Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Bush Administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush Administration. Show all posts

Monday, 18 February 2019

The Neocon Revival

Justin Raimondo
 
The upending of the political landscape by the Trump revolution has affected every political grouping and rearranged our politics in ways that are still revealing themselves. His populist America First views on foreign policy and international trade have split the GOP, opened up growing divisions among the Democrats, and even disrupted the ideological certitude of the libertarians.
 
There is one ideological group whose entire trajectory and partisan political allegiance has done a complete turnaround, and that is the neoconservatives.

Originating as a split from the Trotskyite movement, these extreme leftists moved from one end of the political spectrum, over the course of several years, to the other. Motivated by their hatred of Stalin and their abandonment of the old Communist Party, the neocons – as they came to be known – became the most vocally anti-Soviet faction and advocate of a military confrontation with Russia. 

Few in numbers but strategically placed, they constituted the staff of Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson and agitated constantly for increased military spending. While still ostensibly men of the left, they gradually abandoned the characteristic tics and attitudes of that tribe and focused on what they really cared about: foreign policy, and their obsession with destroying their old enemy, the Soviet Union.

They wormed their way into the Reagan administration and started taking over the major institutions of the conservative movement. When the Soviet Union began to fall apart, they declared it wasn’t happening, that the whole thing was a trap and that Reagan was a fool or a traitor (possibly both) for negotiating with Gorbachev.

The neocons’ glory days came in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when they seized control of the Bush administration’s foreign policy, forged phony “evidence” of Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction,” and started a series of wars in the Middle East. Iraq was just the beginning.

Read more

Tuesday, 12 June 2018

2006 State Department Cable Reveals Plan To Use Terror, Intrigue, Kurds To Destabilize Syria, Weaken Assad

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

Despite the bulk of the attempted destruction of Syria having taken place during the Obama administration, the fact is that the agenda began marching years before Obama took office and it is continuing to do so today. Ample evidence has been provided demonstrating that a plan to destroy the Syrian government goes back at least to the Bush Jr. administration and the desire to do so goes even further back than that.

One such piece of evidence is a secret State Department cable obtained by Wikileaks entitled “Influencing the SARG In The End Of 2006” which was distributed from the US embassy in Damascus to requisite officials in the Department of Treasury, National Security Council, White House, Secretary of State, League of Arab States, US Mission To European Union in Brussels, United Nations (NY), US Central Command, and Tel Aviv.

The entire cable was a discussion of a number of available strategies to bring about regime change in Syria and was written during 2006 under the Bush administration.

The cable takes a number of potentially exploitable conditions and expounds upon the realities of the situation, the vulnerabilities of the Syrian government and the “possible action” that can be taken to capitalize on the perceived weaknesses.

The cable begins by stating:
The SARG ends 2006 in a much stronger position domestically and internationally than it did 2005. While there may be additional bilateral or multilateral pressure that can impact Syria, the regime is based on a small clique that is largely immune to such pressure. However, Bashar Asad's growing self-confidence )- and reliance on this small clique -- could lead him to make mistakes and ill-judged policy decisions through trademark emotional reactions to challenges, providing us with new opportunities. For example, Bashar,s reaction to the prospect of Hariri tribunal and to publicity for Khaddam and the National Salvation Front borders on the irrational. Additionally, Bashar,s reported preoccupation with his image and how he is perceived internationally is a potential liability in his decision making process. We believe Bashar,s weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as a the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising. These proposals will need to be fleshed out and converted into real actions and we need to be ready to move quickly to take advantage of such opportunities. Many of our suggestions underline using Public Diplomacy and more indirect means to send messages that influence the inner circle.
Read more

Wednesday, 22 March 2017

Obama Kills on Tuesdays: Interview with Croatian author Vedrana Rudan

Sott.net

Under Obama, ten times more people were killed by US drones than under the Bush administrations. So far, under Trump, drone strikes have increased even further.

The US is a rogue state from the point of view of millions of people around the world who suffer death and destruction in the guise of American 'freedom and democracy'. Behind the ruse is greed and a lust for power. Will the ordinary people of world finally see the simple truth behind the noble-sounding rhetoric?  


In this 10 minute clip from the TV interview conducted a few years ago, Croatian author Vedrana Rudan speaks about the truth behind the West's war on terrorism and the hypocrisy that defines it.



