.
.
.
Jul 31, 2015
International Big Jew nose conspiracy
.
.
.
.
This article originally appeared at Consortium News
The Washington Post’s descent into the depths of neoconservative propaganda – willfully misleading its readers on matters of grave importance – apparently knows no bounds as was demonstrated with two deceptive articles regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin and why his government is cracking down on “foreign agents.”
.
If you read the Post’s editorial on Wednesday and a companion op-ed by National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, you would have been led to believe that Putin is delusional, paranoid and “power mad” in his concern that outside money funneled into non-governmental organizations represents a threat to Russian sovereignty.
.
The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians have enacted laws requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as “foreign agents” – and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman’s NED.
.
The Post’s editors wrote that Putin’s “latest move, announced Tuesday, is to declare the NED an ‘undesirable’ organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a ‘threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.’
The secret hand behind NED’s creation was CIA Director William J. Casey who worked with senior CIA covert operation specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to establish NED in 1983. Casey – from the CIA – and Raymond – from his assignment inside President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council – focused on creating a funding mechanism to support groups inside foreign countries that would engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. To partially replace that CIA role, the idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money.
.
But Casey recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA. “Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III – as Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment.”
.
NED Is Born
.
The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money — within NED — for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured.
.
But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation.
.
This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA’s congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill.
.
The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented, not fully recognizing the significance of the demand.
The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration’s
choice of Carl Gershman to head the National Endowment for Democracy,
again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future of the
new entity and American foreign policy. Gershman, who had followed the
classic neoconservative path from youthful socialism to fierce
anticommunism, became NED’s first (and, to this day, only) president.
.
Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC. For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that “Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.”
.
Currently, Gershman’s NED dispenses more than $100 million a year in U.S. government funds to various NGOs, media outlets and activists around the world. The NED also has found itself in the middle of political destabilization campaigns against governments that have gotten on the wrong side of U.S. foreign policy.
.
For instance, prior to the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing an anti-Russian regime in Kiev, NED was funding scores of projects.
.
A second point left out of the Post’s editorial was the fact that Gershman took a personal hand in the Ukraine crisis and recognized it as an interim step toward regime change in Moscow. On Sept. 26, 2013, Gershman published an op-ed in the Washington Post that called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and explained how pulling it into the Western camp could contribute to the ultimate defeat of Russian President Putin.
.
A third point that the Post ignored is that the Russian law requiring outside-funded political organizations to register as “foreign agents” was modeled on a U.S. law, the Foreign Agent Registration Act. In other words, the U.S. government also requires individuals and entities working for foreign interests and seeking to influence U.S. policies to disclose those relationships with the U.S. Justice Department or face prison.
.
If the Post’s editors had included any or all of these three relevant factors, you would have come away with a more balanced understanding of why Russia is acting as it is. You might still object but at least you would be aware of the full story. By concealing all three points, the Post’s editors were tricking you and other readers into accepting a propagandistic viewpoint – that the Russian actions were crazy and that Putin was, according to the Post’s headline, “power mad.”
.
Gershman’s Op-Ed
.
But you might think that Gershman would at least acknowledge some of these points in his Post op-ed, surely admitting that NED is financed by the U.S. government. But Gershman didn’t. He simply portrayed Russia’s actions as despicable and desperate.
.
So would an acknowledgement of where NED’s money comes from. How many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power?
.
Not surprisingly, Gershman couldn’t find the space to include any balance in his op-ed – and the Post’s editors didn’t insist on any.
.
.
.
NED Is a CIA Front. No Wonder Russia Shut It Down
- Founded by the CIA, funded by US Congress and headed by a neocon the National Endowment for Democracy was an instrument of a regime-change-minded foreign government
- Despite what Washington Post who gave space to its President would have you believe
This article originally appeared at Consortium News
The Washington Post’s descent into the depths of neoconservative propaganda – willfully misleading its readers on matters of grave importance – apparently knows no bounds as was demonstrated with two deceptive articles regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin and why his government is cracking down on “foreign agents.”
.
If you read the Post’s editorial on Wednesday and a companion op-ed by National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, you would have been led to believe that Putin is delusional, paranoid and “power mad” in his concern that outside money funneled into non-governmental organizations represents a threat to Russian sovereignty.
.
The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians have enacted laws requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as “foreign agents” – and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman’s NED.
.
The Post’s editors wrote that Putin’s “latest move, announced Tuesday, is to declare the NED an ‘undesirable’ organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a ‘threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.’
