Sarah Palin: Iraq War 'God's Will'

wel lwell a GOD bible thumper i nthe GOP....what a surprise. McShame will do anything to rally the wingnuts on the right. eve nturn off hisprimary supporters, centrist GOP member who know thet "bigtent" is now a thing of the past. Only right wing bible thumpers need apply to the GOP....it is GOD's will of course

PALIN WHO ADVOCATES ABSTINENCE AND NO SEX EDUCATION IN THE SCHOOL'S NOW HAS A DAUGHTER WHO IS PREGNANT IN A STATE WITH ONE OF THE HIGHEST RATES OF TEENAGE STD'S. TELL ME HOW THAT IS SUPPOSE TO INSTILL CONFIDENCE IN HER INTELLIGENT THOUGHT OUT POLICIES....

War and the "New World Order"

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

09/04/07 "Global Research" --- -

“We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?”



-Norman Dobbs, U.S. Congressional Special Committee for the Investigate of Tax-Exempt Foundations (1982)


War is the ultimate means of attempting to change societies and reshape nations. It is through war that national economies and political structures can be forcibly restructured. War is, potentially, the ultimate economic shock therapy. The wars in the Middle East are stepping stones towards establishing a vision of global order that has been in the hearts and minds of the Anglo-American establishment for years. That vision is global ascendancy.

Towards the “New International Order” through the “Global War on Terror”



“There is a chance for the President of the United States [George W. Bush Jr.] to use this disaster [meaning the attacks of September 11, 2001] to carry out what his father…a phrase his father [George H. Bush Sr.] used I think only once, and it hasn’t been used since … and that is a new world order. Think about this. We already have the support of NATO in a remarkable historic departure.”



-Gary Hart, National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission (September 14, 2001)



On January 18, 2005 Henry Kissinger appeared on Charlie Rose, a television program on PBS, and talked about a “New International Order” being created by George W. Bush Jr. and his administration. [1] Henry Kissinger stated that within the next few years that humanity will see the emergence of the beginning of a “New International Order.” Kissinger also stated that the Bush Jr. Administration could bring about this state; “and it could well be this president, [meaning President Bush Jr.] that is so reviled by intellectuals, [who] will emerge as one of the seminal presidents ... of this period…of American modern history.” [2]

When asked what George W. Bush Jr. has to do to bring about this “New International Order” by his interviewer, Kissinger paused and gave a vague answer that avoided mentioning the criminality of war. “He has to do some certain things and he has to have some luck,” Kissinger answered followed by “Luck is the residue of design.” [3] It should be noted that if luck is a residue of design then it is no longer chance, but a calculation of intent.



Briefly, the role of the American public was talked about by Charlie Rose with Kissinger who paused to pick his words carefully. Kissinger told his interviewer, Rose, that the United States is a nation whose public has no clue about American foreign policy. [4] In regards to the American public, the war agenda cannot move forward if the U.S. maintains its multi-cultural characteristics. It was this multi-cultural characteristic that initially presented the U.S. a problem in declaring war on Germany in both World Wars until the sinking of the RMS Lusitania and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. [5]

Thus, an end to a liberal North American immigration regime that ensures a multi-cultural environment in North America is a prerequisite to expanded American war(s). Zbigniew Brzezinski has written that “as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [amongst the American people], except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” [6] The E.U. is also beginning to follow suit. This premise by Brzezinski, an individual from within the ruling establishment of America, can be used to explain the demonization of Muslims and several national and ethno-cultural groups such as Arabs, Turks, and Iranians.



It is also worth noting that Gary Hart, a former U.S. senator from Colorado, implied on September 14 of 2001 that the “Global War on Terror” sponsored by the Bush Jr. Administration was a pretext for establishing the so-called “New World Order.” [7] Gary Hart also implicated NATO’s role in shaping this “New World Order.” [8] The project is to be implemented by military might.



A Unipolar World: Pax Americana?



“However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.”



-Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)



During his interview, with Charlie Rose, Henry Kissinger had referred to what George H. Bush Sr. identified as the “New World Order.” This was a term frequently used by the former American president that became famous during the Gulf War. With the end of the Cold War and the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War, Georgia H. Bush Sr. said that humanity in 1991 was witness to the emergence of a “New World Order” that would be led by America. [9] The Gulf War was merely the beginning of this “New World Order.” The seeds had been planted in the Middle East for future wars and Eurasian expansion.



The Trilateral Commission, an organization founded in 1973 and consisting of the wealthiest and most powerful elites from the U.S., the E.U., and Japan, originally created the term that George H. Bush Sr. drew on. Their word was “New International Economic Order.” The Trilateral Commission’s terminology lays bare the economic fabric of this program. Military might is merely the enforcer of foreign policy, and foreign policy is based on economic interests.



An agenda of perpetual warfare and violence has been fueling the march towards global domination through economic means. In essence this war agenda has been an unbroken process watched over by the different presidential administrations of the United States.



Stepping forth from behind the Curtains: NATO’s Role in the Eurasian Roadmap



“The policies of the U.S., since the end of the Cold War are complicated and vast. They involve an intent to dominate and the use of international organizations to advance U.S. economic and geopolitical interests. They also include the conversion of NATO into a surrogate military police force for globalization and U.S. world economic domination.”



