. 23, 1970, Rabin told Kissinger privately that he wanted the president to know that, in light of the Meir-Nixon conversation, "Israel has no intention to sign the NPT." Rabin, Kissinger wrote, "wanted also to make sure there was no misapprehension at the White House about Israel's current intentions."

Kissinger informed Nixon that he told Rabin that he would notify the president. And with that, the decade-long U.S. effort to curb Israel's nuclear program ended. That enterprise was replaced by understandings negotiated at the highest level, between the respective heads of state, that have governed Israel's nuclear conduct ever since.

That so little is known today about the tale of NSSM 40 is not surprising. Dealing with Israel's nuclear ambitions was thornier for the Nixon administration than for its predecessors because it was forced to deal with the problem at the critical time when Israel appeared to be crossing the nuclear threshold.

Yet, even as Nixon and Kissinger enabled Israel to flout the NPT, NSSM 40 allowed them to create a defensible record. As was his typical modus operandi, Kissinger used NSSM 40 to maintain control over key officials who wanted to take action on the problem.

Politically, the Nixon-Meir agreement allowed both leaders to continue with their old public policies without being forced to openly acknowledge the new reality. As long as Israel kept the bomb invisible -- no test, declaration, or any other act displaying nuclear capability -- the United States could live with it.

Over time, the tentative Nixon-Meir understanding [engineered entirely by Kissinger - Alice] became the foundation for a remarkable U.S.-Israeli deal, accompanied by a tacit but strict code of behavior to which both nations closely adhered. Even during its darkest hours in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel was cautious not to make any public display of its nuclear capability.

Yet set against contemporary values of transparency and accountability, the Nixon-Meir deal of 1969 now stands as a striking and burdensome anomaly. Israel's nuclear posture is inconsistent with the tenets of a modern liberal democracy. The deal is also burdensome for the United States, provoking claims about double standards in U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy.


Link


Kissinger was also instrumental in engineering the rise of the Saudi regime as a bulwark against socialist/nationalist movements throughout the Middle East. Through a deal he brokered with the Saudis, in which the Saudi regime was kept in power by the might of the U.S., the Saudis would raise the price of oil, simultaneously enriching Kissinger and his oil industry cronies, and paying for drilling and exploration in places like Mexico and the Caspian Basin, while accelerating the depletion of Middle Eastern oil wells.

It was Kissinger who devised the 'petrodollar recycling' scheme, by which the massive influx of petro-dollars in the mid-1970s into Rothschild/Rockefeller-controlled investments led directly to the establishment of the IMF and World Bank, which provided crippling loans to Third World countries, partly to help them offset the massive increase in energy costs. Thus the Non-Aligned Movement of Third World states, a powerful block that, among other things, opposed Israeli apartheid and expansionism, was destroyed and subsequently brought into line with zionist interests.

Furthermore, those petro-dollars not wasted on exorbitant (and useless) arms purchases from Kissinger's cronies in the arms industry, and not used to spread corruption and Wahhabist ideology to counter nationalist secularism and anti-imperialism across the Arab world, were funneled into the creation of "al Qaeda", which has been very useful in illustrating Kissinger's longstanding mantra that "Islamofascism" represents the single greatest threat to the world, and in justifying the U.S.' involvement in aggressive wars that serve Israel's purposes far better than those of the U.S.

Kissinger was Anwar el Sadat's eminence grise since at least 1971; there is compelling evidence that the master strategist engineered the 1973 War, so that Israel could be shaken from its exultant sense of invincibility, and Egypt could be shaken from its implacable need to recover its pride, enough for them to negotiate the return of the Sinai in exchange for Egypt removing itself from the Arab camp.

This was followed immediately by the 1978 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the dramatic increase in Jewish settlement activity throughout the territories illegally occupied by Israel, while Egypt remained neutralized and isolated, and the Arab world fell apart.

The Camp David agreement marks the beginning of the catastrophic decline of Egypt as a nationalist/secular economic, military and political power in the region, and its replacement with a creeping American zionist/Israeli hegemony.

Earlier, Kissinger had engineered Syria's military involvement in Lebanon, and the subsequent disintegration of Lebanon into a civil war which in no way served American interests, but served those of Israel very well, paving the way for Israel's expansion into southern Lebanon:

1976 Elias Sarkis, a moderate Christian, was elected president in Lebanon succeeding President Franjiyah. In March, Lebanese Christian militia leader Major Saad Haddad formed his South Lebanese Army (SLA) which forged ties with Israel [and began to attack the Palestinians, prompting the formation of a Muslim/PLO alliance -- Alice].

In July, 1976, the Syrian army entered Lebanon and imposed a ceasefire. Syria got involved initially to protect Christians from defeat at the hands of the Muslims. President Asad of Syria had been duped by Henry Kissinger and the Israelis into believing that if he, Asad, did not enter the war to rein in the PLO and the Muslims, then Israel would have to go in and do the job itself, a prospect Asad found terrifying. Kissinger played skillfully on Asad's fears and succeeded in dividing the Arabs further to the benefit of Israel (Patrick Seale, Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East (Berkeley: U. Cal. Press, 1988), chps. 13-17).

In August of 1976, Lebanese Christian Phalangist forces, using Israeli arms and equipment still bearing Israeli insignias, massacred thousands of Palestinian refugees living in the Tel al-Zataar camp.

1977 In March, 1977, Druze forces in Lebanon overran Christian villages after the assassination of Druze leader Kamal Jumblat.

1978 In March, Israel attacked PLO positions in south Lebanon in retaliation for the killing of more than thirty bus passengers in a raid by PLO guerillas who had come ashore in boats near Tel Aviv. On March 15, 1978, Israel moved in as far as the Litani River and occupied a ten kilometer (six mile) wide corridor north of its border with Lebanon.

About 1,500 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians were killed in the operation. Some Israeli forces were withdrawn, but not before the area was handed over to Israeli allied Christian militiamen opposed to the Palestinians and to other Arab Muslim Lebanese. The Christian militiamen were commanded by Major Saad Haddad.

The United Nations issued Resolution 425 ordering Israel out of south Lebanon. Israel refused (and would stay there until the spring of 2000). The U.N. set up UNIFIL, a 5,000 man peacekeeping force which was designed to help restore Lebanese government control over its lands all the way to the Israeli border. Israel refused to allow it to reach the border. Meanwhile, Syrian-Christian fighting broke out in Beirut.

1981 On April 21, 1981 in south Lebanon, an Israeli soldier was killed by a land mine in the buffer zone. Israel retaliated with artillery shelling breaking the ceasefire, the same ceasefire the PLO had observed uninterrupted for eleven months. On May 9, Israel bombed and strafed villages along the Lebanese coast. The PLO fired100 rounds of artillery and rockets into northern Israel in retaliation.

In July, U.S. envoy, Philip Habib, arranged a ceasefire between Israel and the PLO.

1982 On April 21, 1982, in south Lebanon, an Israeli soldier was killed by a land mine in the buffer zone. Israel retaliated with artillery shelling breaking the ceasefire.

After the Hama uprising, President Hafez al-Asad produced proof (in the form of confiscated equipment and weapons) of American, Israeli, Jordanian, and Lebanese Christian armed support to the militants. Only Jordan would later acknowledge its role in this attempt to undermine Syria.

On May 9, 1982, Israel bombed and strafed villages along the coast of Lebanon. The PLO fired 100 rounds of artillery and rockets into northern Israel in retaliation. On June 3, 1982, Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov, was shot and seriously wounded by assailants suspected by some outside the Israeli government to be either Iraqi agents or members of the Abu Nidal organization (Patrick Seale argues in his 1992 book on Abu Nidal that Abu Nidal's group had been penetrated and, at least in part, turned by the Israeli Secret Service, Mossad, and that the shooting was orchestrated to give Israel an excuse to go into Lebanon).

The PLO denied involvement, a claim Israel rejected. In spite of the fact that the ceasefire between the PLO and the Israelis, organized by President Reagan's envoy, Philip Habib had been adhered to completely by the PLO, Israel used the shooting as the pretext on June 6 for a massive invasion of Lebanon ("Operation Peace for Galilee") by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Israel announced its intention to oust the PLO from Lebanon, and to create a 25 mile "sanitary cordon" to protect its northern settlements. By mid July, more than 100,000 IDF troops were in Lebanon and Beirut was under siege. In the south, the Israelis dug in.



Link


The Lebanese civil war was the first step in the well-documented, longstanding Israeli plan to fragment the Middle East into mutually hostile ethnic/sectarian mini-states (google "Oded Yinon" and, for an earlier version, check Moshe Sharret's diaries). Although the implementation of this plan has run into a few obstacles, such as the fierce Arab resistance ("terrorists" in the zionist lexicon), including Hizbullah and the Iraqi 'insurgents', the zionists are far from giving up. I suspect, based on Kissinger's latest statements, that Pakistan's disintegration has also been added to the zionist working agenda.

I'll stop here, because it's simply not possible to discuss Kissinger's role in promoting global zionist objectives in one post; really, you'd need a series of books to do it justice.

Not to mention that trying to summarize it makes a person sound like a paranoid conspiracy nut. His career, frankly, can only be looked at in fragments, because to try to see the whole thing at once endangers one's mental health.

Nevertheless, I will say this: Kissinger has been instrumental in the transformation of America into Amerika, and the blurring of all lines between the United States and Israel, in favor of zionist hegemonic objectives, and to the detriment of the United States.

Having gutted the U.S., he has set his sights on Russia and China since the early 1990s, which, in my opinion, does not bode well for either of those two countries, if Typhoid Mary's history is anything to go by. Of course, he's 84 years old now, but the structures he has set up during his bloody epic career will no doubt live after him.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:21 pm

Dear Alice,

Are all the passages in black your own? If so, you need to correct at least 3 grave historical errors and distortions:

1) The one who brokered the deal with the Saudi kingdom of military protection and support in exchange for a reliable oil market was named Franklin Roosevelt. This was sealed when he and King Saud met on an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean in February 1945. It's gone through many phases and remains about as solid as ever today.

2) The World Bank and the IMF were founded after the Bretton Woods conference of 1944, not in the 1970s! At the time, Kissinger was still a minor figure working on the Nazi ratlines (helping those well-known Semophiles).

3) After the U.S. was forced to end the Bretton Woods system of currency controls in 1971, reliance instead on the petrodollar system was the obvious only solution for solving the crisis and backing the dollar from the U.S. establishment perspective, which a smart ten-year old could have figured out. I have never before seen its genesis attributed to Kissinger alone, as opposed to the Nixon administration, or sheer necessity.

The US acceptance of Israeli nukes and a list of truly bad military actions by its Israeli ally don't make a case for Kissinger as "an agent of Zionism" above all, or as anything other than a "Machiavellian" motherfucker. If he's someone's agent, then following the money of his early career makes it plain he belongs to the Rockefellers. (I don't know if you're now going to come out and tell us they're secretly Jewish, but it won't be the first time I've heard that canard.)