“The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED’s grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society.But there are several salient facts that the Post’s editors surely know but don’t want you to know. The first is that NED is a U.S. government-funded organization created in 1983 to do what the Central Intelligence Agency previously had done in financing organizations inside target countries to advance U.S. policy interests and, if needed, help in “regime change.”
They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin’s ramparts. …
“The new law on ‘undesirables’ comes in addition to one signed in 2012 that gave authorities the power to declare organizations ‘foreign agents’ if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage.”
The secret hand behind NED’s creation was CIA Director William J. Casey who worked with senior CIA covert operation specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to establish NED in 1983. Casey – from the CIA – and Raymond – from his assignment inside President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council – focused on creating a funding mechanism to support groups inside foreign countries that would engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. To partially replace that CIA role, the idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money.
.
But Casey recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA. “Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III – as Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment.”
.
NED Is Born
.
The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money — within NED — for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured.
.
But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation.
.
This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA’s congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill.
.
The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented, not fully recognizing the significance of the demand.
.
Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC. For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that “Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.”
.
Currently, Gershman’s NED dispenses more than $100 million a year in U.S. government funds to various NGOs, media outlets and activists around the world. The NED also has found itself in the middle of political destabilization campaigns against governments that have gotten on the wrong side of U.S. foreign policy.
.
For instance, prior to the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing an anti-Russian regime in Kiev, NED was funding scores of projects.
.
A second point left out of the Post’s editorial was the fact that Gershman took a personal hand in the Ukraine crisis and recognized it as an interim step toward regime change in Moscow. On Sept. 26, 2013, Gershman published an op-ed in the Washington Post that called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and explained how pulling it into the Western camp could contribute to the ultimate defeat of Russian President Putin.
“Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents,” Gershman wrote.In other words, NED is a U.S. government-financed entity that has set its sights on ousting Russia’s current government.
“Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”
.
A third point that the Post ignored is that the Russian law requiring outside-funded political organizations to register as “foreign agents” was modeled on a U.S. law, the Foreign Agent Registration Act. In other words, the U.S. government also requires individuals and entities working for foreign interests and seeking to influence U.S. policies to disclose those relationships with the U.S. Justice Department or face prison.
.
If the Post’s editors had included any or all of these three relevant factors, you would have come away with a more balanced understanding of why Russia is acting as it is. You might still object but at least you would be aware of the full story. By concealing all three points, the Post’s editors were tricking you and other readers into accepting a propagandistic viewpoint – that the Russian actions were crazy and that Putin was, according to the Post’s headline, “power mad.”
.
Gershman’s Op-Ed
.
But you might think that Gershman would at least acknowledge some of these points in his Post op-ed, surely admitting that NED is financed by the U.S. government. But Gershman didn’t. He simply portrayed Russia’s actions as despicable and desperate.
“Russia’s newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for Democracy on Tuesday was declared an “undesirable organization” prohibited from operating in Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a worsening crisis of political legitimacy,” Gershman wrote, adding:The reference to how a “foreign agents” registration law conflicts with international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is good for the goose in the United States isn’t good for the gander in Russia. But hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic impact of the op-ed.
“This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression, the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not backed down.
They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the ‘foreign agents’ law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a better future for Russia.”
.
So would an acknowledgement of where NED’s money comes from. How many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power?
.
Not surprisingly, Gershman couldn’t find the space to include any balance in his op-ed – and the Post’s editors didn’t insist on any.
Civilised discourse and meaningful lasting cooperation
.
.
.
.
The ONLY thing missing now is a FTA between the two countries.
The boundary deal is a great achievement leading up to Independence day in India on the 15th of August.
The relationship between India and Bangladesh has moved beyond mere eloquent speeches and diplomatic gestures.
India is funding INFRASTRUCTURE in Bangladesh, including a bridge on the Meghna river near where I was born.
________________________________________
Officials of two nations will hoist their respective national flags in 162 enclaves - 111 in Bangladesh and 51 in India - at one minute past midnight (1801 GMT Friday) to assume sovereignty over the territories following a historic border pact in June.
READ ALSO: India, Bangladesh to notify border settlement today
Following the flag hoisting, the enclaves - pockets of one country's territory surrounded by the other - will cease to exist and more than 50,000 people who have been living there can now access citizenship benefits such as schools, power and healthcare that they have lacked since 1947.
In the final hours before the handover, villagers have been holding feasts and rehearsing their new national anthems.
Plans for more lavish festivities have been scaled back as India is currently observing a period of national mourning for former President APJ Kalam, who died earlier this week.
But there will be a ceremony on the stroke of midnight to light 68 candles to mark the years of stateless limbo since the end of British colonial rule of the whole of the sub-continent.
