The article below points to another bit of evidence (or the lack of it) suggesting that no large passenger planes (or any planes at all) crashed anywhere in the US on 9/11/01, certainly not in NYC, the Pentagon or Shankesville, PA. One can add this to the growing body of the lack of evidence that any planes were employed by that day's terrorists (none of whom were Muslim).
For example: not one bit of independently verified wreckage has been produced; none of the alleged hijackers' names were on the passenger lists; the physics of planes crashing through buildings, leaving an outline of their shape and then disappearing without a trace is simply impossible, and much more.
The two best articles I'm aware of on the subject are Gerard Holmgren,'s "Manufactured Terrorism – The Truth About Sept 11," (2004, revised 2006). www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51; (suitable for 9/11-101 --see below) and Morgan Reynolds, "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories," (March 2006). http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes (also come to think of it, suitable for 9/11-101)
My own essay summarizing their findings can be found at: http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html#note2
Warning/Disclaimer: If the evidence suggesting controlled demolition of the WTC towers and the lack of evidence of a large passenger plane crashing at the Pentagon and in PA can be said to be 9/11 -101, the No Planes Theory is post graduate level research due to the effectiveness of the fake videos of the plane crashing into the second tower at the WTC.
It's difficult to get past the bemused incredulity of most people, even so called 911 Truth people, on the subject. Nor is it clear that the truth will ever come out, vide JFK, RFK, MLK and so on. Many of us know the truth, or perhaps more accurately, No Planers like myself have looked closely at the evidence and are perfectly comfortable with our truth, but since there is virtually no prospect of accountability, we all remain effectively imprisoned deep inside of the official story, despite the widespread awareness of the power of computer generated imagery (CGI) and the long and deep history by now of the ruthless viciousness of the Bush-Cheney regime.
Ronald
***
9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent
http://911blogger.com/node/14081
by Aidan Monaghan
Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 'black boxes' are virtually the only ones without listed serial numbers.
NTSB American Airlines flight 77 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:
http://www.911myths.com/AAL77_fdr.pdf
NTSB United Airlines flight 93 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf
The United States government alleges that 4 registered Boeing commercial passenger aircraft were used in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, yet has failed to produce any physical evidence collected from the 3 9/11 crash scenes positively tied to these federally registered United and American airlines aircraft. Despite the release of abundant information regarding the 9/11 flights and the aircraft reportedly used, specific information that would confirm official allegations regarding the identity of these aircraft has been mysteriously withheld or denied upon request.
The federally registered aircraft reportedly used during the 9/11 attacks:
- American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA).
With flight data recorder serial number data that is virtually always provided within NTSB reports of major U.S. commercial airline crashes that occur within U.S. territory, one can trace an installed device to a particular registered aircraft through manufacturer or Federal Aviation Administration records.
The following e-mail was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007, in response to a 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail inquiry:
"Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon."
A 11/26/2007 Freedom of Information Act request of the Federal Aviation Administration for the last known serial numbers of the flight data recorders and other components contained by the aircraft said to have been used during the 9/11 attacks, was unlawfully denied.
Background:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13149
A 1/3/2008 e-mail reply from a Loren Cochran, a FOIA specialist with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, regarding the FAA FOIA denial reads as follows:
[Read more; http://911blogger.com/node/14081 ]
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
NYT Covers Alison Weir's Talk in Connecticut: Zionists Create Backlash
I was introduced to the work of the indefatigable Alison Weir through her superb 2005 article in The Link on the coverage and non coverage of Israel-Palestine.
http://www.ameu.org/summary1.asp?iid=262
So I was pleasantly surprised to see a relatively fair feature article in the New York Times reporting on her appearances in Greenwich, Connecticut last week.
Speech on the Mideast Brings Opinions to a Boil
By PETER APPLEBOME
February 17, 2008 Greenwich, Conn.
Read the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/nyregion/17towns.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=speech+on+the+Mideast+brings+Opinions+to+a+Boil&st=nyt&oref=slogin
As reporter Peter Applebome points out, her critics’ attempt to censor her talk created a backlash which resulted in a crowd 10x bigger than she might have expected.