Monday, 16 May 2016

Ex-CIA Chief: Bush and Cheney Knew 9/11 Was Imminent, Concealed Intelligence

theantimedia.org

 

A new report from POLITICO corroborates a suspicion long held by critics of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It affirms the former president and vice president not only had intelligence warning the terror attacks of 9/11 were imminent, but that they repeatedly ignored the CIA’s warnings. The most shocking assertion is that Bush and Cheney actively attempted to hide the paper trail documenting the fact that the evidence was presented to them.

The claim comes from none other than ex-CIA Chief George Tenet, who recounted with palpable frustration how Bush, Cheney, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice ignored multiple warnings from both him and then-counterterrorism chief, Cofer Black, during the late spring and summer of 2001.

Previously, the most salient proof the Bush administration had advanced warning of 9/11 was the infamous August 6th edition of the CIA Presidential Daily Brief given to George W. Bush. Titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” the document has often been cited by journalists and whistleblowers making a case of willful negligence against Bush and Cheney. The new information from Tenet and Black presents a considerably deeper timeline, showing there was a consistent stream of intelligence warnings starting at least four months prior to September 11th.

According to Black, by May of 2001 “it was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die.”

Read more

Wednesday, 20 April 2016

Saudi Arabia’s Alleged Involvement in the 9/11 Attacks. “Red-Herring”, Propaganda Ploy

Comment: Let's remind ourselves that this had been the plan from the start in order to set Saudi Arabia up, gain control of its resources and deflect attention away from the Anglo-American Establishment and Israel's involvement in the 9/11 attacks. 

---------------------

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research 


The 9/11 narrative in the mainstream media has taken on a new slant. The FBI is now accused of whitewashing Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks. 

The alleged Saudi involvement in supporting Osama bin Laden, not to mention the classified 28 pages of the 9/11 joint Congressional inquiry pertaining to the insidious role of Saudi Arabia in supporting the hijackers is  part of a propaganda ploy. 
When the report of Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 was released in December 2002, it was met with considerable skepticism. That skepticism grew for a period of time but then was reduced to speculation about what was contained in the 28 pages that had been redacted by the Bush White House.
Various U.S. government leaders have since suggested that the missing 28 pages point to Saudi Arabia’s complicity in the 9/11 crimes. However such musings fail to discuss other important issues, like the links between the Saudi regime and the Western deep state, or the fact that, from the start, even the Saudis were calling for the 28 pages to be released. Discussion of the missing 28 pages also omits mention of the highly suspicious nature of the Inquiry’s investigation and its leaders. (Kevin Ryan, The 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry and the 28 Missing Pages, Global Research, March 14, 2014
The report of the FBI 9/11 Review Commission (25 March 2015) has revealed circumstances which allegedly were withheld by the FBI from both the 9/11 Commission headed by former Jersey Governor Thomas Kean as well from the joint Senate House inquiry committee chaired by former Senator Bob Graham. Graham.

Read more

Saturday, 12 September 2015

Living in a PNAC World: The Toxic Legacy of 9/11

Chris Floyd
Empire Burlesque

In September 2000, an advocacy group called "Project for New American Century," led by Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others -- published a "blueprint" for "transforming" America's future. PNAC acknowledged that the "revolutionary" changes it envisaged could take decades to bring about -- unless, they said, the United States was struck by "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." One year later, after the disputed election of George W. Bush, came the "catalyzing" event of the 9/11 attacks -- which indeed "transformed" America's future in many "revolutionary" ways.

Here are some of the changes PNAC called for in 2000, all of which came about after the "new Pearl Harbor" they had hoped for: An attack on Iraq. Vast increases in military spending. Planting new American bases all over the world. Embracing the concept of "pre-emptive war" and unilateral action as cornerstones of national strategy. Developing sophisticated new technologies to "control the global commons of cyberspace" by closely monitoring communications and transactions on the Internet. Pursuing the development of "new methods of attack – electronic, 'non-lethal, biological…in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace and perhaps the world of microbes."

Oddly enough, although "regime change" in Iraq was clearly a priority for PNAC, it had little to do with Saddam Hussein and his brutal rule. Instead, removing Saddam was tied to the larger goal of establishing a permanent U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf in order to "secure energy supplies" and preclude any other power from dominating the vital oil regions of the Middle East and Central Asia. The PNAC report puts it quite plainly:

"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."