"This is the biggest celebration of my life. I can't describe how I feel today," said Parul Khatun, 35, a resident of the Indian enclave of Kot Bajni.
"I'll be a Bangladeshi citizen who can enjoy all the benefits," she said, recalling how she was kicked out of a Bangladeshi hospital when she was about to give birth as she lacked a national identification card.
The enclaves date back to ownership arrangements made centuries ago between local princes.
The parcels of land survived partition of the subcontinent in 1947 after British rule and Bangladesh's 1971 war of independence with Pakistan.
Bangladesh endorsed a deal with India in 1974 in a bid to dissolve the pockets, but India only signed a final agreement in June when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Dhaka.
Officials of both nations this month conducted surveys, asking residents to choose a country.
The overwhelming majority of people living in Indian enclaves in Bangladesh opted for Bangladeshi citizenship.
But nearly 1,000 people on the Bangladesh side opted to keep their Indian nationalities, meaning they will leave their homes by November for India where they will be resettled by the state of West Bengal.
In India, all of the Bangladeshis living in the 51 Bangladesh enclaves decided to switch nationalities.
.
.
.
The ONLY thing missing now is a FTA between the two countries.
The boundary deal is a great achievement leading up to Independence day in India on the 15th of August.
The relationship between India and Bangladesh has moved beyond mere eloquent speeches and diplomatic gestures.
India is funding INFRASTRUCTURE in Bangladesh, including a bridge on the Meghna river near where I was born.
________________________________________
Bangladesh, India exchange land in historic deal
.
Officials of two nations will hoist their respective national flags in 162 enclaves - 111 in Bangladesh and 51 in India - at one minute past midnight (1801 GMT Friday) to assume sovereignty over the territories following a historic border pact in June.
READ ALSO: India, Bangladesh to notify border settlement today
Following the flag hoisting, the enclaves - pockets of one country's territory surrounded by the other - will cease to exist and more than 50,000 people who have been living there can now access citizenship benefits such as schools, power and healthcare that they have lacked since 1947.
In the final hours before the handover, villagers have been holding feasts and rehearsing their new national anthems.
Plans for more lavish festivities have been scaled back as India is currently observing a period of national mourning for former President APJ Kalam, who died earlier this week.
But there will be a ceremony on the stroke of midnight to light 68 candles to mark the years of stateless limbo since the end of British colonial rule of the whole of the sub-continent.
"This is the biggest celebration of my life. I can't describe how I feel today," said Parul Khatun, 35, a resident of the Indian enclave of Kot Bajni.
"I'll be a Bangladeshi citizen who can enjoy all the benefits," she said, recalling how she was kicked out of a Bangladeshi hospital when she was about to give birth as she lacked a national identification card.
The enclaves date back to ownership arrangements made centuries ago between local princes.
The parcels of land survived partition of the subcontinent in 1947 after British rule and Bangladesh's 1971 war of independence with Pakistan.
Bangladesh endorsed a deal with India in 1974 in a bid to dissolve the pockets, but India only signed a final agreement in June when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Dhaka.
Officials of both nations this month conducted surveys, asking residents to choose a country.
The overwhelming majority of people living in Indian enclaves in Bangladesh opted for Bangladeshi citizenship.
But nearly 1,000 people on the Bangladesh side opted to keep their Indian nationalities, meaning they will leave their homes by November for India where they will be resettled by the state of West Bengal.
In India, all of the Bangladeshis living in the 51 Bangladesh enclaves decided to switch nationalities.
Jul 30, 2015
Meet the Jewish Kagans of Washington
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Neoconservative Pathology Still Dominates US Government
.
Meet The Kagans: Seeking War To The End Of The World
Submitted by Robert Parry, via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,
If the neoconservatives have their way again,
1. US ground troops will reoccupy Iraq,
2. the US military will take out Syria’s POPULAR secular government (likely helping Al Qaeda and the Islamic State take over)
3. the US Congress will not only kill the Iran nuclear deal but follow that with a massive increase in military spending.
4. War with Russia.
5. War with China via North Korea or South China Sea disputes.
6. War with Iran.
7. A more muscular security presence in Central Asia.
8. More American servicemen in Eastern Europe.
9. Total domination of space weaponisation above the earth, and the presence of Jew satellites and Jew Drones.
10. Occupation of the Moon for Eretz Israel.
Like spraying lighter fluid on a roaring barbecue, the neocons also want a military escalation in Ukraine to burn the ethnic Russians out of the east, and the neocons dream of spreading the blaze to Moscow with the goal of forcing Russian President Vladimir Putin from the Kremlin.
.
In other words, more and more fires of Imperial “regime change” abroad even as the last embers of the American Republic die at home.