You write, "his career is truly breathtaking in both scope and depth, in terms of human suffering." And you list a long rap sheet that in every way confirms a part of his broad-ranging crimes, in which support for Israel (within the context of an empire that supports Israel) plays one important role.

What is "American interest"? Therein lies one of your central misconceptions, in thinking there is such a thing. The American empire has never acted with the interests of the American people foremost, whether at home or in its dealings, interventions and choice of allies in the rest of the world.

Many interests try to influence the American empire on their own behalf, and the pro-Israeli has been the most successful of all; in the same way (if you'll allow the metaphor, since we're in Spring Training) that the Yankees are the most frequent champions in baseball but don't own all of the other teams. The KLA (UCK) completed a hell of a championship run just last week. Damn those Greater Albanian Zionists!

Finally, much about the one-sided way you argue and your choice of signature line suggest your worldview is colored by fundamentalist religion of the vengeful Sky God, messianic-medieval variety. Please disabuse me of that notion if not so. Your particular Sky God may have created the Jews to do the devil's work in all the world, but guess what? They have one just like Him who's always on their side. Hey, that's "scripture" too.

So I don't think, unless you can find it in yourself to at least correct your egregious factual errors and maybe read some history besides the "Protocols," that we'll be having too much further discourse on this board. Live & learn.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlicetheKurious » Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:11 pm

Yes, Jack, the passages in black are my own. As for the "grave historical errors and distortions":

1) The one who brokered the deal with the Saudi kingdom of military protection and support in exchange for a reliable oil market was named Franklin Roosevelt. This was sealed when he and King Saud met on an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean in February 1945. It's gone through many phases and remains about as solid as ever today.


We're talking about two separate deals. In the deal you're talking about, the one made in 1945, American oil companies, in partnership with the Saudis, acquired the exclusive right to conduct exploration and extraction in Saudi oil fields. And yes, they chose to deal in US dollars, which at the time were backed by gold, and therefore were worth something, but there was no commitment to deal exclusively in dollars.

The deal I referred to in my earlier post, is this one:

In 1973, the Saudi Government increased its partner's share in the company to 25%, and then 60% the next year. In 1980, the Saudi government retroactively gained full ownership of Aramco with financial effect as of 1976.

At about the same time this was happening (1975), the Saudis agreed to export their oil for US dollars exclusively. Soon OPEC as a whole adopted the rule. Now, as a result, the dollar was backed not by gold but, in effect, by oil. Had the US permitted the Saudis to nationalize their oil industry in return for [b]this extraordinary favor
? Because the Saudi royal family and the oil companies are all notoriously tight-lipped, we may never know.


Link

Well, actually, they're not ALL "tight-lipped"; Sheikh Yamani, Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister at the time, was interviewed last year on Al Jazeera. It was one of the most fascinating and informative interviews I've ever seen. Now retired, living mostly in London and spending his days playing with his grandchildren and writing poetry, he explained exactly how Henry Kissinger personally devoted enormous time and effort, tirelessly using a skillful blend of threats and promises to transform Arab oil into a weapon against the Arabs. According to Yamani, all dealings were with Kissinger himself. It was a while ago, but I don't recall him even mentioning U.S. Presidents Nixon or Ford beyond passing references. Kissinger was the man, and the Arabs learned to deal with America only through him.

In fact, a recent article in Vanity Fair provides a glimpse of the power dynamics in the White House, during Nixon's time. Kissinger's role in the Nixon White House was the launching pad for his subsequent career as a global "statesman", whose power and influence continued to rise through the subsequent presidencies.

Nixon was no angel, but he wasn't married to Israel. In fact, his Secretary of State had proposed a "Rogers Plan" to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Arabs, which the Arab nationalists, led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdelnasser had already accepted. But Israel, as usual, did not want peace. Abdelnasser died under mysterious circumstances soon after accepting the plan, and Rogers was pushed out of the loop by Kissinger.

Some excerpts:

Nixon complained in one taped conversation with the chief of staff: "Henry's personality problem is just too goddamn difficult for us to deal [with].… Goddamn it, Bob, he's psychopathic about trying to screw [Secretary of State William] Rogers." Haldeman feared that if Kissinger "wins the battle with Rogers" he might not be "livable with afterwards." Nixon agreed that he would "be a dictator." "Did you know that Henry worries every time I talk on the phone with anybody?" he told Haldeman and domestic counselor John Ehrlichman in another taped conversation. "His feeling is that he must be present every time I see anybody important." ...

Flattery was one of Kissinger's principal tools in winning over Nixon, and a tool he employed shamelessly. "It was absolutely spectacular!," Kissinger said to Nixon by phone, according to a transcript, after a 1971 presidential address on the economy. "The thing that's so interesting about your style of leadership is that you never make little news, it is always big news You are a man of tremendous moves." In 1972 he told the president, in a written memo, "It has been an inspiration to see your fortitude in adversity and your willingness to walk alone." ...

Nixon was simultaneously eager to exploit Kissinger's diplomatic skills and resentful of his emergence as someone who could overshadow the president. The dynamic was tense and never-ending, and at first the balance of power was tilted decisively toward the president. Nixon attempted to keep Kissinger on edge while trying to use him to foster an especially flattering presidential self-image. ...

Kissinger's demands for influence and attention incensed Nixon, who occasionally talked about firing him. Watergate made this impossible. Nixon's need to use Kissinger and foreign policy to counter threats of impeachment made Kissinger an indispensable figure in a collapsing administration. The balance of power shifted massively and irrevocably.

Many facets of Kissinger's operating procedure were in full-blown display during the 1973 Yom Kippur War: the secrecy, the subterfuge, and the desire to gather power to himself. The crisis arose just as a convergence of domestic scandals rocked the White House. The president was losing his battle to keep the Watergate tapes under seal. The Saturday Night Massacre, when Nixon fired the Watergate special prosecutor and accepted the resignations of the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, was merely weeks away. And Vice President Spiro Agnew was on the verge of resigning, in the face of charges of extortion, bribery, and income-tax evasion. The president was deeply preoccupied, and at times incapacitated by self-pity or alcohol. ...

From the outset Kissinger, who was now secretary of state as well as national-security adviser, centered control of the crisis in his own hands. [/b]The Israelis had informed him of the attacks at six a.m. that Saturday, but three and a half hours would pass before he felt the need to consult Nixon, who had escaped Washington for his retreat in Key Biscayne, Florida. At 8:35 a.m., Kissinger called Haig, who was with the president, to report on developments. He said, according to a phone transcript, "I want you to know … that we are on top of it here." To ensure that the media not see Nixon as out of the loop, Kissinger urged Haig to say "that the President was kept informed from 6:00 a.m. on." ...

When Haig reported that Nixon was considering returning to Washington, Kissinger discouraged it—part of a recurring pattern to keep Nixon out of the process. Over the next three days, Kissinger oversaw the diplomatic exchanges with the Israelis and Soviets about the war. Israeli prime minister Golda Meir's requests for military supplies, which were beginning to run low, came not to Nixon but to Kissinger. Although he consistently described himself as representing the president's wishes, Kissinger was seen by outsiders as the principal U.S. official through whom business should be conducted. On October 7, for example, a Brezhnev letter to Nixon was a response to "the messages you transmitted to us through Dr. Kissinger." On October 9, a telegram to King Hussein of Jordan urging continued non-involvement in the conflict came not from Nixon but from Kissinger.

Although Kissinger spoke to Nixon frequently during these four days, it was usually Kissinger who initiated the calls, kept track of the fighting, and parceled out information as he saw fit. On the night of October 7, according to a telephone transcript, Nixon asked Kissinger if there had been any message from Brezhnev. "Oh, yes, we heard from him," Kissinger replied, volunteering no more. Nixon had to press, asking lamely, "What did he say?"

At 7:55 on the night of October 11, Brent Scowcroft, Haig's replacement as Kissinger's deputy at the N.S.C., called Kissinger to report that the British prime minister, Edward Heath, wanted to speak to the president in the next 30 minutes. According to a telephone transcript, Kissinger replied, "Can we tell them no? When I talked to the President he was loaded." Scowcroft suggested that they describe Nixon as unavailable, but say that the prime minister could speak to Kissinger. "In fact, I would welcome it," Kissinger told Scowcroft.

What is striking is how matter-of-fact Kissinger and Scowcroft were about Nixon's condition, as if it had been nothing out of the ordinary—as if Nixon's drinking to excess was just part of the routine. They showed no concern at having to keep the prime minister of America's principal ally away from the president. ...

In the midst of these developments, Nixon called Kissinger. But it was not to discuss the Middle East. Nixon was, Kissinger would later write, "as agitated and emotional as I had ever heard him." The call confirmed what Haig had told Kissinger by phone a day earlier. "How is his frame of mind?," Kissinger had asked, according to a transcript. "Very down, very down," Haig replied.

Kissinger and Haig decided to convene a meeting of national-security officials to devise a response to Brezhnev. Kissinger acknowledges in his memoirs that Nixon was by then asleep, and that he and Haig decided not to get him up. "Should I wake up the President?," Kissinger asked Haig during a 9:50 p.m. phone conversation on October 24, according to the transcript. "No," Haig answered. A half-hour later, in another phone conversation, it is Kissinger who has become reluctant. "Have you talked to the President?," Haig asked. "No, I haven't," Kissinger replied. "He would just start charging around I don't think we should bother the President." Haig persuaded Kissinger to at least shift the meeting from the State Department to the White House, as a way to leave the impression that Nixon was "a part of everything you are doing." Was Nixon on sedatives that would not allow him to function effectively? Had he been drinking? Was he simply preoccupied, as Kissinger suggests in his official recollections? For whatever reason, Kissinger did not want the president involved.

It was an extraordinary turn of events. None of the seven officials who met for more than three hours, until two a.m., had been elected to office. Yet they were setting policy in a dangerous international crisis, and coming to a decision that should have rested with the president: directing U.S. forces to raise America's worldwide level of military readiness from Defense Conditions 4 and 5 to Def Con 3, a level reached only once before, during the Cuban missile crisis. ...

Although the White House issued a statement attributing to Nixon the decision to put the nation on high alert, and Kissinger repeated this assertion at a press briefing, it was Kissinger and the six other national-security officials in the early-morning hours who actually chose to do it, though presumably confident that they reflected Nixon's wishes. But how confident could they really have been? As Kissinger would remind Haig the next day, according to the transcript of a phone call, "You and I were the only ones for it. These other guys were wailing all over the place this morning."