This is why the Bush Administration offered a constantly shifting menu of rationales for the impending attack on Iraq: because the decision to remove Saddam was taken long ago, as part of a larger strategic plan, and had little to do with any imminent threat from the broken-backed Iraqi regime, which at that time was constantly bombed, partially occupied (with U.S. forces already working in the autonomous Kurdish territories) and swarming with UN inspectors. If the strategic need for the attack "transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein," then almost any rationale will do.

Read more
 

Friday, 20 March 2015

The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified the Iraq Invasion By Jason Leopold

VICE 

 

The agency responded to Greenwald this past January and provided him with a new version of the NIE, which he shared with VICE News, that restores the majority of the prewar Iraq intelligence that has eluded historians, journalists, and war critics for more than a decade. (Some previously redacted portions of the NIE had previously been disclosed in congressional reports.) 

 

Thirteen years ago, the intelligence community concluded in a 93-page classified document used to justify the invasion of Iraq that it lacked "specific information" on "many key aspects" of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. 

 

But that's not what top Bush administration officials said during their campaign to sell the war to the American public. Those officials, citing the same classified document, asserted with no uncertainty that Iraq was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, concealing a vast chemical and biological weapons arsenal, and posing an immediate and grave threat to US national security. 

 

Congress eventually concluded that the Bush administration had "overstated" its dire warnings about the Iraqi threat, and that the administration's claims about Iraq's WMD program were "not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting." But that underlying intelligence reporting — contained in the so-called National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that was used to justify the invasion — has remained shrouded in mystery until now. 

 

The CIA released a copy of the NIE in 2004 in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, but redacted virtually all of it, citing a threat to national security. Then last year, John Greenwald, who operates The Black Vault, a clearinghouse for declassified government documents, asked the CIA to take another look at the October 2002 NIE to determine whether any additional portions of it could be declassified. 

 

Tuesday, 17 June 2014

The Most Destructive Presidencies in U.S. History: George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama

Charles Hugh-Smith 
Of Two Minds
June 16, 2014 


Powers once granted are almost impossible to take back.

After 13.5 years, there is more than enough evidence for reasonable people to conclude that the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama are easily the most destructive in U.S. history.

When historians speak of failed presidencies or weak presidencies, they are typically referring to presidencies characterized by uneven leadership, petty corruption by self-serving cronies or in extreme cases such as the Nixon presidency, abuses of executive power.


But weak or failed presidencies are not destructive to the rule of law and the foundations of the nation. The failed president leaves office and the basic structure of the nation continues: the rule of law, the balance of powers and a free-market economy.

A destructive president weakens or corrupts these core structures in favor of executive-branch powers, and passes these unconstitutional powers to the next executive for further expansion.

The Bush and Obama presidencies have effectively dismantled the rule of law and the Constitution by invoking essentially unlimited executive powers in the name of "national security:" we the citizens of the U.S. can now be accused of violating secret laws, be indicted in secret, tried in secret and sentenced to life in prison based on evidence fabricated in secret, i.e. declaring unclassified documents classified after the fact to incriminate and imprison whistleblowers.

How is this any different from totalitarian fascist regimes?

This is absolutely contrary to basic civil liberties defined by the Constitution. Who benefits from this destruction of fundamental civil liberties? (Always start by asking cui bono--to whose benefit?)

The Big Lie is that this destruction of the foundations of the rule of law and civil liberties is for our own good: if the President and the National Security State don't grab all these powers and deprive you of your constitutional rights, bad guys will destroy the nation.

This is of course the same old tired justification used by dictators and despots everywhere, and it is always a lie. The truth that must be hidden is that this wholesale expansion of executive powers at the expense of civil liberties, democracy, the rule of law and the balance of powers benefits the executive branch.

Every abuse of the law is now declared legal by executive order. Anyone questioning the legality of extra-legal abuses of power is told "this is legal because it was authorized by the President." In other words, executive power is now unquestioned and cannot be challenged.