(This is the follow up of the Jewish Bolsheviks success in eliminating 60 million Soviet citizens, and whilst conducting bizarre Rothschilds based social experiments from their capitalist overlords in London and NY. The perception and hope that if they can do this in Ukraine with the aid of the State Department/CIA, Israelis and the Jewish fifth column in Ukraine...Poroschenko....then they can repeat the same with RUSSIA with the fifth column NGO's, Russian intellectual liberal Jews and the State Department and CIA)
Much of this “strategy” is personified by a single Washington power couple:
.
arch-neocon Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and an early advocate of the Iraq War, and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who engineered last year’s coup in Ukraine that started a nasty civil war and created a confrontation between nuclear-armed United States and Russia.
.
Kagan, who cut his teeth as a propaganda specialist in support of the Reagan administration’s brutal Central American policies in the 1980s, is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing columnist to The Washington Post’s neocon-dominated opinion pages.
.
On Friday, Kagan’s column baited the Republican Party to do more than just object to President Barack Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal. Kagan called for an all-out commitment to neoconservative goals, including military escalations in the Middle East, belligerence toward Russia and casting aside fiscal discipline in favor of funneling tens of billions of new dollars to the Pentagon.
.
Kagan also showed how the neocons’ world view remains the conventional wisdom of Official Washington despite their disastrous Iraq War. The neocon narrative gets repeated over and over in the mainstream media no matter how delusional it is.
.
For instance, a sane person might trace the origins of the bloodthirsty Islamic State back to President George W. Bush’s neocon-inspired Iraq War when this hyper-violent Sunni movement began as “Al Qaeda in Iraq” blowing up Shiite mosques and instigating sectarian bloodshed. It later expanded into Syria where Sunni militants were seeking the ouster of a secular regime led by Alawites, a Shiite offshoot. Though changing its name to the Islamic State, the movement continued with its trademark brutality.
(Well at least that is one version of the desert fairy tale psy-ops....the other is that ISIS was created by the CIA, when 'al-CIA-duh' became worn out and less frightening and convincing to the public from about 2008, through the aid of NATO Turkey, and trained armed and supplied by the USA, Israel and NATO Turkey and funded by GCC countries extensively with arms from Gaddafi's failed state Libya.
Well armed well supplied terrorist groups numbering 200,000 (Kurdish sources)...or 40,000 (CIA sources) do not appear out of nowhere.....and fight two governments simultaneously for 4 serious hard fighting years..THEY MUST BE SUPPORTED BY CERTAIN STATES....in ISILs case the USA, Israel, Turkey, Jordan and GCC countries)
.
But Kagan doesn’t acknowledge that he and his fellow neocons bear any responsibility for this head-chopping phenomenon. In his neocon narrative, the Islamic State gets blamed on Iran and Syria, even though those governments are leading much of the resistance to the Islamic State and its former colleagues in Al Qaeda, which in Syria backs a separate terrorist organization, the Nusra Front.
.
But here is how Kagan explains the situation to the Smart People of Official Washington:
.
While ranting about “Iranian hegemony,” Kagan called for direct military intervention by the world’s true hegemonic power, the United States. He wants the US military to weigh in against Iran on the side of two far more militarily advanced regional powers, Israel and Saudi Arabia, whose combined weapons spending dwarfs Iran’s and includes – with Israel – a sophisticated nuclear arsenal.
.
Yet reality has never had much relationship to neocon ideology. Kagan continued:
.
Instead of facing a purge that should have followed the Iraq calamity, the neocons consolidated their power, holding onto key jobs in US foreign policy, ensconcing themselves in influential think tanks, and remaining the go-to experts for mainstream media coverage. Being wrong about Iraq has almost become a badge of honor in the upside-down world of Official Washington.
.
But we need to unpack the truckload of sophistry that Kagan is peddling. First, it is simply crazy to talk about “Iranian hegemony.” That was part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rhetoric before the US Congress on March 3 about Iran “gobbling up” nations – and it has now become a neocon-driven litany, but it is no more real just because it gets repeated endlessly.
.
REALLY SCARY PERSIAN HORDES WAITING FOR THE RIGHT MOMENT TO POUNCE ON LITTLE SHITTY ISRAEL.....THAT IS WHY THE WEST REMOVED THE ISRAELI LOVING SHAH OF IRAN IN 1979, AND INSTALLED THE MULLAHS, RIGHT?
For instance, take the Iraq case. It has a Shiite-led government not because Iran invaded Iraq, but because the United States did. After the US military ousted Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, the United States stood up a new government dominated by Shiites who, in turn, sought friendly relations with their co-religionists in Iran, which is entirely understandable and represents no aggression by Iran. Then, after the Islamic State’s dramatic military gains across Iraq last summer, the Iraqi government turned to Iran for military assistance, also no surprise.