At the end of his article, Applebome draws the appropriate lesson for his fellow Zionists: don’t draw unnecessary attention to your opponents.
Applebome was fair enough to record the reaction of the crowd when she finished:
When the speech ended, Ms. Weir was met with thunderous applause, and across the room there was a widespread sense of satisfaction that someone was saying what needed to be said.
“It’s true that our money is going there to kill little kids,” said one well-dressed woman, who spent the speech nodding in agreement and gave only her first name, Jean. “It’s the side we don’t hear, that doesn’t get on the news.”
Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/nyregion/17towns.html?_r=1&sq=speech%20on%20the%20Mideast%20brings%20Opinions%20to%20a%20Boil&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=1&pagewanted=print
http://www.ameu.org/summary1.asp?iid=262
So I was pleasantly surprised to see a relatively fair feature article in the New York Times reporting on her appearances in Greenwich, Connecticut last week.
Speech on the Mideast Brings Opinions to a Boil
By PETER APPLEBOME
February 17, 2008 Greenwich, Conn.
Read the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/nyregion/17towns.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=speech+on+the+Mideast+brings+Opinions+to+a+Boil&st=nyt&oref=slogin
As reporter Peter Applebome points out, her critics’ attempt to censor her talk created a backlash which resulted in a crowd 10x bigger than she might have expected.
At the end of his article, Applebome draws the appropriate lesson for his fellow Zionists: don’t draw unnecessary attention to your opponents.
Applebome was fair enough to record the reaction of the crowd when she finished:
When the speech ended, Ms. Weir was met with thunderous applause, and across the room there was a widespread sense of satisfaction that someone was saying what needed to be said.
“It’s true that our money is going there to kill little kids,” said one well-dressed woman, who spent the speech nodding in agreement and gave only her first name, Jean. “It’s the side we don’t hear, that doesn’t get on the news.”
Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/nyregion/17towns.html?_r=1&sq=speech%20on%20the%20Mideast%20brings%20Opinions%20to%20a%20Boil&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=1&pagewanted=print
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Poem: After Reading Philip Larkin's "Aubade"
Death is like a birthday
It’s a big day
And should be celebrated – with lots of folks around and wine.
But as often as not – it’s just us
Alone – going nowhere
Gone.
And not coming back. That’s what makes it special.
It’s the shame of it
(As Larkin says)
It took so long to get to the point of NOT having to go out of a Saturday night.
Not having to run from boredom, from youth, from energy.
To find something exciting
Preferably a girl, but a movie’ll do,
Or worse, a TV show with cookies.
Now I’m of an age where I can comfortably sit and read the newspaper
Check my email,
Write my blog.
No problem.
So what’s the problem?
A life has been lived.
No, the problem isn’t dying.
We’re ready for it when it happens.
The problem is
What to do with this mountain of knowledge we’ve stacked up?
The wisdom, the experience -- all tossed into the circular file?
All the books we’ve read --
Opening doors we won’t get to open anymore,
The joy of learning
We’re too tired. The bones are ready for rest.
What good is that mountain we’ve built now we’re dead?
It’s like the gathering up the necessaries for a feast of thousands
Or all the artillery for a major battle.
And upon reaching the field it all turns to dust.
And the dinner guests – they have evaporated.
All that is left
The huge sand dunes of desert
All changing into disintegration
Atoms and molecules
Before your eyes.
It’s a big day
And should be celebrated – with lots of folks around and wine.
But as often as not – it’s just us
Alone – going nowhere
Gone.
And not coming back. That’s what makes it special.
It’s the shame of it
(As Larkin says)
It took so long to get to the point of NOT having to go out of a Saturday night.
Not having to run from boredom, from youth, from energy.
To find something exciting
Preferably a girl, but a movie’ll do,
Or worse, a TV show with cookies.
Now I’m of an age where I can comfortably sit and read the newspaper
Check my email,
Write my blog.
No problem.
So what’s the problem?
A life has been lived.
No, the problem isn’t dying.