-Ramsey Clark, 66th United States Attorney-General (October 6, 2000)



NATO has started replicating long-term American war tactics and strategy. NATO is creating a rapid response force, which involves a significant German role. The force is modeled on the U.S. Rapid Response Force, the forerunner of CENTCOM, and has a global reach. The transformation of the U.S. Rapid Deployment Force into CENTCOM was part of long-term Anglo-American war plans. The NATO force is projected to be able to deploy to any region in the world within five days and planned to be capable of self-sufficient, detached operations for approximately one month. The force will also have land, sea, and air components, including an aircraft carrier. [10]



It is apparent that control over Iraq was planned during the culmination of the Cold War by Anglo-American policy makers. The series of wars that have occurred since the Iraq-Iran War are debatably the products of a historical Anglo-American project in the Middle East— a project that was once a solely British project that predated the Cold War. The project to reshape and control the Middle East is part of the greater project to control Eurasia. Just as how this grand project was embraced by the U.S., as the inheritor of British strategy, the project has been embraced by the Franco-German entente and NATO. Zbigniew Brzezinski argued in 1997 that “Europe is America’s essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia,” or an entry point towards dominating Eurasia. [11]



From the statements and goals of U.S. officials going back to the 1990s NATO was projected to expand across the Eurasian landmass and set to embrace Japan, South Korea, and Australia in what Zbigniew Brzezinski identifies as the “trans-Eurasian security system.” [12] The characteristics of prospective conflicts seem to be slated to become dominated by NATO as France and Germany expand their roles in the “long war.” NATO’s role in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, along with NATO’s thrust into the post-Soviet niche and inner Eurasia, are all precarious indications of this.



Making Europe the Partner of America in the “Long War:” Enter the Franco-German Entente



“The victory over Iraq [in the Gulf War] was not waged as ‘a war to end all wars.’ Even the ‘New World Order’ cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace.”



-George H. Bush Sr., 41st President of the United States (March 6, 1991)



Brzezinski explained that although Japan was important to American geo-strategy, Europe as a geopolitical entity (via the E.U. and NATO) constitutes America’s bridgehead into Eurasia. [13] “Unlike America’s links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland,” and that “the allied European nations [were] still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe’s political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence,” Brzezinski explained in regards to Europe and Japan. [14] Brzezinski was paying more than just lip service to America’s allies in continental Europe; he was stressing that they were crucial, albeit as subordinates, to American global interests.



The strength of NATO would rest on the vitality of the European Union, an Anglo-American and Franco-German device. To emphasis this Brzezinski wrote that “the United States’ ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties.” [15] Brzezinski also added that France and Germany, the Franco-German entente, would be America’s vital partners in NATO expansion and securing Eurasia, but a united Europe was an essential prerequisite. In regards to the Franco-German entente, Brzezinski wrote in 1998 that “In the western periphery of Eurasia, the key players will continue to be France and Germany, and America’s central goal should be to continue to expand the democratic European bridgehead.” [16] This was essentially the forecast of the “E.U. expansion” that has gone hand-in-hand with earlier NATO expansion since the end of the Cold War. According to Brzezinski it would be up to the Franco-German entente to led Europe: “America cannot create a more united Europe on its own — that is a task for the Europeans, especially the French and the Germans.” [17]



None of the Pentagon’s geo-strategic plans can go forward without the E.U. and NATO. For this to happen it is essential that a strategic consensus between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente be forged. The Anglo-American alliance has pursued this track and deeper integration with the Franco-German side, while also taking an adversarial stance against the Franco-German entente. Iraq is a symbolic testimony to this rivalry while Lebanon and NATO expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean is a parallel testimony to the strategic cooperation between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente. A contradictory and confusing message is sent from these tracks, but there is always more to the picture. However, it is clear that Franco-German and Anglo-American interests must be synchronized for America to expand its global control.



The Endgame: A “Single Market” under One World Administration?



“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer...”



-Major-General Smedley D. Butler, U.S. Marine Corp Commander (War Is a Racket, 1935)



After the Second World War, it was believed that from the nucleolus of Britain and American that a “New World Order” would be formed. Britain and America even had a combined military staff and combined chiefs of military staff. Visions for a singular global polity have vividly been tied to the Anglo-American establishment. In 1966, Professor Carroll Quigley, a noted American economist, wrote in his book Hope and Tragedy: A History of the World in Our Time that economics and finance vis-à-vis banking conglomerates were the engine in this drive and the real forces controlling national policies. Carroll Quigley wrote in regards to the Anglo-American alliance that “I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” [18]



“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia,” insists Zbigniew Brzezinski. He also contends, “Now a non-Eurasian power [i.e., the U.S.] is preeminent in Eurasia— and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” [19] The former U.S. national security advisor has also stated, in 1997, that in order to co-opt the Franco-German entente a “Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, already advocated by a number of prominent Atlantic leaders, could also mitigate the risk of growing economic rivalry between a more united E.U. and the United States.” [20]

There is opposition in North America to what is believed to be the emergence of a projected “North American Union.” This North American entity would further amalgamate Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but the mechanisms for a grander global confederacy have already been drawn. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the creation of the E.U. were stepping stones towards this aspiration. Economics is the key that fuses these polities.