The alert became worldwide news, and it also achieved its objective. The Soviets agreed to stay out. When Kissinger received word that the Soviets had backed down, he spoke with Haig, not Nixon, and in that 2:35 p.m. phone conversation he expressed concern about how the decision-making process would be viewed if it ever became public. According to a transcript of the call, Kissinger told Haig, "I think I did some good for the President." Haig replied, "More than you know." They agreed that, as Kissinger put it, without the alert "we would have had a Soviet paratroop division in there this morning." "You know it, and I know it," Haig responded. "Have you talked to the Boss," he asked. "No," Kissinger said. "I will call him. Let's not broadcast this all over the place otherwise it looks like we (cooked) it up." (The parentheses are in the original transcript.) Only afterward did Kissinger, at 3:05 p.m., place a call to Nixon, greeting him fulsomely with the words "Mr. President, you have won again."

Aware that the events of that night, if made public, would be controversial, Kissinger maintained that putting the country on alert was Nixon's order as commander in chief. According to a transcript of a phone conversation between Kissinger and Nixon, a reporter asked Kissinger at the press briefing, "Was this [alert] a rational decision by the President?" Kissinger told Nixon that in reply he had "said it was [a] combination of the advice of all of his advisors … that the President decided to do this." It is a careful formulation. But I have found no document or transcript showing or suggesting that the president signed off on the action. And there is a moment, at once haunting and pathetic, when Nixon seems to underscore his own passive role in a fait accompli, wanting to be seen as in the loop. Immediately after the 3:05 conversation, Nixon called Kissinger back, hoping to lure him to the White House for a display of public consultation: "I think it would be well for semantics, no semantics, I mean, if you could come over here, make an appearance, dash over to say hello. You know, to sort of, what are you doing now?"

The extent to which Kissinger had come to believe that decision-making should rightfully rest in his own hands rather than the president's can hardly be exaggerated. As he prepared to travel to the Middle East on November 5, Kissinger wanted Haig and Scowcroft to assure him that Nixon was under control. Specifically he worried that the Soviet ambassador, Anatoly Dobrynin, might get in to see the president and extract unwise commitments. "I have to talk with you about how to conduct yourself while I am gone," he told Scowcroft, according to the transcript of a telephone call. "I am sure the Russians will try something … to get hold of the President. It is essential they don't get anything I didn't give them."

Link


Kissinger thus hijacked America, putting the United States on high alert, in essence threatening to start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union to prevent Israel having to return the Arab territories it had occupied in 1967.

Furthermore, as we've already seen, in 1975, Kissinger ensured that Saudi Arabian (and then OPEC) oil could ONLY be exchanged for worthless paper printed by the Federal Reserve, a body that is totally controlled by its Board of Governors.

Oddly enough, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, throughout its history, happens to have a disproportionate number of Jewish members.

To illustrate, let's take a look at the current board:

According to Wikipedia:

The Board of Governors is responsible for the formulation of monetary policy. It also supervises and regulates the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and US banking system in general.

...

The current members of the Board of Governors are:

* Ben Shalom Bernanke, Chairman
* Donald Kohn, Vice-Chairman
* Frederic Mishkin
* Kevin Warsh
* Randall Kroszner


Link


All except Kevin Warsh, the youngest board member in the history of the Fed, are Jewish. But Warsh is not exactly an outsider; his father in law is the infamous Ronald Lauder (oddly enough, this is rarely mentioned in articles that talk about his family, although some mention that his wife is the granddaughter of Estee Lauder, the late cosmetics mogul):


Kevin's father in law is a mighty influential guy ..."He is the former Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, President of the Jewish National Fund, and Treasurer of the World Jewish Congress. He is a trustee or member of the board of: The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, the Anti-Defamation League Foundation, the Jewish Theological Seminary, Brandeis University, and the Abraham Fund. He is a member of the International Society for Yad Vashem and the International Board of Governors of the Tel Aviv Museum. As Chairman of the Jewish Heritage Program of the World Monuments Fund, he is involved in stimulating the restoration of landmark synagogues across the globe." says his Foundation at their website

Informative post here at Forward about how Ronald Lauder has conflicting views on ownership of Holocaust art ... he is himself a major collector and has many items by Schiele. The first of which he bought with money from hus bar-mitsvah.


Interestingly George Patakis's wife (Governer of New York) has been on Ronald Lauder's payroll since her husband was elected in 1995. Ronald Lauder was of course a major source of funds for his election.

As Chairman of New York Governor George Pataki's Commission on Privatization, Ronald Lauder is the key individual who pushed the privatization of the WTC and former Stewart AFB, where the flight paths of the two planes that hit the twin towers oddly converged.More

Ronald Lauder is known (along with Las vegas casino owner Steve Wynn) as a financial supporter of Ariel Sharon and Bloomberg (Jan 4 2006) has a story about developments in the corruption scandal raging over his inert body about Austrian brothers James and Martin Schliff's role in sending $3MN to Sharon's son.

Ronald Lauder also owns Central European Media Enterprises, and its partners operate 10 stations in six countries.He has intersting views he expressed at the Wharton Business School recently which you can see here.

Those interested might like to follow leads on the Inter Disciplinary Centre (IDC) in Herzlyia, Israel, (allegedly closely tied to the Mossad. The IDC has a "research institute" headed by Shabtai Shavit, former head of the Mossad from 1989 to 1996, called the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism.

The IDC also has a "Marc Rich Center for the Study of Commodities, Trading and Financial Markets" and a "Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy." founded by Ronald Lauder. Marc Rich was of course famously pardoned by President Clinton in his leaving pardons.

Interesting family background for a Fed Board Member.

Link


In sum, Kissinger engineered a deal to use Arab oil to create a gargantuan global market for worthless paper printed by a Federal Reserve that is disproportionately controlled by Jews, many of them with close, very high-level ties to the zionist state.

If you can use these facts to explain how this proves that Kissinger is NOT a zionist, go ahead.

Now, back to our story, where the deal engineered by Kissinger with the Saudis, gave the IMF and World Bank the tools to economically enslave the developing world:

Here's your "grave historical error" number 2:

The World Bank and the IMF were founded after the Bretton Woods conference of 1944, not in the 1970s! At the time, Kissinger was still a minor figure working on the Nazi ratlines (helping those well-known Semophiles).


First, if you believe that Nazism and zionism are mutually exclusive ideologies, you need to take a look at the history, beyond the cartoon version.

Second, the World Bank and the IMF may have been founded in the 40s, but it was Kissinger's skillful machinations and his embedded position at the heart of the American behemoth, that made them into the devastating global vampires they are today.


In any case, the oil shock created enormously increased demand for the floating dollar. Oil importing countries, including Germany and Japan, were faced with the problem of how to earn or borrow dollars with which to pay their ballooning fuel bills. Meanwhile, OPEC oil countries were inundated with oil dollars. Many of these oil dollars ended up in accounts in London and New York banks, where a new process - which Henry Kissinger dubbed "recycling petrodollars" - was instituted.

The process worked like this. OPEC countries were receiving billions of dollars they could not immediately use. When American and British banks took these dollars in deposit, they were thereby presented with the opportunity for writing more loans (banks make their profits primarily from loans, but they can only write loans if they have deposits to cover a certain percentage of the loan-usually 10% to 15%, depending on the current fractional reserve requirements issued by the Fed or Bank of England).

Since the economies of industrialized nations were in no position to take on much new debt, the banks were faced with a problem: to whom could they loan a boatload of new petrodollar-based money? Kissinger, an advisor to David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan Bank, suggested the bankers use OPEC dollars as a reserve base upon which to aggressively "sell" bonds or loans, not to US or British corporations and investors, but to Third World countries desperate to borrow dollars with which to pay for oil imports.

By the late 1970s these petrodollar debts had laid the basis for the Third World debt crisis of the 1980s (after interest rates exploded). Most of that debt is still in place and is still strangling many of the poorer nations. Hundreds of billions of dollars were recycled in this fashion.

(Incidentally, the borrowed money usually found its way back to Western corporations or banks in any event, either by way of contracts with Western construction companies or simple theft on the part of indigenous officials with foreign bank accounts.)

Also during the 1970s and '80s, the Saudis began using their petrodollar surpluses to buy huge inventories of unusable weaponry from US arms manufacturers. This was a hidden subsidy to the US economy, and especially to the so-called Defense Department.


Link


Now, to my third "grave historical error":


3) After the U.S. was forced to end the Bretton Woods system of currency controls in 1971, reliance instead on the petrodollar system was the obvious only solution for solving the crisis and backing the dollar from the U.S. establishment perspective, which a smart ten-year old could have figured out. I have never before seen its genesis attributed to Kissinger alone, as opposed to the Nixon administration, or sheer necessity.



Well, other than the part about not attributing its genesis to Kissinger, I actually agree with you, that the U.S. dollar was in big, big trouble. Certainly, as I mentioned earlier, Kissinger was directly and personally involved in pressuring the Saudis to trade their precious oil only for Federal Reserve paper, and nothing else.

But why was the U.S. dollar in so much trouble in the first place? America had emerged from WWII barely quarter of a century earlier as a global economic powerhouse, and American manufacturing and exports were flooding the world. What had happened?

Well, Vietnam happened, and we know how little Kissinger was involved in that. As a matter of fact, Kissinger was instrumental in prolonging the catastrophic war, persuading Nixon that any withdrawal would end his chances for a second presidential term. (Incidentally, Kissinger, who supported the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, is using his access to the current White House to push the exact same "no withdrawal without victory" line in Iraq.)

The Vietnam war was already so unpopular that raising taxes to pay for it would be political suicide for the administration that tried to do it. Instead, the government ordered more money to be printed, prompting fears in Europe that the U.S. would no longer be able to continue backing the currency with gold, which led them to increasingly demand actual gold exchange for their dollars.

As the pressure mounted, Kissinger and an elite group of his cronies, so-called "Keynesian economists", clamored for the gold standard to be abandoned:

The Nixon administration insisted it would not devalue the dollar in order to alter the equations, but as the circular dollar flow became chaotic in August 1971, a Democratic member of the House Ways&Means committee, Henry Reuss of Wisconsin, publicly proposed a devaluation. (His wife was a Ph.D. Keynesian economist.) He also recommended freeing the dollar from gold, predicting that if this happened, the price of gold would plummet to $7 an ounce.

The most active Keynesian economist who promoted devaluation was Fred Bergsten, who argued that the dollar had to be cheapened against the yen in order to give us a trade advantage. A Democrat, Bergsten still is director of the Institute of International Economics in Washington and continues to argue the dollar is too weak against the yen. He remains a favorite of The New York Times Treasury reporters, although his model has produced more carnage around the world because of the support it gets from the big banks than all the misery of several wars. Bergsten had been Henry Kissinger’s chief economist at the National Security Council, until quitting with great liberal fanfare as an opponent of Nixon’s Vietnam tactics. Bergsten’s influence lingered on at Treasury with his fellow Democrat, John Connally, the Treasury Secretary, who became the most ardent supporter of dollar devaluation.