(Shia constitute 60% of Iraq's population and have been ruled by the 20% Sunnis for 1300 years. Like a good colonial power the USA rewarded the underdog (Shia's) vis a vi the Sunnis, the traditional ruling elite of Iraq after invading the country. The Sunnis were not happy at the new arrangement from 2003, and Sunni militias fought the USA occupation...supported by Saudi Arabia and to a lessor degree Turkey (2 Sunni powers)....4700 American servicemen died fighting this Sunni resistance, whilst the CIA gave it color by stating that the noble warriors of the USA were in fact fighting 'al-CIA-duh" in Iraq. The Americans were fully aware who was backing the Sunni fedayeen resistance between 2003--2011.....but Iraq was about destroying the country by creating a failed state, and extracting its oil for free and rewarding USA Pentagon related multinationals. The USA then decided to use the Salvador Option, which is set the Shia death squads with Iranian help against the Sunni resistence.......thus creating a Sunni/Shia clash in Iraq.
In Syria its the other way round....in Syria you have a Shia minority 13% ruling a Sunni majority country. So the Sunni ISIS was created from Turkey to fight the Shia dominated government of Assad who heads a secular moderate popular government in all respects.
In the USA you have JEWS who constitute just 2% who dominate USA foreign policy.
The Shia Iraqi government does not trust the USA or any Western powers, even though they may officially ask for help. They suspect that ISIS is backed by the USA/ISRAEL via NATO Turkey and GCC countries. Thus logically they have greater faith in their coreligionists the mullahs of Iran which is the only main Shia dominated power. Their suspicions are reinforced when
(i) the USA regularly bombs Shia Iraqi government positions fighting ISIL AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN....AND THEN SAYS OOOPS OUR MISTAKE.
(ii) On the other hand when a hand full of ISIS terrorists takes over an Iraqi town in full day light, the American airforce is never to be seen.
(iii) Clear observations have been made of the Americans air dropping supplies to ISIS IN Iraq.
Such JEW deviousness necessitates bad faith on the part of the Iraqi government over the Americans, and reliance on Iran.
.
Back to Iraq
.
However, leaving aside Kagan’s delusional hyperbole about Iran, look at what he’s proposing. He wants to return a sizable US occupation force to Iraq, apparently caring little about the US soldiers who were rotated multiple times into the war zone where almost 4,500 died (along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis). Having promoted Iraq War I and having paid no price, Kagan now wants to give us Iraq War II.
.
But that’s not enough. Kagan wants the US military to intervene to make sure the secular government of Syria is overthrown, even though the almost certain winners would be Sunni extremists from the Islamic State or Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front. Such a victory could lead to genocides against Syria’s Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other minorities. At that point, there would be tremendous pressure for a full-scale US invasion and occupation of Syria, too.
.
That may be why Kagan wants to throw tens of billions of dollar more into the military-industrial complex, although the true price tag for Kagan’s new wars would likely run into the trillions of dollars. Yet, Kagan still isn’t satisfied. He wants even more military spending to confront “growing Chinese power, an aggressive Russia and an increasingly hegemonic Iran.”
.
In his conclusion, Kagan mocks the Republicans for not backing up their tough talk: “So, yes, by all means, rail about the [Iran] deal. We all look forward to the hours of floor speeches and campaign speeches that lie ahead. But it will be hard to take Republican criticisms seriously unless they start doing the things that are in their power to do to begin to address the challenge.”
.
While it’s true that Kagan is now “just” a neocon ideologue – albeit one with important platforms to present his views – his wife Assistant Secretary of State Nuland shares his foreign policy views and even edits many of his articles. As she told The New York Times last year, “nothing goes out of the house that I don’t think is worthy of his talents. Let’s put it that way.” [See “Obama’s True Foreign Policy ‘Weakness.’”]
.
But Nuland is a foreign policy force of her own, considered by some in Washington to be the up-and-coming “star” at the State Department. By organizing the “regime change” in Ukraine – with the violent overthrow of democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 – Nuland also earned her spurs as an accomplished neocon.
.
Nuland has even outdone her husband, who may get “credit” for the Iraq War and the resulting chaos, but Nuland did him one better, instigating Cold War II and reviving hostilities between nuclear-armed Russia and the United States. After all, that’s where the really big money will go – toward modernizing nuclear arsenals and ordering top-of-the-line strategic weaponry.
.
A Family Business
.