A summit between the E.U. and U.S. has shed light on plans for economic amalgamation. [21] The term used at the summit was “single market” by “renewing the Trans-Atlantic partnership.” [22] This is the same term used to describe the “common market” as it intensified Western European integration, which eventually gave birth to the European Union. At the summit President Bush Jr. met with Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, and Federal Chancellor Merkel. Frau Merkel, while officially there on behalf of the E.U., represented the interests of the Franco-German entente while President Bush Jr. represented Anglo-American interests. Jose Manuel Barroso as the President of the European Commission represented both Anglo-American and Franco-German interests because the E.U. is a joint Anglo-American and Franco-German body. America is a de facto E.U. power due to its alliance with Britain, one of the three major E.U. powers along with France and Germany.

An agreement was reached between the E.U. and U.S. to integrate the markets and regulations of America and Europe even further. This agreement was another layer to add to the strategic consensus that was reached at NATO’s Riga Summit. Both sides also stated that economics is the driving spirit in their relationship and that politics mattered very little. The liberal and conservative leaders of America and Europe are merely two sides of the same coin.



Decades after the end of the Cold War the globe is wrapped within a state of almost perpetual war dominated by the military might of America. The last lines in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives reveal the ultimate objective of Anglo-American policy: “These efforts will have the added historical advantage of benefiting from the new web of global linkages that is growing exponentially outside the more traditional nation-state system. That web— woven by multinational corporations, NGOs (…) already creates an informal global system that is inherently congenial to more institutionalized and inclusive global cooperation [a reference to global government].” [23]

Brzezinski goes on to predict that “In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world’s current ‘regent’ [a reference to the U.S.],” and “Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America’s role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower.” [24] All around the globe nation-states are being absorbed into larger and larger political and socio-economic entities. This is part of the story of globalization, but it has its dark side. This is the globalization of the few and not of the many.



The Fight for Civilization and the Gathering Storm



“When all is said and done the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North African campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared to what looms over the horizon— a wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States— Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.”



-Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm (The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2001)



One cannot help but remember what was elucidated in 2001 during the start of the “Global War on Terror” by two members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), stating that Afghanistan was only part of a “wide-ranging war.” [25] Both Robert Kagan and William Kristol are deeply linked to U.S. foreign and military policy extending from writing presidential speeches to having a former spouse as the U.S. ambassador to NATO. It is not coincidental that a portion of their editorial from October of 2001 in The Weekly Standard has actually materialized. These men should be taken for their words when they say that Afghanistan is merely the “opening battle” compared to what is waiting in the horizon.



Referring back to Robert Kagan and William Kristol: “this war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. And it is going to put enormous and perhaps unbearable strain on parts of an international coalition that basks in contented consensus.” [26] The “international coalition” being referred to is NATO and the international military network based around the U.S. and the “unbearable strain” is war, but of an unknown scale. On August 10, 2007 Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute, the “War Czar” overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and any expanded theatre, publicly talked about restoring a mandatory military draft. [27] The march to war is not waning, but driving the world towards the abyss.



Afghanistan was the first volley in an advance phase of the global conflict that was in its preparatory stages decades ago during the Iraq-Iran War, the Gulf War, and the Kosovo War. Where this global conflict, this “long war” will lead us is unknown, but all humanity is in this together. The American people will sooner or later feel the pain of war as their freedom is effected. Autocracy is a prerequisite to grand empires. Brzezinski has pointed out that “America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad,” and “never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy.” [28] Deviancy is being normalized all over the globe because of this global project. Those that are behind such projects must be reduced to social leprids, as outcasts, denounced by all societies.



Resistance in the Middle East: The Power of the People



“The Iraqi Resistance is by definition democratic as it is the spontaneous expression of a people who took its destiny into its hands, and is by definition progressive as it defends the interests of the people.”



-Hana Al-Bayaty (March 18, 2007)



Anglo-American planners have underestimated the capacity of the power of ordinary people and the human spirit. In the Middle East it has been the resistance of ordinary people that has brought militant globalization to a standstill. Popular resistance movements have bogged down the military might of the remaining global superpower.



A nation is only as legitimate as the people(s) who live in it define it. America is not at war with individual nations, but with the people(s) of these nations. Nor are the American people at war with these nations, it is the American ruling establishment and elites that are at war with these people(s).

The forces of resistance are the forces of the will of the people, without the support of the people none of them could last or stand up to some of the most powerful war machines in human history.



The wars in the Middle East are as much about choice as they are about the right to live. What is at stake is self-determination and liberty. These wars represent the drive to impose an overall monopoly of controls over other nations by a few who have hijacked the foreign policies of America and Britain to serve their own goals.



The Iraqi Resistance and the other resistance movements of the Middle East are movements of the peoples and by nature egalitarian. Would anyone in the so-called West dare label the French, Czechoslovakian, Greek, Libyan, Chinese, Malaysian, and Soviet resistance movements against Germany, Italy, and Japan during the Second World War as terrorist movements? However, the occupying Axis governments labeled these movements as terrorists. Did not France and the other areas occupied by Germany and the Axis Powers not have governments that said the Axis Powers were welcomed forces bringing stability as do the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan? For example in France there was the Vichy Government. When Germany was defeated the leaders of the Vichy Government in France were executed as traitors.



The U.S. government misleadingly claims that it is bringing democracy to these lands, but since when was democracy forced from the top down to the bottom? Is this not the opposite of democracy; things being forced down from the top to the bottom? Democracy is an expression of the masses that manifests itself upwards and not from the opposite direction.