For a variety of unsavory reasons, the Supreme Court has enabled this expansion of essentially unlimited executive power. Congress has also rubber-stamped it as part of The Global War on Terror (GWOT), the unlimited war that justifies unlimited executive powers, unlimited secrecy and unlimited expansion of the National Security State, the Deep State that is impervious to changes in electoral government.

Presidents Bush and Obama have directed this expansion of the National Security State because it greatly enhances the power of the Presidency. This is how we get a president who is delighted to discover that he's good at killing people remotely with drone strikes.

The expansion of secret programs and secret wars has engorged the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and the N.S.A., not just with funding but more importantly, with new powers granted by the executive branch and rubber-stamped by an impotent Congress and supine Supreme Court.

The president's power is greatly enhanced by this expansion of the National Security State, and the self-serving "patriots" empowered by the essentially unlimited secrecy are free to do whatever they please under the umbrella of executive privilege.

True patriots attempting to defend basic constitutional rights are labeled terrorists by the phony patriots busy destroying the foundations of the nation. The Orwellian doublespeak is as unlimited as executive power: a citizen who releases unclassified material about the secret abuse of power can be accused of treason on the Kafkaesque basis that unclassified material can be considered classified if it exposes the abuse of executive power.

All of this is well-documented and has been in the public realm for years. There is nothing mysterious about the destruction of basic rights or the abrogation of the balance or power or the rule of law. It's visible and painfully obvious to anyone who cares to read or watch a few interviews of whistleblowers who have been hounded and harassed by the Obama Administration.

For two examples of hundreds of articles and interviews, please read:

Senior NSA Executive: NSA Started Spying On Journalists in 2002... In Order to Make Sure They Didn’t Report On Mass Surveillance (washingtonsblog.com; I recommend the entire series of interviews) "To me, there’s a psychology that’s not often written about: What happens when you have this much reach and power, and constraints of law and even policy simply fade into the woodwork."

PBS Frontline Interview - Thomas Drake.

This destruction of the fundamental building blocks of the nation has been rubber-stamped by gutless Republicans and Democrats alike. Cowed by the threat of appearing "soft on terrorism," left and right alike have scrambled to appear "tough on terrorism" by approving the wholesale transfer of power to the National Security State and the executive branch.

Of the dozens of books published on the abuses of executive power and the uncontrolled expansion of the National Security State, here are two worthy starting points:

The Family Jewels: The CIA, Secrecy, and Presidential Power
The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth

This destruction of the fundamental building blocks of the nation has been rubber-stamped by gutless Republicans and Democrats alike. Cowed by the threat of appearing "soft on terrorism," left and right alike have scrambled to appear "tough on terrorism" by approving the wholesale transfer of power to the National Security State and the executive branch.

It is laughable to see so-called liberals and conservatives alike in Congress kow-tow to the National Security State while claiming they have effective oversight, even as the revelations of whistleblowers reveals them as clueless toadies with no real grasp of what is being done in the name of the American people they claim to represent.

Those abusing executive power in the Nixon administration knew they were breaking the law. Those abusing power in the Bush and Obama administrations simply declare their actions legal. In effect, any action taken by the president or the National Security State is legal in name if not in principle.

Powers once granted are almost impossible to take back. What president will give away essentially unlimited executive powers established as "law" by previous presidents? We don't elect saints as presidents, we elect infinitely ambitious people desiring power. We should not be surprised that such people not only consolidate the power they inherit but actively seek more.

We should also not be surprised that all these power grabs by the executive branch and the National Security State are cloaked in secrecy, and that anyone who dares to reveal the power grabs and abuses of power to the public is declared a traitor and crucified.

A traitor to what? It's a question every citizen should ask and answer for themselves.

Thursday, 12 June 2014

The battle for Baghdad is nigh: Thousands of men answer Iraqi government's call to arms as ISIS jihadists bear down on capital

Daily Mail

  • Iraq's government has indicated a willingness for the US military to conduct airstrikes against radical Islamist militants

  • Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have taken over Iraq's second biggest city Mosul and town of Tikrit

  • Government forces have stalled the militants' advance near Samarra, a city just 110km (68 miles) north of Baghdad

  • ISIS's goal is to create a Islamic caliphate (state) - it already controls territory in eastern Syria and western/central Iraq

  • Iraq's parliament were to hold an emergency session today but it was postponed due to a opposition boycott

  • Kurdish forces are in full control of Iraq's oil city of Kirkuk after the federal army abandoned their posts

  • Iran has sent special forces and a unit of elite troops to Iraq to assist the Iraqi government halt the advance

  • Turkey is negotiating for the release of 80 nationals held by Islamist militants in Mosul

  • Iraqi air force is bombing insurgent positions in and around Mosul - 1.3 million citizens still remain in the city

  • Oil price hit a three-year high this morning on worries that supply could be disrupted


Thousands of Iraqis young and old have answered the beleaguered Shia-led government’s call to arms and signed up to protect the capital, and country, from ISIS militants.