There’s also a family-business aspect to these wars and confrontations, since the Kagans collectively serve not just to start conflicts but to profit from grateful military contractors who kick back a share of the money to the think tanks that employ the Kagans.
.
For instance, Robert’s brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).
.
According to ISW’s annual reports, its original supporters were mostly right-wing foundations, such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it was later backed by a host of national security contractors, including major ones like General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which provided training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing of the CIA’s venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplied software to US military intelligence in Afghanistan.
Since its founding in 2007, ISW has focused mostly on wars in the Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, including closely cooperating with Gen. David Petraeus when he commanded US forces in those countries. However, more recently, ISW has begun reporting extensively on the civil war in Ukraine. [See “Neocons Guided Petraeus on Afghan War.”]
.
So, to understand the enduring influence of the neocons – and the Kagan clan, in particular – you have to appreciate the money connections between the business of war and the business of selling war. When the military contractors do well, the think tanks that advocate for heightened global tensions do well, too.
.
And, it doesn’t hurt to have friends and family inside the government making sure that policymakers do their part to give war a chance — and to give peace the old heave-ho.
If the neoconservatives have their way again, 1. US ground troops will reoccupy Iraq,
2. the US military will take out Syria’s POPULAR secular government (likely helping Al Qaeda and the Islamic State take over)
3. the US Congress will not only kill the Iran nuclear deal but follow that with a massive increase in military spending.
4. War with Russia.
5. War with China via North Korea or South China Sea disputes.
6. War with Iran.
7. A more muscular security presence in Central Asia.
8. More American servicemen in Eastern Europe.
9. Total domination of space weaponisation above the earth, and the presence of Jew satellites and Jew Drones.
10. Occupation of the Moon for Eretz Israel.
Like spraying lighter fluid on a roaring barbecue, the neocons also want a military escalation in Ukraine to burn the ethnic Russians out of the east, and the neocons dream of spreading the blaze to Moscow with the goal of forcing Russian President Vladimir Putin from the Kremlin.
.
In other words, more and more fires of Imperial “regime change” abroad even as the last embers of the American Republic die at home.
(This is the follow up of the Jewish Bolsheviks success in eliminating 60 million Soviet citizens, and whilst conducting bizarre Rothschilds based social experiments from their capitalist overlords in London and NY. The perception and hope that if they can do this in Ukraine with the aid of the State Department/CIA, Israelis and the Jewish fifth column in Ukraine...Poroschenko....then they can repeat the same with RUSSIA with the fifth column NGO's, Russian intellectual liberal Jews and the State Department and CIA)
Much of this “strategy” is personified by a single Washington power couple:
.
arch-neocon Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and an early advocate of the Iraq War, and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who engineered last year’s coup in Ukraine that started a nasty civil war and created a confrontation between nuclear-armed United States and Russia.
.
Kagan, who cut his teeth as a propaganda specialist in support of the Reagan administration’s brutal Central American policies in the 1980s, is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing columnist to The Washington Post’s neocon-dominated opinion pages.
.
On Friday, Kagan’s column baited the Republican Party to do more than just object to President Barack Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal. Kagan called for an all-out commitment to neoconservative goals, including military escalations in the Middle East, belligerence toward Russia and casting aside fiscal discipline in favor of funneling tens of billions of new dollars to the Pentagon.
.
Kagan also showed how the neocons’ world view remains the conventional wisdom of Official Washington despite their disastrous Iraq War. The neocon narrative gets repeated over and over in the mainstream media no matter how delusional it is.
.
For instance, a sane person might trace the origins of the bloodthirsty Islamic State back to President George W. Bush’s neocon-inspired Iraq War when this hyper-violent Sunni movement began as “Al Qaeda in Iraq” blowing up Shiite mosques and instigating sectarian bloodshed. It later expanded into Syria where Sunni militants were seeking the ouster of a secular regime led by Alawites, a Shiite offshoot. Though changing its name to the Islamic State, the movement continued with its trademark brutality.
(Well at least that is one version of the desert fairy tale psy-ops....the other is that ISIS was created by the CIA, when 'al-CIA-duh' became worn out and less frightening and convincing to the public from about 2008, through the aid of NATO Turkey, and trained armed and supplied by the USA, Israel and NATO Turkey and funded by GCC countries extensively with arms from Gaddafi's failed state Libya.
Well armed well supplied terrorist groups numbering 200,000 (Kurdish sources)...or 40,000 (CIA sources) do not appear out of nowhere.....and fight two governments simultaneously for 4 serious hard fighting years..THEY MUST BE SUPPORTED BY CERTAIN STATES....in ISILs case the USA, Israel, Turkey, Jordan and GCC countries)
.