We’re ready for it when it happens.
The problem is
What to do with this mountain of knowledge we’ve stacked up?
The wisdom, the experience -- all tossed into the circular file?
All the books we’ve read --
Opening doors we won’t get to open anymore,
The joy of learning
We’re too tired. The bones are ready for rest.
What good is that mountain we’ve built now we’re dead?
It’s like the gathering up the necessaries for a feast of thousands
Or all the artillery for a major battle.
And upon reaching the field it all turns to dust.
And the dinner guests – they have evaporated.
All that is left
The huge sand dunes of desert
All changing into disintegration
Atoms and molecules
Before your eyes.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Stephen Zunes: Obama's advisors less neocon than Hillary's
I was getting so depressed after reading a deal about how Obama is far from even a liberal, not to mention a progressive, that it was with some relief that I read Stephen Zunes's piece below. It would be nice to think that the details he offers reflect a bit of reality. Who knows?
Two items.
1. The Zionist issue. Zunes has long been outed as an apologist for Zionism and just as (or even more) important, he follows the Chomsky line that the Zionist lobby is unimportant when it comes to determining US Mideast Policy. (In a speech in January, Chomsky repeated the bogus revisionist line that Israel [and the Lobby] didn't really want us to invade Iraq. He claimed they went along with Bush's plans but really wanted an attack on Iran.) So naturally Obama's cave in to the Zionists is not going to trouble Zunes.
And here I follow some of my friends in the movement who argue that Obama simply has no choice on this issue if he wants to be taken seriously. I know this is heresy, but that's the way reality is in this year of our Lord.
(I haven't gotten around to documenting the slime campaign going around in some communal circles that Obama is a closet Muslim. [JJ Goldberg of the Forward: shame on you!! What's the point of having a "liberal" editor if he's going to go the same depths as the most vicious of the right wing bunch?] But I've noticed that there's been pushback in some places. If Obama gets the nomination what are the odds of a return of the same canard in more mainstream outlets?)
Item Two: Every single Democratic nominee after LBJ with the exception of Clinton has run the sort of presidential campaign that indicated that he wasn't eager to take up, shall we say, the challenges of the presidency. Will Obama be any different? It's impossible to tell in advance, but if he gets the nomination, we'll know soon enough by the way he runs the campaign. If he didn't have race going against him, he'd just as likely slip by the weakness of McCain as a candidate and the Bush legacy, just as Jimmy Carter narrowly got by Ford. One of the few good things about the Clintons is that they want to win. Let's hope Obama does as well. Some of the people close to him would know.
Item 2.5
Zunes argues that Obama's advisors including or especially Brzezinski-- are less likely to go along with Zionist/neocon efforts to extend the war to Iran. We can hope.
Ronald
**
Seth wrote:
What made most impression upon me as I said was Clinton's cheerleading for the war 2002--7. That is not discussed here. It is why I concluded she is DP neo-con, or pretty close. Evidently she's still doing it. "Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton advisors .... Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent. "
It's pretty clear that if Clinton got candidacy--as I said--there would be no debate with McCain on war--the war would be buried.SF
Behind Obama and Clinton
By: Stephen Zunes, Editor: John Feffer
February 11, 2008
Published February 4, on Foreign Policy in Focus (www.fpif.org)
Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed by the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. However, there are still some real discernable differences to be taken into account. Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the lives of millions of people.
As a result, the kind of people the next president appoints to top positions in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs is critical. Such officials usually emerge from among a presidential candidate's team of foreign policy advisors. So, analyzing who these two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination have brought in to advise them on international affairs can be an important barometer for determining what kind for foreign policies they would pursue as president. For instance, in the case of the Bush administration, officials like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle played a major role in the fateful decision to invade Iraq by convincing the president that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and that American forces would be treated as liberators.
The leading Republican candidates have surrounded themselves with people likely to encourage the next president to follow down a similarly disastrous path. But what about Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Who have they picked to help them deal with Iraq war and the other immensely difficult foreign policy decisions that they'll be likely to face as president?