No force on earth can defeat the popular will of the people; this is why domestic populations are manipulated into supporting wars. It is only division that allows small groups to take temporary reign over the people(s). However, for every scheme and plan to create division and anarchy amongst the people(s) of the world there is a plan to unite them and strengthen them. This is one of the greatest fears of many in positions of power. This is the fear of any awakening of large societal groups and populations.



There is no greater ally to the movements of resistance in the Middle East and beyond than unadulterated public opinion in the rest of the world. The people(s) of Britain, Israel, and the U.S. are also victims of their own governments who manipulate their fears and create animosity between them and other nations. This in itself is a great crime. What differences exist between nations are only a means to test the best of them.



Fear and hate are the weapons of the real terrorists, the masters of deception, and those who belittle others for profit and personal gain. These are the terrorists who give orders in positions of political leadership in the White House and elsewhere at the expense of their own people and the rest of humanity. The world is now embarking into the abyss of perpetual war and a period in which the contemplation of the use of nuclear weapons is being made. A stand must be made by individuals of good conscience and will. It seems possible that it will be a matter of time before the citizens of Europe, North America, and other lands will be compelled or necessitated to join the peoples of occupied lands in resistance.



War must be averted on two fronts; in the shorter-term (as differentiated from “short-term”) or near future, war must be averted from emerging in the Middle East, and in the longer-term in Eurasia. Only the resistance of the people and public opinion can stop war from enveloping the globe. Public opinion must translate into public action if humanity it to be spared from a massive war—a war that could prove to become a nuclear armageddon.



Countdown to 1984?



“In brief, the U.S policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change...”



-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)



In a twist of Orwellian fate, the earth seems closer to appearing like a rendition of the world in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. [29] However, the road ahead is not scripted. The future is only anticipated and planned, but never certain in a universe of infinite probabilities. Time will tell where the road ahead will guide us. Those that see themselves as masters of destiny have had their ideas proven wrong in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, and Lebanon. It may look as if opposition to a war agenda is like tiny raindrops beating against an unrelenting mountain, but mountains can be eventually eroded by those tiny raindrops. There exists a “sensitive dependence on initial conditions,” commonly called the “butterfly effect,” whereas the flaps of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil may set off a tornado in Texas. Individual actions can offset the march to war that is unfolding on this planet.


Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).


NOTES



[1] Henry Kissinger, A conversation with Henry Kissinger, interview with Charles P. Rose Jr., Charlie Rose (show), January 18, 2005.


[5] The U.S. government was secretly arming Britain during the First World War and profiting off the war. In regards to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, a British passenger ship, unknown to the public at the time the ship was also carrying military supplies from the U.S. to Britain.



In the case of Pearl Harbour, the U.S. government was aware of a Japanese plan to attack the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. American officials allowed the attack to take place to arouse public support for the entry of the U.S. in the Second World War. It should be noted that prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour the U.S. government had led a complete embargo of oil and materials to Japan and frozen all Japanese assets by July 25, 1941. Oil is needed to run economies and war and all strategists and military planners know this very well. Japan was baited into an inevitable war with the U.S. and decided to take the first shot. This benefited the U.S. government in mobilizing the American public to support the war effort in the Second World War just as the tragic events of September 11th, 2001 allowed the Bush Jr. Administration to launch the “Global War on Terror.” U.S. involvement in the Second World War was for economic purposes and had nothing to do with morality.



In the case of the RMS Lusitania the German embassy in Washington D.C. was trying to make clear to the Americans before it started sinking merchant ships helping Britain that it would engage in such activities. It should be noted that Britain was doing the same in both World Wars. U.S. officials are actually believed to have obstructed these attempts by the Germans in an attempt to involve the U.S. in the First World War.



[6] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.211.



[7] Gary Hart, Transcript. National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), September 14, 2001.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/4049/national_security_in_the_21st_century.html


[9] George Herbert Walker Bush Sr., Gulf War Victory Speech, (Address, Capitol Hill, Washington, District of Columbia, January 6, 1991) March 6, 1991.



[10] Bettina Berg, High readiness and global deployability, Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany), November 30, 2006.



[11] Zbigniew Brzezinski, A geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, no. 5 (September- October, 1997): p.50-64.



Note: The writings from Brzezinski’s paper for Foreign Affairs and the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) were also used for his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives that had its first edition published in 1997. Brzezinski’s 1997 Foreign Affairs journal entry is a condensed synopsis of his 1997 book. Points and quotes cited from it are identical or almost identical to the writing from his 1997 book.


[13] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (NYC, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p.950.



[14] Brzezinski, A geostrategy for Eurasia, Op. cit.



[19] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.30.



[20] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.200.



[21] Desmond Butler, E.U., U.S. Agree on Iran, Russia Disputes, Associated Press, April 30, 2007.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6597779,00.html



[22] US and EU agree ‘single market,’ British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), April 30, 2007.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6607757.stm



[23] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.215.



[25] Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm, The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2002, p.13.



[27] Toby Harnden, ‘Return to conscription should be considered,’ The Telegraph (U.K.), August 11, 2007.



[28] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.35-36.



[29] Refer to the polity and geographic boundaries of Winston Smith’s fictional world, in Orwell’s novel. In the fictional state of Oceania (which includes America, the British Isles, and Australia) there is absolute control exercised over all aspects of the lives of all citizens by one single entity, the Party, which has three political mottos: WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

And here we go David. Comparing Palin to Bush is WAY OUT THERE and that is SOOOOOOO below the belt. I want to know what your deal/problem with the following:
Jesus/Praying
Women
Define how you feel about these subjects and tell ME why you are always on the attack.
Also please tell me in your own words why you support Obama...