But Kagan doesn’t acknowledge that he and his fellow neocons bear any responsibility for this head-chopping phenomenon. In his neocon narrative, the Islamic State gets blamed on Iran and Syria, even though those governments are leading much of the resistance to the Islamic State and its former colleagues in Al Qaeda, which in Syria backs a separate terrorist organization, the Nusra Front.
.
But here is how Kagan explains the situation to the Smart People of Official Washington:
Critics of the recent nuclear deal struck between Iran and the United States are entirely right to point out the serious challenge that will now be posed by the Islamic republic. It is an aspiring hegemon in an important region of the world.The Real Hegemon
It is deeply engaged in a region-wide war that encompasses Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, the Gulf States and the Palestinian territories. It subsidizes the murderous but collapsing regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and therefore bears primary responsibility for the growing strength of the Islamic State and other radical jihadist forces in that country and in neighboring Iraq, where it is simultaneously expanding its influence and inflaming sectarian violence.
.
While ranting about “Iranian hegemony,” Kagan called for direct military intervention by the world’s true hegemonic power, the United States. He wants the US military to weigh in against Iran on the side of two far more militarily advanced regional powers, Israel and Saudi Arabia, whose combined weapons spending dwarfs Iran’s and includes – with Israel – a sophisticated nuclear arsenal.
.
Yet reality has never had much relationship to neocon ideology. Kagan continued:
Any serious strategy aimed at resisting Iranian hegemony has also required confronting Iran on the several fronts of the Middle East battlefield. In Syria, it has required a determined policy to remove Assad by force, using US air power to provide cover for civilians and create a safe zone for Syrians willing to fight.In Kagan’s call for war and more war, we’re seeing, again, the consequence of failing to hold neocons accountable after they pushed the country into the illegal and catastrophic Iraq War by selling lies about weapons of mass destruction and telling tales about how easy it would be.
In Iraq, it has required using American forces to push back and destroy the forces of the Islamic State so that we would not have to rely, de facto, on Iranian power to do the job. Overall, it has required a greater US military commitment to the region, a reversal of both the perceived and the real withdrawal of American power.
And therefore it has required a reversal of the downward trend in US defense spending, especially the undoing of the sequestration of defense funds, which has made it harder for the military even to think about addressing these challenges, should it be called upon to do so. So the question for Republicans who are rightly warning of the danger posed by Iran is: What have they done to make it possible for the United States to begin to have any strategy for responding?
.
Instead of facing a purge that should have followed the Iraq calamity, the neocons consolidated their power, holding onto key jobs in US foreign policy, ensconcing themselves in influential think tanks, and remaining the go-to experts for mainstream media coverage. Being wrong about Iraq has almost become a badge of honor in the upside-down world of Official Washington.
.
But we need to unpack the truckload of sophistry that Kagan is peddling. First, it is simply crazy to talk about “Iranian hegemony.” That was part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rhetoric before the US Congress on March 3 about Iran “gobbling up” nations – and it has now become a neocon-driven litany, but it is no more real just because it gets repeated endlessly.
.
REALLY SCARY PERSIAN HORDES WAITING FOR THE RIGHT MOMENT TO POUNCE ON LITTLE SHITTY ISRAEL.....THAT IS WHY THE WEST REMOVED THE ISRAELI LOVING SHAH OF IRAN IN 1979, AND INSTALLED THE MULLAHS, RIGHT?For instance, take the Iraq case. It has a Shiite-led government not because Iran invaded Iraq, but because the United States did. After the US military ousted Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, the United States stood up a new government dominated by Shiites who, in turn, sought friendly relations with their co-religionists in Iran, which is entirely understandable and represents no aggression by Iran. Then, after the Islamic State’s dramatic military gains across Iraq last summer, the Iraqi government turned to Iran for military assistance, also no surprise.
(Shia constitute 60% of Iraq's population and have been ruled by the 20% Sunnis for 1300 years. Like a good colonial power the USA rewarded the underdog (Shia's) vis a vi the Sunnis, the traditional ruling elite of Iraq after invading the country. The Sunnis were not happy at the new arrangement from 2003, and Sunni militias fought the USA occupation...supported by Saudi Arabia and to a lessor degree Turkey (2 Sunni powers)....4700 American servicemen died fighting this Sunni resistance, whilst the CIA gave it color by stating that the noble warriors of the USA were in fact fighting 'al-CIA-duh" in Iraq. The Americans were fully aware who was backing the Sunni fedayeen resistance between 2003--2011.....but Iraq was about destroying the country by creating a failed state, and extracting its oil for free and rewarding USA Pentagon related multinationals. The USA then decided to use the Salvador Option, which is set the Shia death squads with Iranian help against the Sunni resistence.......thus creating a Sunni/Shia clash in Iraq.