With the Reuss statement hitting the papers, the crisis deepened, with private citizens hedging by selling dollars. On Sunday, August 15, Nixon and his advisors met at Camp David and agreed on a plan to "solve the crisis." It included a 13% devaluation against gold and a total closing of the gold window, which meant no central bank could get gold from the Treasury. As this was supposed to be temporary, until the crisis passed, the dollar was still as good as gold, but at $40 an ounce instead of $35. Germany was aghast, as it had trusted the United States when it bought the bonds the French would not trust. Now, instantly, they had a 13% capital loss on the bonds.

...

The Nixon decision was wildly popular among almost all Ph.D. economists. Keynesians were happy because the government was willing to use currency policy to manage our trade advantage, at the same time liberating demand-side policy from the burdens imposed by gold in maintaining a unit of account.

Milton Friedman and his monetarist followers were thrilled, because his theories of managing the money supply could be employed -- as long as the closing of the gold window was permanent, not temporary. This led Friedman to use all his influence with conservative think tanks and bankers -- again with Wriston at Citicorp -- to persuade Nixon to name George Shultz the Treasury Secretary. It was Shultz, then, who did the formal execution of Bretton Woods in early 1973, announcing a permanent floating of the dollar.

As the de facto price of gold had floated up to $140 from the official $40, the oil-producing countries immediately set to work to quadruple the oil price. The economists of course blamed the Arabs!
And the nation’s newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal and NYTimes, went to work to demonize the Arabs for this despicable behavior. To this day, the official line in the Political Establishment is that the floating of the currency was a necessary action and that the bad Arabs caused the inflation.


http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/01-08-99.html


Ok. So Kissinger was instrumental in prolonging a disastrous war in Vietnam that gutted the U.S. economy, leading to the abandonment of the gold standard, and to the Federal Reserve acquiring the incredible power to print funny money, which was only made possible because of Kissinger's deal with the Saudi rulers, to make this otherwise worthless paper the exclusive currency for buying oil. This, in turn, led to the IMF and the World Bank's meteoric rise to power as global slave-masters.

Meanwhile, Israel acquired nuclear weapons of mass destruction, the Arabs were mortally weakened and dispersed, they were globally demonized for the inflation of the 1970s, the anti-zionist Non-Aligned Movement was decimated by bloody coups and revolutions in which Kissinger played a crucial role, and the whole world was transformed into a lucrative playground for the zionist state, with Israel's rise as a leading global weapons supplier, not to mention a major source of "anti-terrorist" training for torturers and assorted tyrants.

And he's still going strong. As historian Robert Dallek explains in the Vanity Fair article I quoted earlier:

Nixon is dead, but Henry Kissinger remains very much a man in public life. In recent years, President George W. Bush has consulted him for advice on the Iraq war, which Kissinger has supported. Since 2001, Kissinger has, according to Bob Woodward's State of Denial, met with the president every other month, and with Vice President Dick Cheney every month, and he has advised President Bush that "victory … is the only meaningful exit strategy" for Iraq.


Link


Since I've demonstrated that my "egregious factual errors" are nothing of the kind, you have two choices: refute them using genuine evidence and logic, or, having already implied that I'm an Islamofascist, you can now move to the next level and menace me with the frayed "anti-semitic" label. Yawn.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:31 am

Note I didn't imply you were an "Islamofascist," nor do I intend to. Anyone can quote the Koran. My guess is definitely some brand of Christian apocalyptist, but why don't you just tell us, since your god is so great?

Nor did I say the IMF and World Bank haven't evolved in their role, with a new phase in the 1970s. I pointed out you wrote they were created in the 1970s, which you did, and which is wrong.

The arrangements with Saudi Arabia have also evolved since the first deal of 1944, but ignoring the beginnings is a way of cherrypicking on behalf of your theses.

I also didn't say Nazism didn't have its own points of collaboration with the Zionist dream in the 1940s, for example in the form of the Transfer Agreement. But you're the one who wants to spin that and everything else so the "Zionists" transcend into the master plotters in any arrangement in which they are involved, and everyone else from Nixon to Bush becomes a servant, patsy or dupe.

See you around...
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:55 pm

As far as this:

Ok. So Kissinger was instrumental in prolonging a disastrous war in Vietnam that gutted the U.S. economy, leading to the abandonment of the gold standard, and to the Federal Reserve acquiring the incredible power to print funny money, which was only made possible because of Kissinger's deal with the Saudi rulers, to make this otherwise worthless paper the exclusive currency for buying oil. This, in turn, led to the IMF and the World Bank's meteoric rise to power as global slave-masters.


The U.S. intervention in Indochina began decades before Kissinger's stint in power.

After World War 2, the U.S. government poured money and arms into the French effort to keep the colony. The intent was for the French to win their war in Indochina. The Viet Minh defeated the French, however.

The U.S. government then blocked the elections and unification of the country called for in the Treaty of Geneva and set up a South Vietnam government of North Vietnamese Catholic exiles under one Ngo Dinh Diem. The U.S. poured resources and arms into the Diem government and micro-managed its institutions. The intent was to create a stable South Vietnamese satrapy that would pass from the French into the American empire.

This effort also failed, however, and the National Liberation Front came to control the South Vietnamese countryside.

The U.S. government then sent its own forces directly into the fight starting in 1962, and oversaw the replacement (and killing) of Diem by a military junta in 1963. Kennedy apparently opposed further escalation, but he also soon left the scene. The next year the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" was manufactured and used to justify the subsequent deployment of half a million U.S. troops and massive bombings of North and South Vietnam. The intent was to smash the NLF resistance and stabilize the American proxy state.

By 1968 it became clear that this effort, too, had failed, due to the continuing resistance of the Vietnamese people and despite the horrific losses they incurred.

Enter Nixon and Kissinger. Now the U.S. government pursued a formal "Vietnamization" of the conflict, while escalating the bombing and deforestation campaigns of North and South, conducting the Project Phoenix genocide and extending the war to Laos and Cambodia, where the CIA installed another puppet state and the Air Force bombed a neutral country into the stone age. The intent was to win the war after all, although it had clearly become unwinnable, or else: to "save face" and make an object lesson by so completely devastating Indochina that other countries and other peoples would forevermore feel terror at the idea of resisting the will of the U.S. government.

The first of the Nixonian objectives, to win the war, failed as all prior efforts had failed, because the Vietnamese kept fighting and the American domestic protests finally led to a mutiny of the U.S. ground forces in the 1969-71 period and the killing of hundreds of U.S. officers by their own troops. The second objective, sadly, was at least a moderate success. Vietnam was turned into scorched earth, and has yet to truly recover, with future generations still to be poisoned by Agent Orange.

At every stage in this history, the U.S. government's intent was to win the war it had forced. As each effort failed, the U.S. government poured precious resources into an unpopular, deficit-financed war that ended up contributing to the economic crisis that forced major changes in the American and world economy. The U.S. elites responded to the crisis by adopting the petrodollar system and the neoliberal economic strategy.

However, the goal of the American invasion of Vietnam was never to cause an economic crisis in the United States and the world. The goal was to prevail in Vietnam.

From the heights of hindsight you apply your invincible pattern. You look at the results of the Vietnam war and want to pretend these were the intent all along, not of the actual planners of the war at the Pentagon and in the CIA, but of a secret master plan (that you can divine from the results and from the presence of Kissinger in the final stage) to throw the independent American state into decline and prompt the neoliberal transformations of the 1970s, as desired by... the "Zionists." This is a world-view that drains history of its actors, its events and development, its crux points and decisions.

But thanks, I find it edifying to review the real history for any other readers remaining in this thread.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:03 am

The author wrote

On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country

I'm guessing, like most anti neocon angry left writers, it was "evil Muslims from a cave"

Isnt it funny, how the left lives in a world where the neocons are these super villians, but somehow "al qaeda" is the real bad guy that trumps them and is a threat(that "was ignored so they could go into Iraq")

9/11: the big litmus test, that Naomi Klein, Chomsky, and most other "left intellgencia" fails due to a steaming pile of cognitive dissonance

Do any of these people know about the October Surprise, MKOften,
Gladio/Strategy of Tension, April Glaspie and Saddam, Kuwaiti incubator stories, CIA funding of jihadists in Bosnia, the Lockerbie 1988 coverup,
BCCI, School of Americas, CIA cocaine contras, Adnan Kosshoggi,
Bush family and the House of Saud crimes, Mena Arkansas, the truth about WTC 1993 or Oklahoma City, how many genocide and bloody coup campaigns the CIA has been involved with, the truth about JFK and RFK,
the use of FBI informants in staged civil rights era violence, US backing of Indonesian genocide, how the Iraq war was made to fall into chaos and a vacuum of violence by design, the truth about Abu Gharib and Gitmo's real purpose for torture, the truth about Pat Tilman, the truth about the Anthrax attacks, etc?

MotherJones, CommonDreams, Counter Punch, Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos, Antiwar.org, The Nation, and on and on and on

Every year we hear more of the same left gatekeeper crap, with the real truth coming out sprinkled in the American and European mainstream, and alternative media here and there...or even decades later

All this focus on "the evil neocons" who are "ignoring the real evildoers, Osama and al Qaeda...who are out to destroy us!" makes the American left just as gullible as the right.

I have a hard time reading liberal leftgatekeeping mental masturbation from those who think Islamic terrorism is some independent group out to kill us all, and who put all their hate on "the neocons" and Bush.
Talk about tunnel vision

Just wait...when Obama takes over America, the public will think everything is hunky dory, and all is good now that Bush and his ilk are out...only for the REAL big shit to go down.

ONLY A DEMOCRAT can be president when there is a world war. And there will be a Democrat when WW3 breaks out and is engineered by the NWO
in the next few years
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlicetheKurious » Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:48 pm

Jack Riddler said:

You look at the results of the Vietnam war and want to pretend these were the intent all along, not of the actual planners of the war at the Pentagon and in the CIA, but of a secret master plan (that you can divine from the results and from the presence of Kissinger in the final stage) to throw the independent American state into decline and prompt the neoliberal transformations of the 1970s, as desired by... the "Zionists." This is a world-view that drains history of its actors, its events and development, its crux points and decisions.



I propose a thesis, and present facts and reason to support that thesis. Instead of addressing the evidence, you engage in name-calling: I "want to pretend" and "divine". I would be 'pretending' and 'divining' if the known facts were not consistent with my conclusions. But they are.

And I would be 'pretending' and 'divining' if my thesis were not more consistent with logic and reason, than alternative explanations. But it is.

As for using "hindsight" as you put it, that is sort of the whole point of historical analysis, no? To reexamine the events of the past in the context of a wider lens? Or did you think that, to analyze historical events, we're supposed to ignore all the data that only came to light afterwards?

My larger thesis is that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the last president of the United States. His assassination, and replacement by Lyndon Johnson, marked a definitive turning point of its eventual transformation into USRAEL, while retaining the illusory shell of "America" TM, a transformation whose second fatal milestone was the Vietnam War.

But we can talk about that later. For now, back to our immediate topic: Henry Kissinger's role as a "stealth zionist" deliberately embedded at the highest levels of U.S. decision-making power, for a specific mission, which he accomplished, and for which he has been generously rewarded, ever since. Kissinger's role was very far from being limited to the "final stage" of the Vietnam War, as I will demonstrate.