SHOCKING...that's my comments. If she is the VP, America is lost. How can she said the war is God's will, how can she put the blame of GOD? Obviously she cannot comprehend the character of GOD. SIGH! SIGH! SIGH!

http://www.rense.com/general80/obb.htm

If the American public were generally aware that the "foreign minister" of one of the most murderous terrorist organizations in the world, a man whose extradition on terrorism charges is sought by at least one UN Security Council permanent member, is living openly in Washington DC, they might be indignant. If Americans knew that this is the "foreign minister" of a terrorist group specializing in killing women and children first in a hospital, then in a school, and later defenseless civilians in a theater, their indignation might grow into rage. If they knew that this envoy for terrorists is living in the comfortable Woodley Park neighborhood of Washington DC with a lifestyle most Americans could not afford, with an office, a secretary, a travel budget, and a public relations budget all paid for at the expense of the US taxpayers, with State Department checks signed by Condoleeza Rice, they might be furious. If they knew that this ambassador for terrorists had been set up in his current all expenses paid, taxpayer-funded lifestyle by a man who is the main image adviser and the main foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, their view of the Illinois senator and his qualifications for the presidency might well undergo a radical change.

And yet, all this is reality. The terrorist organization in question is the Chechen rebel group associated with the names of two of the greatest butchers of our time, Aslan Maskhadov and Shamil Basayev, both deceased even though the organization they built fights on. The foreign minister and ambassador for this terrorist group is Ilyas Khamzatovich Akhmadov (born December 19, 1960, who was granted political asylum in the United States in 2003. Akhmadov's patron is none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former head of the National Security Council during the Jimmy Carter administration and, before that the co-founder with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission in 1973. Zbigniew Brezezinski in turn is not only the main foreign policy adviser to the Barack Obama presidential campaign; Zbigniew is in many ways the creator of the public relations image profile now being used by Obama in his quest for the White House, an image that is developed in Zbig's latest book, Second Chance. Zbigniew's son Mark Brzezinski, a veteran of the NSC under Clinton, is another key foreign policy adviser for Obama. Mika Brzezinski, daughter to Zbigniew and sister to Mark, churns out a propaganda line slanted in favor of Obama every morning on the MSNBC Morning Joe program. Ian Brzezinski, another son of Zbigniew, is busy poisoning US relations with Russia from his post as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and Russia in the Bush Pentagon. Yet another member of the clan, Zbigniew's nephew Matthew Brzezinski serves as a de facto public relations representative for Akhmadov, whitewashing this envoy for Chechen terrorists in the pages of the Washington Post. The entire crew is made of of petty Polish aristocrats notable mainly for their fanatical, consuming hatred of Russia and Russians. The family project is to hitch the remaining military power of the United States to their monomania of hatred. If they are allowed to succeed, the bloody excesses of the neocons in the Middle East will seem like schoolyard games by comparison, since the Brzezinski gang wants to court all-out confrontation with a first-class thermonuclear power that is moving well ahead of the US in certain crucial types of strategic weaponry. The now-infamous neocons have been careful to pick on powers with little or no strategic retaliatory potential. Brzezinski lacks this faculty of discrimination. This is the reality behind the messianic edification and utopian platitudes dished up by Obama. Under an Obama administration, Americans will risk getting a reminder of what real war looks like, and they may discover that it is a two-way street.

Voters who may be wondering what the foreign policy of a future Obama administration might look like need to learn from recent painful experience with George W. Bush and look closely at the foreign policy advisers around the candidate, since it is these figures who will prepare the policy options and, by so doing, will determine the course of a new administration. For Bush, these advisers were the self-styled "Vulcans," figures like Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Cheney, most of them neocons and most of them chosen by George Shultz, who created the disaster of the Afghan and Iraq wars. Even though Bush might have been a blank slate in foreign policy, it was evident from the presence of these neocon warmongers which direction the new regime would choose. Who then are the corresponding figures around Obama? A cursory look reveals that in foreign affairs and not just foreign affairs, Obama is the creature of the Brzezinski machine.

Praying God's Will is right, Praying our personal goal is another...it is call witchcraft prayer. Interceding as the Lord prompt is praying His Will. Hopefully she knows the difference. Jesus through the Holy Spirit will prompt us to intercede his Father's will, but praying what we think is good/right is not praying the Father's will...Selah Amen

"God's will" can be used to justify all kinds of hate, violence, bigotry, and evil. Sarah Palin/ John McCain/ and George Bush do not deserve a third time. Get them out! They are dangerous!

Sarah Palin isn't sugar coating her beliefs, a refreshing change from today's politics. She has a real family, with real issues, and if you do any research at all - she has more executive experience than both Obama and Biden combined. McCain is not Bush and has no desire to be Bush. Do your research before you throw the proverbial stone. I definitely would not want to be visiting some of these glass houses in a hurricane....

DAVID KNOWLES..IS ONA DESPERATE HUNT FOR "PALINGATE"

TJ, SAYING THESE HALF -EDUCATED BLOGGERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABORTED, AND OBAMA TOO..

David I know she is a great pick because you are in such a frenzy this morning! LOL!

