Tweet
Media Monitors Network
Oct 30, 2004
Choose your Neo-con poison
by Ahmed Amr
(Saturday 30 October 2004)
"The simple truth is that the Iraqi insurgency is a reaction to the
occupation. Yet, the DLC's foreign policy `experts' don't seem to have
a clue about what is essentially a conventional and brutal liberation
struggle. Because of their neo-con backgrounds, it is entirely possible
that these policy wonks are deliberately misleading the same gullible
public that swallowed whole the canards about WMDs."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're not going to beat George Bush by being Bush Lite. The way to
beat George Bush is to give the 50% of Americans who quit voting
because they can't tell the difference between the Democratic Party and
the Republican Party - give them a reason to vote again."
-- Howard Dean
If the polls are anywhere near the mark, George Bush has an even chance
of polluting the White House for four more years. Given his record, the
only reason Dubya remains a viable candidate is John Kerry.
Until a few months ago, the `Anybody But Bush' movement was gathering
enough momentum to guarantee that any randomly chosen Democrat could
land Dubya on the unemployment line. It now appears that any old
Republican can lick Kerry.
After 9/11, the conventional wisdom was that nothing would ever be the
same again. This election proves that America is back to doing business
as usual. This is certainly true of the election business. Let the
record show that in the year 2004, 290 million Americans could only
spare two Skulls and Bones alumni for the most important government
position in the world.
One thing is certain - 9/11 didn't change the Democrats. After making
their best effort, their party came up with a Gore clone. Both nominees
share the same exact political DNA because they rolled off the same
production line that manufactured `electable candidates' a generation
ago. The only difference these days, is that the big boys in the back
room wheel and deal in smoke free environments.
Kerry was nominated because he was not Howard Dean. To be more precise,
Dean was pushed aside when he assaulted the Holy of Holies and
described the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) as the `Republican
wing of the Democratic Party'.
Dean didn't do himself any favors with DLC insiders by suggesting that
the United States should pursue an `even-handed' policy in the Middle
East. After that `gaffe', Ira Forman, executive director of the
National Jewish Democratic Council noted that `For some small group in
the Jewish community, Dean's appointment of David Ben-Gurion, Golda
Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon to his foreign
policy team would still be met with scorn."
Who are these Democratic Leadership Council people? Consider them the
phantom candidates who are running for co-President of the United
States. The former chairman is none other than Senator Joseph
Lieberman, Israel's point man in the Senate.
The DLC promotes a philosophy they call `progressive internationalism'
- a slight variation of neo-con ideology. In the run up to Iraq war,
the DLC launched a campaign to enlist Democrats in Bush's march to war.
Will Marshall, The President of the Progressive Policy Institute, the
DLC's think tank, led the charge. In an article titled `Making the Case
On Iraq', he laid out the `progressive internationalist' position on
the war.
`For starters, Democrats need to resist the argument that only the
discovery of new evidence against Saddam -- the acquisition of nuclear
weapons or clear involvement in anti-U.S. terrorism -- would justify
action against the dictator. That reasoning implies that a statute of
limitations has expired on Saddam's long catalogue of past crimes. What
we already know is bad enough: Saddam is a serial aggressor -- he's
attacked no fewer than four neighboring countries -- and an implacable
enemy of the United States who is desperately seeking nuclear weapons
to complement his deadly arsenal of biological and chemical weapons.
Democrats should make it clear to the public that the status quo is
intolerable, that the old policy of containing Saddam has failed, and
that leaving him free to acquire nuclear weapons is a risk that neither
we nor or the civilized world can afford to take.'
Marshall's article was published in Blueprint Magazine - a plagiarized
edition of Commentary. Now you would think that these `progressive
internationalists' would be chastened by the turn of events in Iraq.
But Marshall not only remains an adamant supporter of the war; he is
now a militant proponent of escalation.
Here is what he wrote more recently in a Blueprint article published on
January 8, 2004.
`What the United States needs now is not an exit strategy but a
comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy. The key elements of such a
strategy are more supple military tactics, more money, and more allies.
But that requires more troops, not fewer, and it means deploying them
in ways that could raise the risk of U.S. casualties. The
administration has rightly made the democratic transformation of the
greater Middle East the grand American project of the 21st century.
That job starts in Iraq. If we fail here, our hopes for liberalizing
the region will be stillborn. To create a stable, representative
government in Baghdad, we need to show total commitment to quelling a
motley insurgency that includes remnants of Saddam's security and
intelligence services, disgruntled Sunnis, and foreign jihadists. Yet
the timing of the administration's troop cuts seems dictated by the
campaign calendar, not strategy.'