To sum up:

Nixon did not know Kissinger before he became President, yet his very first act as President was to appoint Kissinger as his National Security Advisor. Why? Because Kissinger had performed an enormous, yet secret (and sleazy), favor to the Nixon campaign, that was guaranteed to catch Nixon's attention, and earn his admiration and gratitude.

Then, once Kissinger's foot was in the door of the White House, the balance of decision-making power inexorably shifted to Kissinger, while first Secretary of State William Rogers, then Nixon himself became sidelined, relegated to providing a veneer of presidential legitimacy for Kissinger's reign of power. Nixon was made into Kissinger's "beard", as it were.

During this reign of power, Kissinger led a conspiracy against America, with the complicity of the media and other powerful collaborators acting from within the very highest levels of the American military, political and economic establishment. He played an instrumental role in radically undermining and subverting the very economic and political foundations of the United States, paving the way for the U.S. to be re-made into a devastating weapon for the pursuit of zionist goals and interests that it is today.

Kissinger used his powerful position in the Nixon administration to consistently do everything possible to escalate the conflict in Vietnam: massive bombing campaigns, massive troop deployments and secretly bombing neighboring countries to widen and deepen the catastrophically expensive war.

Why? Whose interest did this serve? Some analysts have said, lamely in my opinion, that he did this to "save face" and prevent an American defeat, even at the mind-boggling cost. But the U.S. was defeated, after paying an incredible price: 21,000 dead American soldiers, at least 500,000 dead Vietnamese fighters and an unknown number of civilians slaughtered (conservative estimates put the total at more than 2 million), not including the apocalyptic consequences for Laos and Cambodia. Moreover, as I demonstrated in my previous post, the Vietnam War marked a fatal turning point in the history of the U.S. and the global economies, and the shifting of unbelievable economic power to the zionist-controlled Federal Reserve.

Your argument seems to be that this was simply a coincidence. Mine is that this was the plan, all along. The only question is, which explanation makes more sense, and which is consistent with the evidence?

Well, let's see. Our story begins long before the Vietnam War became the quagmire Kissinger made it, when he deliberately sabotaged the peace process from within the Johnson camp, where he was a national security consultant and, starting in 1967, an intermediary between the White House and Hanoi.

Back in 1968, while working with the Johnson administration, Kissinger participated in a conspiracy to torpedo the 1968 Paris peace talks between the U.S. and the North Vietnamese by leaking secrets to the Nixon camp, who feared that a successful peace agreement would ruin Nixon's chance at the White House. The conspiracy was not limited to Kissinger's leaks, however: the Nixon camp was treacherously undermining the United States' position by promising the enemy that a better deal would be possible if they waited for a Nixon presidency.

Kissinger's co-conspirators in the Nixon camp appear to have been motivated by the need to win the White House, and once there, to claim credit for the peace process, which they thought they were merely delaying for a few months. Little did they know that they, in turn would be betrayed by Kissinger, who had no intention of peacefully resolving the conflict in Vietnam.

There exists, within the political class of Washington, D.C., an open secret that is too momentous and too awful to tell. Although it is well known to academic historians, senior reporters, former Cabinet members, and ex-diplomats, it has never been summarized all at one time in any one place. The reason for this is, on first viewing, paradoxical. The open secret is in the possession of both major political parties, and it directly implicates the past statecraft of at least three former presidencies. Thus, its full disclosure would be in the interest of no particular faction. Its truth is therefore the guarantee of its obscurity; it lies like Poe's "purloined letter" across the very aisle that signifies bipartisanship.

Here is the secret in plain words. In the fall of 1968, Richard Nixon and some of his emissaries and underlings set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam. The means they chose were simple: they privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers that an incoming Republican regime would offer them a better deal than would a Democratic one. In this way, they undercut both the talks themselves and the electoral strategy of Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The tactic "worked," in that the South Vietnamese junta withdrew from the talks on the eve of the election, thereby destroying the peace initiative on which the Democrats had based their campaign. ...

There is a well-understood principle known as "Mutual Assured Destruction," whereby both sides possess more than enough material with which to annihilate the other.

The answer to the question of what the Johnson Administration "had" on Nixon is a relatively easy one. It was given in a book entitled Counsel to the President, published in 1991. Its author was Clark Clifford, the quintessential blue-chip Washington insider, who was assisted in the writing by Richard Holbrooke, the former assistant secretary of state and current ambassador to the United Nations. In 1968, Clark Clifford was secretary of defense and Richard Holbrooke was a member of the American negotiating team at the Vietnam peace talks in Paris.

From his seat in the Pentagon, Clifford had been able to read the intelligence transcripts that picked up and recorded what he terms a "secret personal channel" between President Thieu in Saigon and the Nixon campaign.

The chief interlocutor at the American end was John Mitchell, then Nixon's campaign manager and subsequently attorney general (and subsequently Prisoner Number 24171-157 in the Maxwell Air Force Base prison camp). He was actively assisted by Madame Anna Chennault, known to all as the "Dragon Lady." A fierce veteran of the Taiwan lobby, and all-purpose right-wing intriguer, she was a social and political force in the Washington of her day and would rate her own biography.

Clifford describes a private meeting at which he, President Johnson, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and National Security Adviser Walt Rostow were present.

Hawkish to a man, they kept Vice President Humphrey out of the loop. But, hawkish as they were, they were appalled at the evidence of Nixon's treachery. They nonetheless decided not to go public with what they knew. Clifford says that this was because the disclosure would have ruined the Paris talks altogether. He could have added that it would have created a crisis of confidence in American institutions. There are some things that the voters can't be trusted to know. And even though the bugging had been legal, it might not have looked like fair play. (The Logan Act flatly prohibits any American from conducting private diplomacy with a foreign power.)

In the event, Thieu pulled out of the negotiations anyway, ruining them just three days before the election. Clifford is in no doubt of the advice on which he did so:

The activities of the Nixon team went far beyond the bounds of justifiable political combat. It constituted direct interference in the activities of the executive branch and the responsibilities of the Chief Executive, the only people with authority to negotiate on behalf of the nation. The activities of the Nixon campaign constituted a gross, even potentially illegal, interference in the security affairs of the nation by private individuals.

...More than one "back channel" was required for the Republican destabilization of the Paris peace talks. There had to be secret communications between Nixon and the South Vietnamese, as we have seen.

But there also had to be an informant inside the incumbent administration's camp, a source of hints and tips and early warnings of official intentions. That informant was Henry Kissinger. In his own account, RN : The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, the disgraced elder statesman tells us that, in mid-September 1968, he received private word of a planned bombing halt. In other words, the Johnson Administration would, for the sake of the negotiations, consider suspending its aerial bombardment of North Vietnam. This most useful advance intelligence, Nixon tells us, came "through a highly unusual channel."

It was more unusual even than he acknowledged. Kissinger had until then been a devoted partisan of Nelson Rockefeller, the matchlessly wealthy prince of liberal Republicanism. His contempt for the person and the policies of Richard Nixon was undisguised. Indeed, President Johnson's Paris negotiators, led by Averell Harriman, considered Kissinger to be almost one of themselves. He had made himself helpful, as Rockefeller's chief foreign-policy adviser, by supplying French intermediaries with their own contacts in Hanoi.

"Henry was the only person outside of the government we were authorized to discuss the negotiations with," Richard Holbrooke told Walter Isaacson. "We trusted him. It is not stretching the truth to say that the Nixon campaign had a secret source within the U.S. negotiating team."


So the likelihood of a bombing halt, wrote Nixon, "came as no real surprise to me." He added: "I told Haldeman that Mitchell should continue as liaison with Kissinger and that we should honor his desire to keep his role completely confidential." It is impossible that Nixon was unaware of his campaign manager's parallel role in colluding with a foreign power.

Thus began what was effectively a domestic covert operation, directed simultaneously at thwarting the talks and embarrassing the Hubert Humphrey campaign.

Later in the month, on September 26 to be precise, and as recorded by Nixon in his memoirs, "Kissinger called again. He said that he had just returned from Paris, where he had picked up word that something big was afoot regarding Vietnam. He advised that if I had anything to say about Vietnam during the following week, I should avoid any new ideas or proposals." On the same day, Nixon declined a challenge from Humphrey for a direct debate.

On October 12, Kissinger once again made contact, suggesting that a bombing halt might be announced as soon as October 23. And so it might have been. Except that for some reason, every time the North Vietnamese side came closer to agreement, the South Vietnamese increased their own demands. We now know why and how that was, and how the two halves of the strategy were knit together.

As far back as July, Nixon had met quietly in New York with the South Vietnamese ambassador, Bui Diem. The contact had been arranged by Anna Chennault. Bugging of the South Vietnamese offices in Washington, and surveillance of the "Dragon Lady," showed how the ratchet operated. An intercepted cable from Diem to President Thieu on the fateful day of October 23 had him saying: "Many Republican friends have contacted me and encouraged us to stand firm. They were alarmed by press reports to the effect that you had already softened your position."
The wiretapping instructions went to one Cartha DeLoach, known as "Deke" to his associates, who was J. Edgar Hoover's FBI liaison officer to the White House. ...

In 1999 the author Anthony Summers was finally able to gain access to the closed FBI file of intercepts of the Nixon campaign, which he published in his 2000 book, The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon. He was also able to interview Anna Chennault. These two breakthroughs furnished him with what is vulgarly termed a "smoking gun" on the 1968 conspiracy. By the end of October 1968, John Mitchell had become so nervous about official surveillance that he ceased taking calls from Chennault.

And President Johnson, in a conference call to the three candidates, Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace (allegedly to brief them on the bombing halt), had strongly implied that he knew about the covert efforts to stymie his Vietnam diplomacy. This call created near-panic in Nixon's inner circle and caused Mitchell to telephone Chennault at the Sheraton Park Hotel. He then asked her to call him back on a more secure line. "Anna," he told her, "I'm speaking on behalf of Mr. Nixon. It's very important that our Vietnamese friends understand our Republican position, and I hope you made that clear to them.... Do you think they really have decided not to go to Paris?"

The reproduced FBI original document shows what happened next. On November 2, 1968, the agent reported:

MRS. ANNA CHENNAULT CONTACTED VIETNAMESE AMBASSADOR, BUI DIEM, AND ADVISED HIM THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM HER BOSS (NOT FURTHER IDENTIFIED), WHICH HER BOSS WANTED HER TO GIVE PERSONALLY TO THE AMBASSADOR.

SHE SAID THAT THE MESSAGE WAS THAT THE AMBASSADOR IS TO "HOLD ON, WE ARE GONNA WIN" AND THAT HER BOSS ALSO SAID "HOLD ON, HE UNDERSTANDS ALL OF IT." SHE REPEATED THAT THIS IS THE ONLY MESSAGE. "HE SAID PLEASE TELL YOUR BOSS TO HOLD ON." SHE ADVISED THAT HER BOSS HAD JUST CALLED FROM NEW MEXICO.