Michele,

Lol. True, I'm pretty worked up about McCain's pick.

As regards the Constitution being rewritten, I think Congress should
circumvent Admendment 22 so that Pres
Bush would be a perpetual president of
the US of A as he is the best president
in modern history. How hard could that
be?. Ashcroft circumvented an amendment
to the Constitution. It would be an
awesome accomplishment for this
do-nothing Congress when they come back.. Phyllis Kunz

Article of interesting reading!!!

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/08/20/watchdogs-make-it-harder-for-politicians-to-stretch-the-truth/

Senator McCain in his lust for power looses the basic American decency and courtesy to show respect for his fellow Americans who number 6 Million and I am one. It is an ironic number to remember.

Even better read

http://www.rense.com/general80/obb.htm

All I can say is HOLY SHIT!!

I have to agree that she is sticking to what she is about-regardless of the backlashing. I love the fact that she has beliefs. And just remember, NON of us are perfect or flawless...we all have a past. We will just have to see how this plays out.
DAVID you did not answer me.....

Founding Member of the Keating Five
Back in the old days, defendants in famous trials got numbers -- the Chicago Eight, the Gang of Four, the Dave Clark Five, the Daytona 500. McCain was one of the "Keating Five," congressmen investigated on ethics charges for strenuously helping convicted racketeer Charles Keating after he gave them large campaign contributions and vacation trips.
Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. His convictions were overturned on technicalities; for example, the federal conviction was overturned because jurors had heard about his state conviction, and his state charges because Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge) screwed up jury instructions. Neither court cleared him, and he faces new trials in both courts.)

Though he was not convicted of anything, McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal."



Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has long identified himself as an Episcopalian, said this weekend that he is a Baptist and has been for years.

Campaigning in this conservative, predominantly Baptist state, McCain called himself a Baptist when speaking to reporters Sunday and noted that he and his family have been members of the North Phoenix Baptist Church in his home state of Arizona for more than 15 years.

"It's well known because I'm an active member of the church," the Arizona senator said.

While McCain has long talked about his family's and his own attendance at the Arizona church, he appears to have consistently referred to himself as Episcopalian in media reports.

In a June interview with McClatchy Newspapers, the senator said his wife and two of their children have been baptized in the Arizona Baptist church, but he had not. "I didn't find it necessary to do so for my spiritual needs," he said.

He told McClatchy he found the Baptist church more fulfilling than the Episcopalian church, but still referred to himself as an Episcopalian.

Greenville Republican state Sen. Mike Fair, a Baptist who serves as one of McCain's liaisons with the South Carolina religious community, said a person traditionally becomes a full member of a Baptist church by some kind of public expression of their faith, usually by being baptized.

McCain, at a campaign stop at a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Anderson, said he has made plenty of public expressions of his faith. "I've done that hundreds of times," McCain said, adding he has spoken at length with his pastor at the church and has been told there is no need for him to be baptized to be a full member of the church.

The Associated Press asked McCain on Saturday how his Episcopal faith plays a role in his campaign and life. McCain grew up Episcopalian and attended an Episcopal high school in Alexandria, Va.

"It plays a role in my life. By the way, I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist," McCain said. "Do I advertise my faith? Do I talk about it all the time? No."

McCain does discuss faith on the campaign trail. He regularly tells crowds about a North Vietnamese POW guard who would loosen his bindings while he was a prisoner. One Christmas, the man surreptitiously signaled his Christian faith, McCain says, by making the sign of a cross with his toe in the dirt.

McCain said Sunday he doesn't know how his Baptist faith might affect his showing in South Carolina.

"I have no idea," McCain said, laughing. "I was a member of that church in 2000 and it didn't save me then." McCain lost to George W. Bush in the hotly contested South Carolina primary seven years ago.

McCain made the comments after speaking to about 200 people on this resort island during a stop on his "No Surrender" tour, to push for support of U.S. troops and the president's strategy in Iraq.


Associated Press writer Jim Davenport in Anderson, S.C., contributed to this report.



Former Air Force colonel and Medal of Honor recipient George "Bud" Day, 83, has been a close friend of presidential candidate John McCain since 1967 when they shared a cell for 3 months in a Vietnamese POW camp.

For years, Day has been waving his Medal of Honor at political events in support of McCain's political ambitions. His politicizing of our highest military award for valor has bothered me for as many years. When I finally took a look at his Medal of Honor Citation, some discrepancies stood out like festering thumb splinter.

Day, who claims to be the most decorated serviceman since Gen. Douglas MacArthur with more than 70 medals including the Medal of Honor, is McCain's leading frontman and apologist.

North Vietnamese gunners shot Day down Aug. 26, 1967, two months before they shot Navy pilot McCain's bomber out of the sky on Oct. 26.

When Day ejected from his crippled F-!00, he broke his right arm in three places when he struck the side of the cockpit. He also sustained eye, leg and back injuries.

Although Day and McCain suffered similar injuries, they had unique POW experiences. Day claims he escaped after being "hung upside down and severely tortured for two days." He said that despite being "barefooted, severely crippled, disoriented, vomiting blood" and with no equilibrium, he outran enemy soldiers and their tracking dogs for two days before being captured again. Day said he managed to escape again outrunning the enemy and their dogs for nearly two weeks before he was captured a third and final time.