Notice that Will Marshall never bothers to suggest that Iraq was part
of the `war on terror'. Even though he repeats the neo-con's outlandish
claims about Saddam's non-existent WMDs, he makes it clear that the DLC
didn't need illicit weapons or an Al-Qaida link to justify a
`pre-emptive' war against an emaciated Iraqi army. Like other DLC
fellow travelers, Marshall was certainly aware that Saddam Hussein was
fully contained. But he couldn't resist the urge to indulge in a little
bit of old fashioned imperialism and tinker with `regime change' to
transform the `Greater Middle East'.
Now that his neo-con wet dreams have resulted in a tenacious native
insurgency against the foreign occupation forces, Marshall proposes to
up the ante. Instead of taking pause and reflecting on how much blood
and treasure have already been squandered at the neo-con roulette
table, he suggests we ignite other fires in the region. For Marshall,
`the job starts in Iraq'. When and where does it end? That's for the
neo-cons to know and the rest of the world to find out.
Like the Bush administration, the DLC and Marshall still subscribe to
the idiotic notion that Saddam loyalists and foreign jihadists are at
the core of this insurgency. As the intelligence community has often
pointed out, very few `foreigners' have been found among rebels
arrested by the Anglo-American occupation forces. Besides, Iraq was
home to millions of immigrants from other Arab countries. They are the
Iraqi equivalent of permanent residents - very much like the Green Card
holders in the US military who serve their country without the benefit
of citizenship. As a fully integrated part of the population, it is not
surprising that some of these Arab `foreigners' have joined the Iraqi
resistance. Moreover, the insurgents are hardly Saddam loyalists. While
they have often demanded the release of Iraqi prisoners - they have
never once bothered to ask for Saddam Hussein. And one suspects that
the deposed president would fight extradition to Fallujah or Najaf. The
only part of Saddam the insurgents might want is his head.
The simple truth is that the Iraqi insurgency is a reaction to the
occupation. Yet, the DLC's foreign policy `experts' don't seem to have
a clue about what is essentially a conventional and brutal liberation
struggle. Because of their neo-con backgrounds, it is entirely possible
that these policy wonks are deliberately misleading the same gullible
public that swallowed whole the canards about WMDs.
Marshall and his merry warmongers at the DLC like to posture as
`progressive' zealots on a mission to modernize and liberate the lesser
people of the Middle East. In that regard, they are just imposters
imitating the diabolical Wolfowitz of Arabia. On both sides of the
political divide, the neo-con actors performing this charade have a
long and disgraceful history of being apologists for Israel's bloody
repression of the Palestinians. So, it seems improbable that they are
now possessed with a sudden passion to spread the blessings of liberty
to Mesopotamia. More likely, their goal is to give Ariel Sharon a free
hand in shaping the future of the whole region. These
`neo-imperialists' are not interested in American Empire; they are
motivated by an obsession to fulfill their Likudnik real estate
fantasies. Their one item agenda is to create a Greater Israel - not a
Greater Middle East. If in the process, we end up with a Lesser
America, it will not disturb their sleep patterns.
Marshall's Progressive Policy Institute functions like an imbedded
think tank implanted in the heart of the Democratic Party. It is a
mirror image of the American Enterprise Institute - the neo-con
Likudnik bastion that served as a launching pad for Paul Wolfowitz,
Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other weapons of mass deception.
Blueprint Magazine, The official publication of the DLC, regularly
hosts articles from another think tank - The Saban Center for Middle
East Policy at the Brookings Institution. On it's pages, one can find
the stale neo-con mantras of war party hawks like Kenneth Pollack, the
author of `The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq'. That
book was credited with convincing many reluctant Democrats to join the
march to war.
The DLC's web site also promotes the foul produce of Bernard Lewis, a
rabid anti-Arab racist who was convicted in French courts of
intellectual dishonesty on account of his denial of the Armenian
Holocaust. Incidentally, Lewis has also served as a private part-time
personal tutor for Dick and Lynn Cheney to bring them up to speed on
the `dysfunctional Arab mindset'.
Martin Indyk is the resident DLC guru on the Israeli/Palestinian
conflict. The former AIPAC president who served as ambassador to Israel
in the Clinton administration is now employed as the director of the
Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He is
a fervent supporter of the Iraq war and regime change. In an article
titled `A Squandered Opportunity' that appeared in Blueprint Magazine
last November, Indyk wrote `There is nothing in itself wrong with
promoting a little instability.' Indyk had effusive praise for Bush.
`The president argued correctly that if we achieved regime change in
Iraq, it could help our efforts to make Israeli-Palestinian peace,
reform the Arab world, and pressure the rogue states to end their evil
ways.'