Nixon's running mate, Spiro Agnew, had been campaigning in Albuquerque, New Mexico, that day, and subsequent intelligence analysis revealed that he and another member of his staff (the one principally concerned with Vietnam) had indeed been in touch with the Chennault camp.

The beauty of having Kissinger leaking from one side and Anna Chennault and John Mitchell conducting a private foreign policy on the other was this: It enabled Nixon to avoid being drawn into the argument over a bombing halt.

And it further enabled him to suggest that it was the Democrats who were playing politics with the issue. On October 25, in New York, he used his tried-and-tested tactic of circulating an innuendo while purporting to disown it. Of LBJ's Paris diplomacy he said, "I am also told that this spurt of activity is a cynical, last-minute attempt by President Johnson to salvage the candidacy of Mr. Humphrey. This I do not believe."

Kissinger himself showed a similar ability to play both ends against the middle. In the late summer of 1968, on Martha's Vineyard, he had offered Nelson Rockefeller's files on Nixon to Professor Samuel Huntington, a close adviser to Hubert Humphrey. But when Huntington's colleague and friend Zbigniew Brzezinski tried to get him to make good on the offer, Kissinger became shy.

"I've hated Nixon for years," he told Brzezinski, but the time wasn't quite ripe for the handover. Indeed, it was a very close-run election, turning in the end on the difference of a few hundred thousand votes, and many hardened observers believe that the final difference was made when Johnson ordered a bombing halt on October 31 and the South Vietnamese made him look like a fool by boycotting the peace talks two days later.

Had things gone the other way, of course, Kissinger was a near-certainty for a senior job in a Humphrey administration.
...

Morally speaking, Kissinger treated the concept of superpower rapprochement in the same way as he treated the concept of a negotiated settlement in Vietnam: as something contingent on his own needs. There was a time to feign support of it and a time to denounce it as weak-minded and treacherous. And there was a time to take credit for it. Some of those who "followed orders" in Indochina may lay a claim to that notoriously weak defense. Some who even issued the orders may now tell us that they were acting sincerely at the time.

But Kissinger cannot avail himself of this alibi. He always knew what he was doing, and he embarked upon a second round of protracted warfare having knowingly helped to destroy an alternative that he always understood was possible. This increases the gravity of the charge against him. It also prepares us for his improvised and retrospective defense against that charge: that his immense depredations eventually led to "peace." When he announced that "peace is at hand" in October 1972, he made a boastful and false claim that could have been made in 1968. And when he claimed credit for subsequent superpower contacts, he was announcing the result of a secret and corrupt diplomacy that had originally been proposed as an open and democratic one.

In the meantime, he had illegally eavesdropped and shadowed American citizens and public servants whose misgivings about the war, and about unconstitutional authority, were mild compared with those of Messieurs Aubrac and Marcovich. In establishing what lawyers call the mens rea, we can say that in Kissinger's case he was fully aware of, and is entirely accountable for, his own actions.

Upon taking office at Richard Nixon's side in the winter of 1969, it was Kissinger's task to be plus royaliste que le roi in two respects. He had to confect a rationale of "credibility" for punitive action in an already devastated Vietnamese theater, and he had to second his principal's wish that he form part of a "wall" between the Nixon White House and the Department of State.

The term "two track" was later to become commonplace. Kissinger's position on both tracks, of promiscuous violence abroad and flagrant illegality at home, was decided from the start. He does not seem to have lacked relish for either commitment
; one hopes faintly that this was not the first twinge of the "aphrodisiac."

President Johnson's "bombing halt" had not lasted long by any standard, even if one remembers that its original conciliatory purpose had been sordidly undercut. Averell Harriman, who had been LBJ's chief negotiator in Paris, later testified to Congress that the North Vietnamese had withdrawn 90 percent of their forces from the northern two provinces of South Vietnam, in October and November 1968, in accordance with the agreement of which the "halt" might have formed a part. In the new context, however, this withdrawal could be interpreted as a sign of weakness, or even as a "light at the end of the tunnel."

The historical record of the Indochina war is voluminous, and the resulting controversy no less so. This does not, however, prevent the following of a consistent thread. Once the war had been unnaturally and undemocratically prolonged, more exorbitant methods were required to fight it and more fantastic excuses had to be fabricated to justify it.

Let us take four connected cases in which the civilian population was deliberately exposed to indiscriminate lethal force, in which the customary laws of war and neutrality were violated, and in which conscious lies had to be told in order to conceal these facts and others.

The first such case is an example of what Vietnam might have been spared had not the 1968 Paris peace talks been sabotaged. In December 1968, during the "transition" period between the Johnson and Nixon administrations, the United States military command turned to what General Creighton Abrams termed "total war" against the "infrastructure" of the Vietcong/National Liberation Front insurgency. The chief exhibit in this campaign was a six-month clearance of the province of Kien Hoa. The code name for the sweep was Operation "Speedy Express."

It might, in some realm of theory, be remotely conceivable that such tactics could be justified under the international laws and charters governing the sovereign rights of self-defense. But no nation capable of deploying the overwhelming and annihilating force described below would be likely to find itself on the defensive. And it would be least of all likely to find itself on the defensive on its own soil. So the Nixon-Kissinger Administration was not, except in one unusual sense, fighting for survival.

The unusual sense in which its survival was at stake is set out, yet again, in the stark posthumous testimony of H. R. Haldeman. From his roost at Nixon's side he describes a Kissingerian moment on December 15, 1970:

K[issinger] came in and the discussion covered some of the general thinking about Vietnam and the P's big peace plan for next year, which K later told me he does not favor. He thinks that any pullout next year would be a serious mistake because the adverse reaction to it could set in well before the `72 elections. He favors, instead, a continued winding down and then a pullout right at the fall of `72 so that if any bad results follow they will be too late to affect the election.

One could hardly wish for it to be more plainly put than that. (And put, furthermore, by one of Nixon's chief partisans with no wish to discredit the re-election.) But in point of fact, Kissinger himself admits to almost as much in his own first volume of memoirs, The White House Years. The context is a meeting with General de Gaulle, in which the old warrior demanded to know by what right the Nixon Administration subjected Indochina to devastating bombardment. In his own account, Kissinger replies that "a sudden withdrawal might give us a credibility problem."

(When asked "where?" Kissinger hazily proposed the Middle East.)
It is important to bear in mind that the future flatterer of Brezhnev and Mao was in no real position to claim that he made war in Indochina to thwart either. He certainly did not dare try such a callow excuse on Charles de Gaulle. And indeed, the proponent of secret deals with China was in no very strong position to claim that he was combating Stalinism in general.

No, it all came down to "credibility" and to the saving of face. It is known that 20,763 American, 109,230 South Vietnamese, and 496,260 North Vietnamese servicemen lost their lives in Indochina between the day that Nixon and Kissinger took office and the day in 1973 that they withdrew American forces and accepted the logic of 1968. Must the families of these victims confront the fact that the chief "faces" at risk were those of Nixon and Kissinger?

Thus the colloquially titled "Christmas bombing" of North Vietnam, continued after that election had been won, must be counted as a war crime by any standard. The bombing was not conducted for anything that could be described as "military reasons" but for twofold political ones. The first of these was domestic: a show of strength to extremists in Congress and a means of putting the Democratic Party on the defensive. The second was to persuade South Vietnamese leaders such as President Thieu--whose intransigence had been encouraged by Kissinger in the first place--that their objections to American withdrawal were too nervous.


This, again, was the mortgage on the initial secret payment of 1968.

When the unpreventable collapse occurred in Cambodia and Vietnam, in April and May 1975, the cost was infinitely higher than it would have been seven years previously. These locust years ended as they had begun--with a display of bravado and deceit.

On May 12, 1975, in the immediate aftermath of the Khmer Rouge seizure of power, Cambodian gunboats detained an American merchant vessel named the Mayaguez. The ship was stopped in international waters claimed by Cambodia and then taken to the Cambodian island of Koh Tang. In spite of reports that the crew had been released, Kissinger pressed for an immediate face-saving and "credibility"-enhancing strike.

He persuaded President Gerald Ford, the untried and undistinguished successor to his deposed former boss, to send in the Marines and the Air Force. Out of a Marine force of 110, 18 were killed and 50 were wounded. Twenty-three Air Force men died in a crash. The United States used a 15,000-ton bomb on the island, the most powerful nonnuclear device that it possessed. Nobody has the figures for Cambodian deaths.

The casualties were pointless, because the ship's company of the Mayaguez were nowhere on Koh Tang, having been released some hours earlier. A subsequent congressional inquiry found that Kissinger could have known of this by listening to Cambodian broadcasting or by paying attention to a third-party government that had been negotiating a deal for the restitution of the crew and the ship.
It was not as if any Cambodians doubted, by that month of 1975, the willingness of the U.S. government to employ deadly force.


The Case Against Henry Kissinger, Hitchens


While I'm grateful for Hitchens' meticulous research, I find some of his conclusion unconvincing, even baffling.

He describes the systematic, relentless efforts of Kissinger to prolong, escalate and widen a disastrous war that transformed Southeast Asia into an enormous toilet in which Kissinger flushed down millions of lives, 3 countries, and the very foundation of the United States economy.

Why? Hitchens says, "for Nixon and Kissinger to save face." Others argue that he was driven by a need to "win".

I say that's just silly. The only reasonable explanation, is that this particular war served some very powerful interests, and that it served them very well. Indeed, that was the plan all along. This is borne out by the fact that, despite the unmitigated disaster of Vietnam, Kissinger has been richly rewarded for it.

We've already seen, in my previous post, how the catastrophic Vietnam War was the sine qua non for the incredible rise of the zionist-controlled Federal Reserve. In that sense alone, it was a resounding success, especially if it's seen in the context of the other projects that Kissinger tirelessly pursued at the same time: making the petroleum trade a US$ monopoly, luring Egypt's Sadat into a fatal break with the Arab front, and other discrete missions that only make complete sense when viewed all together.

Perhaps this explains Kissinger's otherwise inexplicable attitude towards the war in Vietnam that he did so much to aggravate and prolong. From an interview in 2002:

[Kissinger] defended the U.S. invasion of Cambodia in 1970, saying, "I personally believe we should have gone in deeper and we should have stayed longer," and he dismissed any possibility that the relentless U.S. bombing of Cambodia led to the disintegration of civil society and the rise of the genocidal Khmer Rouge.

"We could have won the war in Cambodia, which was possible," he argued. "Vietnam was questionable."

Asked why he did not push to end the war after he realized it was unwinnable, Kissinger groaned. "Could it have ended a year earlier, six months earlier? How do I know?" he shrugged. "I don't think so. Besides, by that time our casualties had gotten down so low that that was not a major factor in the situation."

