Monday, December 8, 2014

Conspiracy Time!

Cartoon by BALOO
Surely we all realize by now that when governments do things, they almost always give phony reasons for it, right? And sometimes the reasons they give are outright lies. And when it comes to the Middle East, any part of it, the lies are so voluminous that the truth is particularly difficult to find.

For example, why the hell did we invade Iraq? Sure, sure, Hussein was a jerk, but there are jerks all over the place, and I find it hard to believe that his jerkiness was the cause of the invasion. Especially since he's been replaced, as any fool could have predicted, by other jerks. And it certainly wasn't done to stabilize things, because, again as any fool could have predicted, affairs there are much less stable than they were before.

And now, we're being assured, the thing we simply must do is destroy the Syrian government. Why, exactly is that? Hint: it's not because President Assad is a jerk.

Well, over at Vulture of Critique, an attempt is made to sort it all out, but you have to go there to see the cool illustration:
http://vultureofcritique.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/who-engineered-911-syria-and-the-ukraine-was-it-all-done-by-a-single-country-with-an-extensive-spy-network/

Who engineered 911, Syria, and the Ukraine? Was it all done by a single country with an extensive spy network?


This post will link to two very distinct sources, A and B.
Both sources are asking the same question: Who starts the wars?
Here is source A:
So I want to make very clear that Iraq was not a consequence of poor intelligence or bad decisions in the wake of post 9/11 emotions.  The invasions of both Iraq and Syria were being planned and discussed for many years before 9/11.  It is imperative to understand such things.  Because while we cannot change history, we must use history to change the future.  And I will add a note here because of the complexities of discussing Israel in a public forum.  The immediately following should not be misconstrued as an indictment of Israel for it is America that is responsible for America’s actions.  Now please carry on.
In 1996 the Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu, sponsored an ad hoc think tank calledThe Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ “Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000.”  From this think tank came a report that was the beginning of a powerful lobby movement.  Let’s take a close look at a few main points that come from the 1996 report.
Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. 
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:
  • striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan. 
  • paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces. 
  • striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996. 
But who would have authored such a report?  A report that seems to promote the idea of constraining, manipulating and achieving a benign American reaction.  Well have a look at the list of authors/signatories of that report, below.  They should be familiar to most of you as they are US not Israeli policymakers, which is odd because again this is an Israeli state sponsored project with objectives that are clearly focused on the well being of Israel, not the US or the  American people.
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, PresidentInstitute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University
Now subsequent to that 1996 report being released there was a letter drafted and sent to President Clinton in January 1998 that provides us some additional clarity on the war policies of the new millennium.  Let’s have a look at that.
Screen Shot 2014-12-06 at 12.51.00 PM
Again we see a very explicit and aggressive lobby effort to persuade the US to invade Iraq.  Now I’m sure you’ll find these authors even more interesting.  Many of the same authors of the 1996 recommendation are also authors of this lobby effort.  Only this time they are acting as benefactors of America.  Odd though that they are pushing the very same agenda that just 18 months earlier these same folks were pushing as benefactors to a foreign nation.  It almost seems as though the authors are indeed attempting to manage and constrain the American people’s reaction, as discussed in the first report, to their desired recommendations that US use its military to engage various nations in war.  I’ve attached the list of authors here as well.
Screen Shot 2014-12-06 at 12.52.49 PM
Let’s think about this rationally for a moment.  In 1996 we had a foreign government sponsor a think tank staffed by very prominent US policymakers with the objective to strengthen that foreign sponsor nation.  And then 18 months later we see a follow on letter to the President from many of the same US policymakers that authored the 1996 report and some additional prominent US policymakers.  The recommendation of both the ’96 report and ’98 letter to the President were lobbying for the US to invade and overthrow Iraq and Syria.  However the original recommendation was for the benefit of Israel and the latter recommendation was being sold as necessary for America.  And remember, 9/11 had not happened yet but we already see these very powerful, very prominent policymakers pushing very hard to invade Iraq and Syria.
The problem is Americans didn’t want another Iraqi war.  Times were good in the late 1990′s.  People were happy.  The cold war was over, jobs were a plenty and the world felt safer than it had for decades.  And as such, there was no way Americans were going to war for the benefit of a foreign nation. The US had decided Hussein was actually a stabilizing force there in the middle east and as such we wanted him there.  But then an election happened and little Bush was elected President.  Along with him came all those names we just saw authoring the two dossiers recommending the US invade Iraq and Syria.  The authors were given titles such as Chair of the Defense Policy Board (Richard Perle) and Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld), etc.   And so all of a sudden the same group of people who were championing the invasion of Iraq and Syria back in the late 1990′s were now in a position to make it happen by way of their own authority.  What luck!  Shortly thereafter the worst attack on US soil took place in New York and the rest is, as they say, history.
To believe we went into Iraq because our fearless and integrity driven leaders truly and honestly believed it was the morally and justifiable thing to do based on the tragedy of 9/11 is just ignorance because it does not align with the facts.  There was a small group of men, called Neocons, that had derived these military actions some 10 years prior to operations themselves and some 5 years prior to the events that were used to sell these war efforts to the American people and the world.  None of that can we change.  And so my ultimate point here is to learn from what happened with Syria and Iraq and to show you it is exactly what is happening with Russia today.
Let me introduce a letter written by Bill Kristol and Donald Kagan to the Heads of State and Government Of the European Union and NATO.  The letter was signed by many but of particular interest are many of the same names from the 1996 report and 1998 letter to President Clinton pushing for war against Iraq and Syria.  This 2004 letter does not mince its words.  It is very much pushing for European support of what would obviously be a US led military stand off with Russia.  The letter is sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, which is a neoconservative think tank.  In fact, one of the prestigious awards handed out by the AEI is called the Irving Kristol award.  Irving Kristol (father to Bill Kristol) is known as the godfather of the neocon movement in the US.  So again this is essentially the same crowd from ’96 an ’98, pushing for support of a US military operation, this time with Russia.  This is back in 2004 mind you before the current events in Ukraine had even been imagined (signatories of the attached letter can be found here).
Screen Shot 2014-12-06 at 5.02.58 PM
Again we see the aggressive recommendations to back a military operation many years before the catalyst event takes place.  That is the event that is being sold as the moral justification for a military operation.  But this letter tells us that this military objective against Russia has been promoted for many many years now, far before Ukraine was an issue.  This is again, a push from the same folks that lied to us about Iraq and then trained, equipped and funded ISIS in order to get into Syria and are now working hard to create a catalyst for an offensive with Russia.
For years before 9/11 it was determined by those warmongering policymakers that we would be invading Iraq and Syria.  All we needed was a catalyst.  9/11 provided that for Iraq.  ISIS provided that for Syria and now Ukraine has provided that for Russia.


Here is source B:

No comments:

Post a Comment