Day was released after five years and seven months as a North Vietnamese prisoner on Mar. 14, 1973. Three years later, President Gerald Ford awarded Day the Medal of Honor citing his personal bravery "above and beyond the call of duty" while a captive in North Vietnam.

McCain's right arm was broken in three places and his left arm and right knee were fractured when he ejected.

He says that on his fourth day of captivity, he was so sure he was going to die if he did not get special medical treatment, he offered the communists "military information" in exchange for taking him to a hospital.

After being told that McCain's father and grandfather were famous high-ranking American admirals, the Vietnamese rushed the seriously injured McCain to Gai Lam military hospital (U.S. government documents), a medical facility normally unavailable to treat U.S. POWs. McCain's father, Adm. John McCain, was later appointed commander of all U.S. forces fighting in Vietnam. His grandfather was a famous WWII admiral.

Because the communists believed McCain was from "royal family," they considered him a "crown prince" who would when finally released return to the United States to an important military or government job.

While being treated in the hospital, McCain made a series of propaganda statements for the communist including at least one television interview during which he gave specific "military information" pertaining to his mission. McCain was quoted in the communist press describing the number of aircraft in his flight, information about rescue ships and the order of which his attack was supposed to take place.

In December, six weeks after he was shot down, the Vietnamese transferred McCain from the hospital to a POW camp called "The Plantation" and into the hands of Day and Air Force Major Norris Overly.

Day and Overly helped nurse McCain until he was eventually able to walk by himself. Day spent about three months with McCain before he was moved to another camp.

McCain was released from captivity on March 14, 1973 after spending 5 ½ years as a POW. He returned to the United States to his wife Carol and children.

McCain was awarded a Silver Star Medal for resisting "extreme mental and physical cruelties" inflicted upon him by his captors from late October to early December 1967, the exact time frame during which McCain was in the hospital making propaganda statements for the enemy in exchange for medical treatment.

During their stay in POW camps, Day and McCain developed a close personal (and now political) friendship which continued after they were released in 1973.

In January 1980, soon after McCain met Cindy Hensley, a former cheerleader whose family owned one of the country's largest Anheuser-Busch distributorship, it was Day, then a Fort Walton Beach attorney, who McCain called on to file divorce papers against his wife Carol.

While McCain was imprisoned, Carol was in an auto wreck (Christmas Eve 1969). She was thrown through her car's windshield and left permanently crippled. Despite her injures, she refused to allow her POW husband to be notified about her condition, fearing that such news would not be good for him while he was being held prisoner.

When McCain returned to the United States in 1973 after more than five years as a prisoner of war, he found his wife was a different person. The accident "left her 4 inches shorter" (The Nightingale's Song, by Robert Timberg) and on crutches, and she had gained a good deal of weight.

McCain wasted no time before he was out on the town partying. While Executive Officer and later as Squadron Commander of a Navy training unit, McCain used his authority to arrange frequent flights that allowed him to carouse with female subordinates and "engage in extramarital affairs" (The Nightingale's Song, by Robert Timberg).

McCain eventually met Hensley, 17 years his junior, and fell in love at first sight.

Day used the soft touch of his friendship with Carol to obtain an uncontested divorce from her in Florida on April 2, 1980. McCain promptly married Hensley on May 17, 1980. Today, Cindy Hensley McCain is said to be worth 100 million dollars.

When McCain set out to help Hanoi by discrediting POW/MIA families, former POWs and veterans who were demanding no normalized trade or diplomatic relations with Vietnam until Hanoi accounted for the POWs known to have been alive in captivity, but never released, Day, unhesitatingly answered the call.

In a Jan. 24, 2000 letter to conservative columnist Paul Weyrich, Day described POW/MIA activists as "a cottage industry of nut cases and 'Bring them Home' frauds that victimized POW families and the public after we [U.S. prisoners of war] were released from Vietnam." Day signed off in the letter with "George 'Bud' Day, Medal of Honor, POW 1967-1973."

Day was upset over a column in which Weyrick quoted Col. Earl Hopper, Ret., a former chairman of the board of the National League of Families, criticizing McCain for "never turning a finger to help any of the [POW-MIA] families."

Hopper, a Vietnam veteran and father of MIA Lt. Col. Earl P. Hopper, Jr., lost over North Vietnam in 1968, contends that at a minimum, 66 men were left behind when McCain and the other POWs were released in 1973.

Former N.C. Congressman Bill Hendon and MIA daughter, Elizabeth Stewart put the number much higher in their book "An Enormous Crime." Hopper says that McCain undermined every effort to get the federal government to acknowledge that men were left behind.

Here are the names of some returned POWs Day slandered with his "Bring them Home frauds" remarks: Navy Captain Eugene "Red" McDaniel, Col. Ted Guy (deceased), Ltc Col. Nick Rowe (deceased), Msg. Daniel L. Pitzer (deceased), Maj. Mark Smith, Mike Benge, Larry Stark and Maj. John Parcels.

During that same period, Day emailed me a mean spirited letter in response to articles I had written questioning McCain's behavior while a prisoner. He called me a lair and falsely claimed that it was impossible for McCain to have collaborated with the enemy because he knew where McCain was and what he was doing during the entire 5 ½ years McCain was held POW. That was an impossible feat since McCain claims he spent most of his time being tortured in solitary confinement away from other U.S. POWs.

Recently, Day and his Medal of Honor have been thrust to the front of McCain's campaign again, this time to deflect criticism of McCain and give testimony about the "strength of McCain's character."