Perhaps not for Kissinger or Nixon, but those casualties surely mattered to the thousands of Americans who died needlessly in the waning years of the war, not to mention the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians who continued to die as Nixon and Kissinger pursued "peace with honor." ...

As we packed up our gear, I asked Kissinger one last question. Something I really wanted to know. "What if the United States had allowed Vietnam to go communist after World War II?"

"Wouldn't have mattered very much," Kissinger muttered. Lights off. No camera recording what he was saying. "If the Vietnam domino had fallen then, no great loss."

With that he rose, stiffly, from his chair and left the room.


Fifty-eight thousand Americans died in the Vietnam War -- nearly 21,000 of them during Kissinger's watch. More than 600,000 Vietnamese soldiers were killed during the Nixon-Kissinger years. No one is certain how many civilians died.

And yet Kissinger had just told me that none of these deaths were necessary, from a geopolitical point of view.

He is an old man now and he shows no signs of remorse. And he has never displayed a willingness to challenge the foreign policy establishment that continues to consult and flatter him.


Link

Besides resulting in the meteoric rise of the zionist-controlled Federal Reserve, the Vietnam War served Kissinger's powerful zionist cronies in other, equally covert ways, unexamined in any standard history books, as well.

Go ahead, make my day: ask me how.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:23 pm

I'd like you to find where I said the impact of the Vietnam war on the U.S. was a coincidence. What I said was that the outcome wasn't intended by the planners. But it was a logical outcome of the relentless and ruinous efforts to win the war at each stage - and of losing it instead. (Kissinger also expresses the delusion that the war could have been won, likely or not. I believe that's what he was trying to do, along with the rest of them.)

I propose a thesis, and present facts and reason to support that thesis. Instead of addressing the evidence, you engage in name-calling:


We can stop right there, finally. You quoted and responded only to the last paragraph of what I wrote, i.e., my conclusion after I addressed the evidence of the Vietnam war. Then you returned to the bizarre tactic of correctly describing -- or rather quoting others, in this case Hitchens in his excellent book on Kissinger describing -- the crimes of Kissinger, his employer Rockefeller and the U.S. imperial state. All the while pretending that this somehow translates into a "plot against America" by the stealthy "Zionists," which is the idea embedded in your thinking in advance of all other considerations.

You cannot face up to the crimes committed by the government of your country in the name of your country, so you seek to blame these crimes on foreign elements. It's an old and moldy, hateful and ugly form of denial.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlicetheKurious » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:30 am

You cannot face up to the crimes committed by the government of your country in the name of your country, so you seek to blame these crimes on foreign elements.


Huh?
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:18 pm

Uh-huh.

Tell us about your god.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:33 pm

JR wrote: I find it edifying to review the real history for any other readers remaining in this thread.


:wink:
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5121
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:07 pm

Having devoted too much energy to this thread, I'll call in some pinch-hitters to handle the idea generally that Israel controls the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

Zunes on the Walt/Mearsheimer book:

"The authors' claim that the Israel lobby is a major factor in the formulation of overall U.S. Middle East policy is plainly false. Indeed, U.S. policy in the Middle East over the past several decades—orchestrating military interventions and CIA-backed coups, backing right-wing dictatorships, peddling neoliberal economic policies through the International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions, undermining the United Nations and international law, imposing sanctions against nationalist governments, etc.—is remarkably similar to U.S. policy toward Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. If the United States can pursue such policies elsewhere in the world without pressure from the Israel lobby, why is its presence necessary to explain U.S. policies in the Middle East?

There was no Indonesian-American lobby responsible for the bipartisan support for Indonesia's quarter century of brutal occupation in East Timor, nor is there a Moroccan-American lobby responsible for the bipartisan support for the ongoing Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara.

Mearsheimer and Walt's observation that U.S. support of Israel runs contrary to U.S. strategic interests by stimulating anti-Americanism in the Arab/Islamic world is not an unprecedented dissenting position. During any administration, there are elements within establishment circles that come to conclusions challenging the prevailing mindset. For example, Mearsheimer and Walt joined Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jacek Krugler, and other realists who recognized that the invasion of Iraq was contrary to U.S. national security interests, but the Bush administration and a sizable majority of Congress (including the leadership of both parties) believed otherwise. Similarly, some leading realists of the 1960s, such as Hans Morgenthau, opposed the Vietnam War, but that didn't stop an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Washington from mistakenly believing, at least until the late 1960s, that the war was somehow in America's best interests. In other words, administrations of both parties have repeatedly proven themselves capable of acting contrary to long-term national interests without the Israel lobby forcing them to do so.

Israel's frequent wars facilitate battlefield testing of U.S. weapons and Israel's arms industry has provided weapons and munitions for governments and opposition movements supported by the United States. Moreover, during the 1980s, Israel served as a conduit for U.S. arms to governments and movements too unpopular in the United States to receive overt military assistance, including South Africa under the apartheid regime, Iran's Islamic Republic, Guatemala's rightist military juntas, and the Nicaraguan Contras. Israeli military advisers assisted the Contras, the Salvadoran junta, and other movements and governments backed by the United States. The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad has cooperated with the CIA and other U.S. agencies in gathering intelligence and spearheading covert operations. Israel possesses missiles capable of striking targets thousands of miles from its borders and has collaborated with the U.S. military-industrial complex in research and development for new jet fighters and anti-missile defense systems, a relationship that is growing every year. As one Israeli analyst described it during the Iran-Contra scandal, where Israel played a crucial intermediary rule, “It's like Israel has become just another federal agency, one that's convenient to use when you want something done quietly.” Former U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig once described Israel as the largest and only unsinkable U.S. aircraft carrier in the world."

...

"The arms industry contributes more than $7 million each election cycle to Congressional campaigns, twice that of pro-Israel groups. In terms of lobbying budgets, the difference is even more profound: Northrop Grumman alone spends seven times as much money in its lobbying efforts annually than does AIPAC and Lockheed Martin outspends AIPAC by a factor of four. Similarly, the lobbying budget of AIPAC is dwarfed by those of General Electric, Raytheon, and Boeing and other corporations with substantial military contracts."

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/c ... lobby.html

--

Danse on 9/11 "ZIHOP" theory (as implicitly espoused in the original article above by Ney) :

I've long been of the opinion that Mossad was involved in 911 (ie as subcontractors), but the idea that 911 was an "outside job" by Israel is not plausible. ZIHOPPER's never bother to explain why agents of the military industrial complex would need to have their arms twisted by nefarious Zionists to launch the "war on terror" and seize oil in the middle east. Seems like a no brainer. Indeed Miles Ignotius proposed just this scenario way back in the 70's: that America needed a "real boogeyman" (ie Al-Qaeda") to "come in" before the military could seize Arab oil.

ZIHOP is a comforting myth. It transforms a complex operation with multiple actors and motivations back into a simplistic "they hate our freedoms" paradigm, except instead of "Al-Qaeda" we have "Zionists".

As Chomsky said of the M-W thesis, "it does have plenty of appeal. The reason, I think, is that it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, "Wilsonian idealism," etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape. It's rather like attributing the crimes of the past 60 years to "exaggerated Cold War illusions," etc. Convenient, but not too convincing."

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 7&start=15
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:00 pm

More from Danse, in response to this thread:

Some classic ZIHOPian thinking there. If you’re American you’re a cat’s paw, if you’re Jewish American you’re a crypto-Zionist mole. Weapons manufacturers, oil corporations, military and intelligence personnel – are all rendered impotent in the face of the all-powerful Jewish – er Zionist overlords and their dark Machiavellian magic.

It might come as a surprise to some, but Pentagon planners have been quite consistent over the years with their stated reasons for supporting Israel. Originally the relationship was luke-warm at best. “During the Suez Crisis of 1956, just days before the presidential election, President Dwight Eisenhower—fearing a radical backlash in the Arab world if the United States failed to do otherwise—strongly condemned the Israeli/French/British invasion of Egypt. Threatening to end the tax-exempt status for Israeli bonds and related private contributions to Israel, Eisenhower forced the Israeli government to completely withdraw from Egyptian territory within months.”

So what changed? A sudden influx of Zionist moles? AIPAC? No. As the following essay explains, America came to view Israel as an essential military asset in the region, most especially after 1967. If by some miracle Israelis elected a peacenik government, rejected militarism and demanded an end to the occupation you can bet the relationship would immediately sour.

---

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/rose/2-arming.htm

Israel: The Hijack State

The Arming of Israel

The arming of Israel 1948-1986

In 1982, the year that Israel invaded Lebanon, Israel boasted it was the third most powerful military force in the world. [1]

Delusions of grandeur? Perhaps they were. But in the same year the eminently respectable International Institute for Strategic Studies ranked Israel fourth in the world’s military league, beneath only the USA, the USSR and China. [2] Certainly militarism has become a cornerstone of Israeli society. Arms exports long ago replaced oranges and grapes as Israel’s main export earner.

However the point is that Israel’s undoubted military capability only makes sense if seen directly as an extension of the United States’ military capability. In 1982 the publicly-available figures suggested US aid to Israel was worth 1,000 dollars per Israeli citizen, the highest anywhere in the world. In fact a report to the US Congress that same year suggested that the aid may well be 60 per cent higher. [3] But even the public figures are astounding. Between 1978 and 1982 Israel received 48 per cent of all US military aid world-wide and 35 per cent of all US economic aid. For the year 1983 Reagan suggested 2.5 billion dollars for Israel out of a total US aid bill of 8.1 billion dollars. In addition there is a regular pattern of loans, and weapons at special discount prices, not to mention tax deductible “charitable” contributions for US corporations and citizens.

And this was before the invasion of Lebanon. Since then the aid budget has tripled.


At the press conference after his first election as president in 1980, Ronald Reagan explained the American government’s enthusiasm for Israel:

Israel was, he said, “combat-ready” and has a “combat-experienced military ... a force in the Middle East that is actually of benefit to US. If there was no Israel with that force, we’d have to supply that with our own.” [5]

But withdraw that US aid and nothing is left. Israel’s economy is in an indescribable mess. The Israeli state would simply not survive if the American dollar was withdrawn. In the same year that Israel was boasting of its military prowess a report published by the international banks ranked 114 countries in order of potential economic instability and dependency on foreign aid. Only 22 were considered more unstable than Israel. [6] Here Israel found itself in the same league as Angola, Haiti and El Salvador, but with one difference. Israel’s citizens expect a Western-style standard of living, not that of a third world’ country.

As long as American aid lasts, Israel will continue to be its military arm in the Middle East. How, then, has this military combination come about?