If the DLC's in-house think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute,
their offshore operations are sub-contracted to Martin Indyk's Saban
Center, which is financed by Haim Saban, an Israeli/American media
tycoon who was the largest Democratic Party donor in 2002. After
dropping $5 million into the party's coffers, Haim had enough change
left over to pony up another $7 million for the new Democratic National
Committee building.
Now, what percentage of the rank and file are aware that a right wing
Likudnik neo-con think tank resides in the inner sanctums of the
Democratic Party? And how many party activists have any clue that Haim
Saban plays a crucial role in shaping their party's foreign policy
agenda?
The sad political reality is that John Kerry is not an independent
candidate. He comes with DLC strings hard wired to his soul. The
Senator is fully aware that he wouldn't even be in this race if the DLC
had not succeeded in crushing Howard Dean's insurgency.
As a Senator, Kerry never had the option to resist the DLC `guidance'
to vote for an invasion of Iraq. Now that he is the DLC anointed
candidate, Kerry will is obliged to support escalating Bush's
`preemptive' war. If you listen carefully to his recent speeches - you
will find that Kerry's views are now perfectly aligned with those of
Will Marshall and Martin Indyk. Kerry is not promising an exit strategy
in Iraq but `a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy'. He is not
saying this was an unnecessary war of choice - he is just promising to
fight a `tougher and smarter' war by convincing our continental allies
to contribute a little European blood and treasure to the quagmire in
Iraq.
Because of his liberal domestic track record, Kerry was never the DLC's
first choice. That honor went to Joseph Lieberman whose piss poor
performance in the primaries demonstrated that the DLC's neo-con
ideology has no constituency among the party's rank and file. No
matter. Neo-cons aren't particularly fussy about the democratic
process. They now have a candidate they can live with in the White
House. John Kerry will do just fine as a neo-con Trojan horse. Of
course, the neo-cons got one hell of a ride on Dick Cheney's pony. So,
they won't be entirely disappointed if Bush gets a second term.
The sad truth is that the Democratic Party's foreign policy has been
auctioned off to the Israeli Lobby. There is nothing Bush Lite about
the DLC. A vote for Kerry is a vote for Haim Saban and the DLC. This
coming Tuesday, you will be invited to choose your neo-con poison. In
the next four years, we will all discover that diluted neo-con Kool Aid
is just as toxic.
Oct 30, 2004
Choose your Neo-con poison
by Ahmed Amr
(Saturday 30 October 2004)
"The simple truth is that the Iraqi insurgency is a reaction to the
occupation. Yet, the DLC's foreign policy `experts' don't seem to have
a clue about what is essentially a conventional and brutal liberation
struggle. Because of their neo-con backgrounds, it is entirely possible
that these policy wonks are deliberately misleading the same gullible
public that swallowed whole the canards about WMDs."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're not going to beat George Bush by being Bush Lite. The way to
beat George Bush is to give the 50% of Americans who quit voting
because they can't tell the difference between the Democratic Party and
the Republican Party - give them a reason to vote again."
-- Howard Dean
If the polls are anywhere near the mark, George Bush has an even chance
of polluting the White House for four more years. Given his record, the
only reason Dubya remains a viable candidate is John Kerry.
Until a few months ago, the `Anybody But Bush' movement was gathering
enough momentum to guarantee that any randomly chosen Democrat could
land Dubya on the unemployment line. It now appears that any old
Republican can lick Kerry.
After 9/11, the conventional wisdom was that nothing would ever be the
same again. This election proves that America is back to doing business
as usual. This is certainly true of the election business. Let the
record show that in the year 2004, 290 million Americans could only
spare two Skulls and Bones alumni for the most important government
position in the world.
One thing is certain - 9/11 didn't change the Democrats. After making
their best effort, their party came up with a Gore clone. Both nominees
share the same exact political DNA because they rolled off the same
production line that manufactured `electable candidates' a generation
ago. The only difference these days, is that the big boys in the back
room wheel and deal in smoke free environments.
Kerry was nominated because he was not Howard Dean. To be more precise,
Dean was pushed aside when he assaulted the Holy of Holies and
described the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) as the `Republican
wing of the Democratic Party'.
Dean didn't do himself any favors with DLC insiders by suggesting that
the United States should pursue an `even-handed' policy in the Middle
East. After that `gaffe', Ira Forman, executive director of the
National Jewish Democratic Council noted that `For some small group in
the Jewish community, Dean's appointment of David Ben-Gurion, Golda
Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon to his foreign
policy team would still be met with scorn."
Who are these Democratic Leadership Council people? Consider them the
phantom candidates who are running for co-President of the United
States. The former chairman is none other than Senator Joseph
Lieberman, Israel's point man in the Senate.