As jihadists from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant march on Baghdad after capturing swathes of northern Iraq male supporters of the government turned out in droves today to enlist and fight back.

The militants have already seized control of Iraq's second largest city Mosul where it is reported that roughly 30,000 soldiers fled, leaving behind tanks and firearms as just 800 fighters approached.

Less than 24 hours later the oil-rich city of Tikrit was captured by the militants, who then turned their attentions to the capital as it pushes ahead with its aim to overthrow the western-backed government as part of its goal to create an Islamic emirate spanning both sides of the Iraq-Syria border.

But so far government forces have stalled the militants' remarkably rapid advance near Samarra, a city just 110km (68 miles) north of Baghdad and they are now bombing insurgent positions in and around Mosul - although 500,000 residents have fled, 1.3 million citizens remain in the city.

Meanwhile Iraqi Kurds seized control of the major northern oil city of Kirkuk today as the central government's army abandoned its posts in a rapid collapse that has lost it control of the north.

Read more

Tuesday, 18 March 2014

War of Words Between Sen. Dianne Feinstein and CIA Is Empty Rhetoric

"If history is any guide, expect the Senate/CIA flap to now quickly smooth over; the report on the Bush-era detention and torture practices at the center of the controversy to be buried, or released publicly in a whitewashed form; and all those accused of subverting our Constitutional process to be awarded accommodations and/or provided golden parachutes and lucrative private-sector employment."

The NarcoSphere

Richard Horn Case Proves CIA Deception, Ultimate Congressional Acquiescence Are Business As Usual

The current flap between the CIA and US Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), echoes a prior, little-known dust-up between the spy agency and a former DEA agent, Richard Horn, who likewise accused the CIA of illegal spying, manipulating official documents and lying to outside official parties.

In the case of Feinstein and the SSCI, the flap is over the Senate committee’s investigation into the detention and interrogation practices utilized under the Bush administration in pursuing the so-called war on terrorism.


Earlier this week, Feinstein, normally a staunch defender of the nation’s intelligence agencies, uncharacteristically lashed out publicly at the CIA. She accused the agency and its top lawyer of illegally spying on the Senate staff charged with investigating the Bush-era terrorism practices, of seeking to intimidate the Senate committee by asking the Justice Department to investigate those same staffers based on what she describes as “inaccurate information” provided to the Justice Department, and of previously removing hundreds of documents from the computers being used by Senate staff.
Although Feinstein did not publicly identify the CIA lawyer accused of orchestrating the alleged attack on the Senate staff — via his referral of charges to DOJ — White House spokesman Jay Carney this week confirmed that it was Acting CIA General Counsel Robert Eatinger.

The Senate staff were utilizing secure computers set up by the CIA that allowed them to examine millions of documents to prepare a report on the terrorism-detention and interrogation program — a still-classified, 6,000-plus page report supposedly completed late last year. At the heart of the conflict, according to media reports, is a document discovered by the Senate staffers during its investigation of the CIA records that allegedly is quite damaging to the agency in its revelations about the detention and interrogation practices.

The CIA alleges the Senate staffers illegally hacked into CIA computers to obtain the document — creating the basis for Eatinger’s request for a DOJ criminal investigation. Senate staffers maintain the document in question was contained in trove of records made available to them by CIA for examination – whether on purpose or by accident is not clear.

Ironically, CIA attorney Eatinger, the public focus of Sen. Feinstein’s ire, was at the heart of some of the alleged abuses involving the Bush-era detention and interrogation program. He was one of the attorneys who provided “legal” sanction for the destruction of 92 videotapes of interrogations of al-Qaida suspects.

Read more

 
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...