In Syria its the other way round....in Syria you have a Shia minority 13% ruling a Sunni majority country. So the Sunni ISIS was created from Turkey to fight the Shia dominated government of Assad who heads a secular moderate popular government in all respects.
In the USA you have JEWS who constitute just 2% who dominate USA foreign policy.
The Shia Iraqi government does not trust the USA or any Western powers, even though they may officially ask for help. They suspect that ISIS is backed by the USA/ISRAEL via NATO Turkey and GCC countries. Thus logically they have greater faith in their coreligionists the mullahs of Iran which is the only main Shia dominated power. Their suspicions are reinforced when
(i) the USA regularly bombs Shia Iraqi government positions fighting ISIL AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN....AND THEN SAYS OOOPS OUR MISTAKE.
(ii) On the other hand when a hand full of ISIS terrorists takes over an Iraqi town in full day light, the American airforce is never to be seen.
(iii) Clear observations have been made of the Americans air dropping supplies to ISIS IN Iraq.
Such JEW deviousness necessitates bad faith on the part of the Iraqi government over the Americans, and reliance on Iran.
.
Back to Iraq
.
However, leaving aside Kagan’s delusional hyperbole about Iran, look at what he’s proposing. He wants to return a sizable US occupation force to Iraq, apparently caring little about the US soldiers who were rotated multiple times into the war zone where almost 4,500 died (along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis). Having promoted Iraq War I and having paid no price, Kagan now wants to give us Iraq War II.
.
But that’s not enough. Kagan wants the US military to intervene to make sure the secular government of Syria is overthrown, even though the almost certain winners would be Sunni extremists from the Islamic State or Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front. Such a victory could lead to genocides against Syria’s Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other minorities. At that point, there would be tremendous pressure for a full-scale US invasion and occupation of Syria, too.
.
That may be why Kagan wants to throw tens of billions of dollar more into the military-industrial complex, although the true price tag for Kagan’s new wars would likely run into the trillions of dollars. Yet, Kagan still isn’t satisfied. He wants even more military spending to confront “growing Chinese power, an aggressive Russia and an increasingly hegemonic Iran.”
.
In his conclusion, Kagan mocks the Republicans for not backing up their tough talk: “So, yes, by all means, rail about the [Iran] deal. We all look forward to the hours of floor speeches and campaign speeches that lie ahead. But it will be hard to take Republican criticisms seriously unless they start doing the things that are in their power to do to begin to address the challenge.”
.
While it’s true that Kagan is now “just” a neocon ideologue – albeit one with important platforms to present his views – his wife Assistant Secretary of State Nuland shares his foreign policy views and even edits many of his articles. As she told The New York Times last year, “nothing goes out of the house that I don’t think is worthy of his talents. Let’s put it that way.” [See “Obama’s True Foreign Policy ‘Weakness.’”]
.
But Nuland is a foreign policy force of her own, considered by some in Washington to be the up-and-coming “star” at the State Department. By organizing the “regime change” in Ukraine – with the violent overthrow of democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 – Nuland also earned her spurs as an accomplished neocon.
.
Nuland has even outdone her husband, who may get “credit” for the Iraq War and the resulting chaos, but Nuland did him one better, instigating Cold War II and reviving hostilities between nuclear-armed Russia and the United States. After all, that’s where the really big money will go – toward modernizing nuclear arsenals and ordering top-of-the-line strategic weaponry.
.
A Family Business
.
There’s also a family-business aspect to these wars and confrontations, since the Kagans collectively serve not just to start conflicts but to profit from grateful military contractors who kick back a share of the money to the think tanks that employ the Kagans.
.
For instance, Robert’s brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).
.
According to ISW’s annual reports, its original supporters were mostly right-wing foundations, such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it was later backed by a host of national security contractors, including major ones like General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which provided training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing of the CIA’s venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplied software to US military intelligence in Afghanistan.
Since its founding in 2007, ISW has focused mostly on wars in the Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, including closely cooperating with Gen. David Petraeus when he commanded US forces in those countries. However, more recently, ISW has begun reporting extensively on the civil war in Ukraine. [See “Neocons Guided Petraeus on Afghan War.”]
.
So, to understand the enduring influence of the neocons – and the Kagan clan, in particular – you have to appreciate the money connections between the business of war and the business of selling war. When the military contractors do well, the think tanks that advocate for heightened global tensions do well, too.
.
And, it doesn’t hurt to have friends and family inside the government making sure that policymakers do their part to give war a chance — and to give peace the old heave-ho.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)