The DLC promotes a philosophy they call `progressive internationalism'
- a slight variation of neo-con ideology. In the run up to Iraq war,
the DLC launched a campaign to enlist Democrats in Bush's march to war.
Will Marshall, The President of the Progressive Policy Institute, the
DLC's think tank, led the charge. In an article titled `Making the Case
On Iraq', he laid out the `progressive internationalist' position on
the war.
`For starters, Democrats need to resist the argument that only the
discovery of new evidence against Saddam -- the acquisition of nuclear
weapons or clear involvement in anti-U.S. terrorism -- would justify
action against the dictator. That reasoning implies that a statute of
limitations has expired on Saddam's long catalogue of past crimes. What
we already know is bad enough: Saddam is a serial aggressor -- he's
attacked no fewer than four neighboring countries -- and an implacable
enemy of the United States who is desperately seeking nuclear weapons
to complement his deadly arsenal of biological and chemical weapons.
Democrats should make it clear to the public that the status quo is
intolerable, that the old policy of containing Saddam has failed, and
that leaving him free to acquire nuclear weapons is a risk that neither
we nor or the civilized world can afford to take.'
Marshall's article was published in Blueprint Magazine - a plagiarized
edition of Commentary. Now you would think that these `progressive
internationalists' would be chastened by the turn of events in Iraq.
But Marshall not only remains an adamant supporter of the war; he is
now a militant proponent of escalation.
Here is what he wrote more recently in a Blueprint article published on
January 8, 2004.
`What the United States needs now is not an exit strategy but a
comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy. The key elements of such a
strategy are more supple military tactics, more money, and more allies.
But that requires more troops, not fewer, and it means deploying them
in ways that could raise the risk of U.S. casualties. The
administration has rightly made the democratic transformation of the
greater Middle East the grand American project of the 21st century.
That job starts in Iraq. If we fail here, our hopes for liberalizing
the region will be stillborn. To create a stable, representative
government in Baghdad, we need to show total commitment to quelling a
motley insurgency that includes remnants of Saddam's security and
intelligence services, disgruntled Sunnis, and foreign jihadists. Yet
the timing of the administration's troop cuts seems dictated by the
campaign calendar, not strategy.'
Notice that Will Marshall never bothers to suggest that Iraq was part
of the `war on terror'. Even though he repeats the neo-con's outlandish
claims about Saddam's non-existent WMDs, he makes it clear that the DLC
didn't need illicit weapons or an Al-Qaida link to justify a
`pre-emptive' war against an emaciated Iraqi army. Like other DLC
fellow travelers, Marshall was certainly aware that Saddam Hussein was
fully contained. But he couldn't resist the urge to indulge in a little
bit of old fashioned imperialism and tinker with `regime change' to
transform the `Greater Middle East'.
Now that his neo-con wet dreams have resulted in a tenacious native
insurgency against the foreign occupation forces, Marshall proposes to
up the ante. Instead of taking pause and reflecting on how much blood
and treasure have already been squandered at the neo-con roulette
table, he suggests we ignite other fires in the region. For Marshall,
`the job starts in Iraq'. When and where does it end? That's for the
neo-cons to know and the rest of the world to find out.
Like the Bush administration, the DLC and Marshall still subscribe to
the idiotic notion that Saddam loyalists and foreign jihadists are at
the core of this insurgency. As the intelligence community has often
pointed out, very few `foreigners' have been found among rebels
arrested by the Anglo-American occupation forces. Besides, Iraq was
home to millions of immigrants from other Arab countries. They are the
Iraqi equivalent of permanent residents - very much like the Green Card
holders in the US military who serve their country without the benefit
of citizenship. As a fully integrated part of the population, it is not
surprising that some of these Arab `foreigners' have joined the Iraqi
resistance. Moreover, the insurgents are hardly Saddam loyalists. While
they have often demanded the release of Iraqi prisoners - they have
never once bothered to ask for Saddam Hussein. And one suspects that
the deposed president would fight extradition to Fallujah or Najaf. The
only part of Saddam the insurgents might want is his head.
The simple truth is that the Iraqi insurgency is a reaction to the
occupation. Yet, the DLC's foreign policy `experts' don't seem to have
a clue about what is essentially a conventional and brutal liberation
struggle. Because of their neo-con backgrounds, it is entirely possible
that these policy wonks are deliberately misleading the same gullible
public that swallowed whole the canards about WMDs.