Just before the South Carolina primary, I released a flier to the South Carolina press for Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain that offered specific information detailing McCain's collaborations with the enemy. McCain's campaign responded immediately, parading Day in front of the press introducing him as "a famously heroic Medal of Honor winner who also shared a cell with McCain."

On cue, Day stepped before the cameras and declared the flier "the most outrageous f--king lie I've ever heard." Day claims that McCain's collaborations with the enemy were technically not violations of the Military Code of Conduct.

Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for actions on Jan. 6, 1968, near Chu Lai, South Vietnam said the following of the Medal of Honor: "I was awarded the Medal of Honor, but my fellow soldiers who supported me in the actions and took the time to write it up earned it. I wear it for them. They own my medals. And every Medal of Honor recipient and hero I know believes as I do. Medals should be a sign of patriotism, a symbol of sacrifice, support and defense of a great nation. The highest form of patriotism is service to our youth; heroes also wear their medal for them to signal the importance of courage. Heroes do not use their medals for personal political gain. As I said they are not theirs to use."

During the 2004 election, Day used his Medal of Honor to weigh in on the controversy surrounding presidential candidate John Kerry's military service and medals. Day was very critical of Kerry declaring that by bringing up his Vietnam service Kerry had "opened up his character as a war hero" for criticism. Day said, "Kerry's character is not only fair game, it is the primary issue."

Day has habitably and fragrantly politicized his Medal of Honor. By using it's awe-inspiring prestige as authorization to attack the credibility of other POWs, veterans and POW/MIA family members, he has "opened up his character as a war hero" to questions about the award of his Medal of Honor.

The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States government. It is awarded by the President in the name of Congress to a military person who distinguishes himself or herself significantly by gallantry above and beyond the call of duty while engaged against an enemy of the United States.

The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so outstanding as to clearly distinguish the individual above his or her comrades and must have involved risk of life.

Unquestionable proof in the form of eyewitnesses to the deed is required before the award of the Medal of Honor can be considered.

Other than surviving captivity, exactly what deed did Day perform that was "above and beyond the call of duty?"

What life threatening action of personal bravery and self-sacrifice did Day perform that "clearly distinguished" him above his comrades?

The following is a paraphrased account of Day's escape and evasion from the North Vietnamese that U.S. authorities used to justify awarding him the Medal of Honor: On 26 August1967, Air Force Maj. George "Bud" Day was forced to eject from his aircraft over North Vietnam when it was hit by ground fire.

During the ejection, his right arm was broken in 3 places, and his left knee badly sprained. Upon landing, Day was immediately captured by hostile forces and taken to a prison camp where he was hung upside down and severely tortured for two days.

Day managed to escape on September 1. Barefooted and severely crippled, he traveled south for 2 days outrunning enemy soldiers who were using dogs ... both of his feet became bruised and cut from sharp rocks and battle debris.

On September 3, Day was wounded again from either a bomb or rocket. The blast ruptured his eardrums and sinuses. Shrapnel cut large open wounds in his right leg. He became disoriented and began vomiting blood and lost equilibrium. Totally debilitated, he crawled into bushes and lay hidden for two days.

Although seriously wounded, with an arm broken in 3 places, a severely swollen knee, ruptured eardrums, large open wounds in his leg, vomiting blood and no equilibrium, Day managed to resume his escape south on September 5. Existing only on berries and two raw frogs, he wandered aimlessly for several more days.

Despite all his broken bones and other injuries, on approximately September 8, Day swam the Ben Hai River which marked the boundaries of the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Vietnam. For another week, Day evaded communist patrols in South Vietnam.

Sometime on or about September 15, Day was surprised by an enemy patrol. Although, shot and wounded again, this time in his left hand and thigh, he managed to escape once more, staying on the run for another day and a half.

On Sept.17, 22 days after being shot down, Day was recaptured and marched to a POW camp back in North Vietnam. The communists tortured him for 48 hours straight causing him to become totally incapacitated and unable perform even the simplest task. His wounds festered into dangerous infection and his captors continued to refuse him medical treatment.

Sometime in middle November, Day was sent north to the infamous Hoa Lo prison camp where he was subjected to non-stop torture and refused any type of medical treatment. Finally, this captors had totally destroyed him physically.

Near the end of November, about two months after Day was shot down, he was placed into a prison cell with U.S. POW Norris Overly.

In December, the Vietnamese put seriously injured POW John McCain in the cell with Day and Overly. They took care of McCain until he was able to walk again.

By involving his Medal of Honor in politics and using it as an authority to trash other veterans, Day has "opened up his character as a war hero" for criticism. Day planted the standard for himself when he said that "Kerry's character is not only fair game, it is the primary issue."

Day's character and the legitimacy of his Medal of Honor "is not only fair game, it is the primary issue."

Military regulation requires that before the award of a Medal of Honor can be considered, unquestionable proof in the form of eyewitnesses must be provided.

Day had no witnesses because he was alone. Why was the "eye witnesses" requirement waived for Day?

Who approved Day for the Medal of Honor and did McCain or his admiral father have anything to do with it?

John McCain and Bud Day have formed a political tag team to deflect inquiries about McCain's questionable conduct while in captivity. They have cynically used the Medal of Honor as a shield - but in the process they have stained it.

If you think she is a bad choice then I don't need to know any more. Go Sarah!