In April 1986, the month of the bombing of Libya, the Jerusalem Post commented:

... the years have shown the US that other so-called strategic assets in the region have been only temporary: from the days of Libya’s King Idris to the present regimes of Iran, Ethiopia or even indecisive Greece. [7]

The reference to Greece is apposite. The US strategy for the region immediately after the Second World War was preoccupied with the defeat of left-wing insurgents in Greece. In March 1947 US president Truman, announcing what became known as “the Truman Doctrine”, observed that it was “necessary only to glance at the map” to see that if Greece should fall to the rebels, “confusion and disorder might well spread throughout the entire Middle East.” [8]

A CIA report the next year warned that in the event of a left-wing victory in Greece, the US would face “the possible loss of petroleum resources of the Middle East (comprising 40 per cent of the world reserves).” [9] The CIA foresaw the need for a military alliance in the region which could guarantee US interests.

Israel was desperate to play a crucial part in such an alliance. In 1951, the year that Mossadeq nationalised oil in Iran, the influential Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz spelled out Israel’s watchdog role in defence of US and British interests:

The feudal regimes in the Middle East have had to make such concessions to the nationalist movements ... that they become more and more reluctant to supply Britain and the United States with their natural resources and military bases ... Strengthening Israel helps the Western powers maintain equilibrium ... in the Middle East.

Israel is to become the watchdog. There is no fear that Israel will undertake any aggressive policy towards the Arab states when this would explicitly contradict the wishes of the US and Britain. But if for any reasons the western powers should sometimes prefer to close their eyes, Israel could be relied upon to punish one or several neighbouring states whose discourtesy to the west went beyond the bounds of the permissible. [10]

Here was the direct offer to smash down precisely that brand of Arab nationalism which might seize power in any of the Arab countries, nationalising US or British oil interests on the one hand and stirring up Arab hostility to the West on the other.

The exact military links between the US and Israel at this time have remained a closely guarded secret. But a US National Security Council memorandum of 1958 noted that a “logical corollary” of opposition to radical Arab nationalism “would be to support Israel as the only strong pro-west power left in the near East”. [11] Meanwhile in the mid-1950s Israel concluded a pact with the region’s most viciously right-wing dictators, Ethiopia, Turkey and the Shah in Iran. The biographer of Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, recalled that this “periphery pact” was encouraged by John Foster Dulles, the US Secretary of State. [12]

The new watchdog could hardly wait to bare its teeth. When the Middle East’s most prominent Arab nationalist leader, Gamel Abdel Nasser, who had seized power in Egypt in 1952, nationalised the Suez Canal four years later, Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai and the Gaza Strip, while British and French planes bombed Egypt itself. The Americans, at that time, saw the move as counter-productive and had to restrain Israel.

It was the 1967 war between Israel and her Arab neighbours that most convinced the USA that it had in Israel an utterly dependable ally. Undoubtedly the main aim of the war was to bring Arab nationalism to heel once and for all. Humiliation of its principal regime, Nasser’s Egypt, was the first glittering prize. The handsome second prize for Israel was the seizure of a huge area of new territory, which included the West Bank of the River Jordan. The US made plain its glowing appreciation of Israel’s role in a memorandum from the State Department:

Israel has probably done more for the US in the Middle East in relation to money and effort invested than any of our so-called allies and friends elsewhere around the world since the end of the Second World War. In the Far East, we can get almost nobody to help US in Vietnam. Here, the Israelis won the war singlehandedly, have taken US off the hook, and have served our interests as well as theirs. [13]

The reference to America’s sense of isolation in Vietnam is also not without interest in this context. General Moshe Dayan, who commanded Israel’s forces in the 1967 war, had recently toured Vietnam as a guest of the US Forces. He was extremely impressed with this new aggressive arm of US imperialism. He noted that the strategy was identical to that employed by the Israelis, so anticipating the 1982 invasion of Lebanon:

The US and Israel employ almost identical language in speaking of reprisal actions. The formula employed is that the cost in aiding the enemy ... must be made so high that those involved will no longer be able to pay for it. [14]

After 1967 the US sent Israel a flood of sophisticated weapons, including Phantom jets. In the four years following the war Israel would receive 1.5 billion dollars worth of arms from the US – ten times the amount sent in the previous twenty years. This period, of course, coincides with the growing strength of OPEC – especially after Gadaffi seized power in Libya in 1969.

Israel’s dependence on US military assistance has also encouraged the US to use Israel as a “test-bed” for untried weaponry. Just after the Lebanon war in 1982, the Washington Post carried a long article arguing that the US Defence Department and the weapons manufacturing industries were now the most powerful pro-Israeli pressure group operating on Reagan’s administration. Reagan was under some alternative pressure to bring minor sanctions against Israel following the world outcry against the senseless loss of life in Lebanon. But the US military would have none of it. The Washington Post survey showed that the Pentagon had received detailed information from Israel on the performance of American-made weapons, some of which had never been used in combat by US forces.

It cited the use of the Hawkeye E2C electronic reconnaissance aircraft used during the early stages of the Lebanon war, and the Israeli raid in 1981 against the Iraqi nuclear reactor in which F15 and F16 war aircraft were used in military strikes for the first time.

In fact Israeli prime minister Begin actually boasted that Israelis were testing secret weapons made in Israel on behalf of the Americans. Such a weapon, he told an audience in America, had enabled Israeli jet aircraft to knock out 23 Russian-made Sam-6 and Sam-8 missile batteries in Syria without losing a single aircraft. [15]

Israel also assists America by itself arming some of the world’s most bloody dictatorships – dictatorships which even America has sometimes felt too embarrassed to equip herself. These include regimes known to harbour ex-Nazis in South America and, in the case of South Africa, a regime whose ruling Nationalist Party was openly pro-Nazi during the Second World War.

In 1976 South Africa’s premier, John Vorster, paid a week-long visit to Israel. Vorster had been interned as a Nazi during the Second World War. A decade earlier Israel had executed the notorious Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann and Israel’s secret services were boasting their ability to capture further ex-Nazis. Now the Israeli government was publicly welcoming a former leading Nazi as an important guest.

Vorster had arrived to deepen links between the countries’ two defence industries. While in Israel he purchased a quantity of fighter-bombers. Two years earlier South Africa had bought a shipment of Gabriel surface-tosurface missiles from Israel. These are similar to the French Exocet missiles used by Argentina during the Falklands War. In 1978 the United Nations imposed a mandatory embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa, which Israel has repeatedly evaded. By 1980 no less than 35 per cent of Israel’s arms exports were going to South Africa. As the head of South African military industry said in 1982, Israeli “technological assistance permits South Africa to evade the arms embargo imposed upon it because of its racial policies.” [16]

In 1979 the TV documentary programme World in Action carried a detailed account of a nuclear test explosion in the South Atlantic which claimed that the warhead used was an Israeli-South African developed nuclear shell. [17]

On America’s behalf, Israel also evaded the trade boycott of the illegal white racist regime in Rhodesia before its fall. The American paper, the Boston Globe, reported in May 1982: “American-made helicopters and spare parts went from Israel to Rhodesia despite a trade embargo during the bitter war against the guerrillas, the Commerce Department has disclosed.”

Israel’s relations with the cut-throat regimes of Central America make grim reading too. Shortly after the Lebanon invasion, Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon visited Honduras, a stronghold in the US campaign of subversion against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Israeli radio reported that Israel had helped Honduras acquire what is regarded as the strongest air force in Central America and noted that “the Sharon trip raised the question of whether Israel might act as an American proxy in Honduras.” [18]

In fact Israel was already doing just that, as the government’s economic co-ordination minister, Ya’acov Meridor, confirmed when he said that Israel was ready to be Washington’s surrogate whenever political considerations prevented the US from providing military assistance. [19] The link with Honduras involved Israeli advisors giving on-the-spot training to Honducan pilots. The new Israeli-Honduras agreement involved sophisticated jet fighters, tanks, and Galil assault rifles (a specifically anti-guerrilla weapon). Sharon’s entourage during his visit included the head of the Israeli Air Force and the Director-General of the Defence Ministry. A Honduras government spokesman said that Sharon’s visit was more positive than an earlier one from President Reagan since Sharon “sold US arms” while “Reagan only uttered platitudes, explaining that Congress was preventing him doing more.” [20]

In neighbouring Guatemala an even more bloody dictator, General Rios Montt, actually boasted to an ABC television reporter that the coup which brought him to power had been so successful, “because many of our soldiers were trained by the Israelis.” [21] In the summer of 1982, as Sharon was slaughtering Palestinians in Lebanon, Montt was slaughtering 5,000 Indians in the Guatemalan countryside as part of a “counter-insurgency” campaign – aided and abetted with Israeli weaponry and Israeli-trained expertise. [22]

Israel has also given military aid to the military juntas of Pinochet in Chile and Galtieri in Argentina (before his downfall). The aid to Argentina is particularly shocking, not only because Argentina harbours ex-Nazis but because the Galtieri regime was itself notoriously anti-semitic. The Israeli journal Haolam Haze exposed this obscenity, commenting: “The Israeli Foreign Minister last week extended a warm handshake to the Generals in Buenos Aires who had murdered about 1,000 Jews in Argentina.” The journal also interviewed the Argentinian Jewish journalist Jacob Timerman, who told them: “I saw with my own eyes how Argentinian jailers tortured Jews in prison while the Israeli government requested the Jewish community there to remain silent.” [23]

Israel’s “periphery pact” with the Shah of Iran, cemented by the Americans in the 1950s, is also of great interest. Relations between the two countries have always been close. When the Shah was toppled, the Israeli ambassador in Iran revealed that the entire upper echelon of the Israeli leadership’ had visited the Shah over the years, including four former prime ministers – Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Itzhak Rabin and Menachem Begin – and former Chief of Defence Moshe Dayan. The Shah’s secret police SAVAK, notorious for their use of torture, arranged these visits. [24] The links between SAVAK and the Israeli secret service MOSSAD were very close. A former head of MOSSAD, Jacob Nimrodi, “the Israeli closest to the Shah” [25], spent time in Iran as an Israeli military attache. SAVAK and MOSSAD had co-operated since the 1950s.

According to one author, who based his information on discussions with the Shah, “virtually every general officer in the Shah’s army has visited Israel and hundreds of junior officers have undergone some aspects of Israeli training.” [26]

Finally Israel’s backing for the Christian Phalange in Lebanon must be mentioned. The Phalange were founded by Pierre Gemayel in the 1930s. It was a fanatically right-wing armed militia, self-consciously modelled on the fascists. (Phalange means fascist. Gemayel visited Berlin in 1936 and met Hitler.) Gemayel’s son Bashir rose to prominence in the Phalange in the 1970s and then in the wider Christian movement in Lebanon. Bashir Gemayel, also a fascist, came to dominate Christian forces in Lebanon by the simple expedient of murdering all his opponents.

Gemayel’s faction was enthusiastically, if secretly at first, welcomed in Haifa in 1976 by the then Israeli Labour government. [27] The contacts were cultivated and Israel began arming Gemayel. In August 1982, the month when hundreds of Palestinian refugees were massacred in the Lebanese camps at Sabra and Shatila, Bashir Gemayel was “elected” Lebanon’s president as Israeli guns and tanks stood by.

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/rose/2-arming.htm
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 155 guests