Marshall and his merry warmongers at the DLC like to posture as
`progressive' zealots on a mission to modernize and liberate the lesser
people of the Middle East. In that regard, they are just imposters
imitating the diabolical Wolfowitz of Arabia. On both sides of the
political divide, the neo-con actors performing this charade have a
long and disgraceful history of being apologists for Israel's bloody
repression of the Palestinians. So, it seems improbable that they are
now possessed with a sudden passion to spread the blessings of liberty
to Mesopotamia. More likely, their goal is to give Ariel Sharon a free
hand in shaping the future of the whole region. These
`neo-imperialists' are not interested in American Empire; they are
motivated by an obsession to fulfill their Likudnik real estate
fantasies. Their one item agenda is to create a Greater Israel - not a
Greater Middle East. If in the process, we end up with a Lesser
America, it will not disturb their sleep patterns.
Marshall's Progressive Policy Institute functions like an imbedded
think tank implanted in the heart of the Democratic Party. It is a
mirror image of the American Enterprise Institute - the neo-con
Likudnik bastion that served as a launching pad for Paul Wolfowitz,
Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other weapons of mass deception.
Blueprint Magazine, The official publication of the DLC, regularly
hosts articles from another think tank - The Saban Center for Middle
East Policy at the Brookings Institution. On it's pages, one can find
the stale neo-con mantras of war party hawks like Kenneth Pollack, the
author of `The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq'. That
book was credited with convincing many reluctant Democrats to join the
march to war.
The DLC's web site also promotes the foul produce of Bernard Lewis, a
rabid anti-Arab racist who was convicted in French courts of
intellectual dishonesty on account of his denial of the Armenian
Holocaust. Incidentally, Lewis has also served as a private part-time
personal tutor for Dick and Lynn Cheney to bring them up to speed on
the `dysfunctional Arab mindset'.
Martin Indyk is the resident DLC guru on the Israeli/Palestinian
conflict. The former AIPAC president who served as ambassador to Israel
in the Clinton administration is now employed as the director of the
Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He is
a fervent supporter of the Iraq war and regime change. In an article
titled `A Squandered Opportunity' that appeared in Blueprint Magazine
last November, Indyk wrote `There is nothing in itself wrong with
promoting a little instability.' Indyk had effusive praise for Bush.
`The president argued correctly that if we achieved regime change in
Iraq, it could help our efforts to make Israeli-Palestinian peace,
reform the Arab world, and pressure the rogue states to end their evil
ways.'
If the DLC's in-house think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute,
their offshore operations are sub-contracted to Martin Indyk's Saban
Center, which is financed by Haim Saban, an Israeli/American media
tycoon who was the largest Democratic Party donor in 2002. After
dropping $5 million into the party's coffers, Haim had enough change
left over to pony up another $7 million for the new Democratic National
Committee building.
Now, what percentage of the rank and file are aware that a right wing
Likudnik neo-con think tank resides in the inner sanctums of the
Democratic Party? And how many party activists have any clue that Haim
Saban plays a crucial role in shaping their party's foreign policy
agenda?
The sad political reality is that John Kerry is not an independent
candidate. He comes with DLC strings hard wired to his soul. The
Senator is fully aware that he wouldn't even be in this race if the DLC
had not succeeded in crushing Howard Dean's insurgency.
As a Senator, Kerry never had the option to resist the DLC `guidance'
to vote for an invasion of Iraq. Now that he is the DLC anointed
candidate, Kerry will is obliged to support escalating Bush's
`preemptive' war. If you listen carefully to his recent speeches - you
will find that Kerry's views are now perfectly aligned with those of
Will Marshall and Martin Indyk. Kerry is not promising an exit strategy
in Iraq but `a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy'. He is not
saying this was an unnecessary war of choice - he is just promising to
fight a `tougher and smarter' war by convincing our continental allies
to contribute a little European blood and treasure to the quagmire in
Iraq.
Because of his liberal domestic track record, Kerry was never the DLC's
first choice. That honor went to Joseph Lieberman whose piss poor
performance in the primaries demonstrated that the DLC's neo-con
ideology has no constituency among the party's rank and file. No
matter. Neo-cons aren't particularly fussy about the democratic
process. They now have a candidate they can live with in the White
House. John Kerry will do just fine as a neo-con Trojan horse. Of
course, the neo-cons got one hell of a ride on Dick Cheney's pony. So,
they won't be entirely disappointed if Bush gets a second term.
The sad truth is that the Democratic Party's foreign policy has been
auctioned off to the Israeli Lobby. There is nothing Bush Lite about
the DLC. A vote for Kerry is a vote for Haim Saban and the DLC. This
coming Tuesday, you will be invited to choose your neo-con poison. In
the next four years, we will all discover that diluted neo-con Kool Aid
is just as toxic.