Contrasting Teams
Senator Clinton's foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton's administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor--and her likely choice for Secretary of State--is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband's administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter's assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto's repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.
Senator Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power--author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq--and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel's occupation of the West Bank.
Contrasting Issues
While some of Obama's key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton's advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
While Obama advisors Susan Rice and Samantha Power have stressed the importance of U.S. multilateral engagement, Albright allies herself with the jingoism of the Bush administration, taking the attitude that “If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future.”
While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.
Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
Iraq as Key Indicator
Perhaps the most important difference between the two foreign policy teams concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama's supporters have emphasized that their candidate had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration's exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America's standing in the world.
Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration's false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton's refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it is no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.
Indeed, whatever choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one's position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about how a future president would address such questions as the use of force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of intelligence information.
As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton's foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband's administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush's call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama's foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
Pre-War Positions
During the lead-up to the war, Obama's advisors were suspicious of the Bush administration's claims that Iraq somehow threatened U.S. national security to the extent that it required a U.S. invasion and occupation of that country. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor in the Carter administration, argued that public support for war “should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy.”
By contrast, Clinton's top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”
Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America's leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.
Another key Obama advisor, Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment, argued that the goal of containing the potential threat from Iraq had been achieved, noting that “Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression. Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in WMD capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.”
By contrast, Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband's national security advisor, insisted that “even a contained Saddam” was “harmful to stability and to positive change in the region,” and therefore the United States had to engage in “regime change” in order to “fight terror, avert regional conflict, promote peace, and protect the security of our friends and allies.”
Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors, such as Larry Korb, raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a heavily populated country in the Middle East and the risks of chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war.
And other top advisors to Senator Clinton--such as her husband's former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright - confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O'Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.
These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposed views in the lead-up to the war.
National Security
Not every one of Clinton's foreign policy advisors is a hawk. Her team also includes some centrist opponents of the war, including retired General Wesley Clark and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
On balance, it appears likely that a Hillary Clinton administration, like Bush's, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars. By contrast, a Barack Obama administration would be more prone to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America's allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country's international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort.
Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama's foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted, members of Obama's foreign policy team are “more likely to stress 'soft power' issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.” As a result, “Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.”
And new approaches are definitely needed.
Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.
Copyright © 2004-2007 Progressive Democrats of America • All text available for public use with appropriate attribution.
Two items.
1. The Zionist issue. Zunes has long been outed as an apologist for Zionism and just as (or even more) important, he follows the Chomsky line that the Zionist lobby is unimportant when it comes to determining US Mideast Policy. (In a speech in January, Chomsky repeated the bogus revisionist line that Israel [and the Lobby] didn't really want us to invade Iraq. He claimed they went along with Bush's plans but really wanted an attack on Iran.) So naturally Obama's cave in to the Zionists is not going to trouble Zunes.
And here I follow some of my friends in the movement who argue that Obama simply has no choice on this issue if he wants to be taken seriously. I know this is heresy, but that's the way reality is in this year of our Lord.
(I haven't gotten around to documenting the slime campaign going around in some communal circles that Obama is a closet Muslim. [JJ Goldberg of the Forward: shame on you!! What's the point of having a "liberal" editor if he's going to go the same depths as the most vicious of the right wing bunch?] But I've noticed that there's been pushback in some places. If Obama gets the nomination what are the odds of a return of the same canard in more mainstream outlets?)
Item Two: Every single Democratic nominee after LBJ with the exception of Clinton has run the sort of presidential campaign that indicated that he wasn't eager to take up, shall we say, the challenges of the presidency. Will Obama be any different? It's impossible to tell in advance, but if he gets the nomination, we'll know soon enough by the way he runs the campaign. If he didn't have race going against him, he'd just as likely slip by the weakness of McCain as a candidate and the Bush legacy, just as Jimmy Carter narrowly got by Ford. One of the few good things about the Clintons is that they want to win. Let's hope Obama does as well. Some of the people close to him would know.
Item 2.5
Zunes argues that Obama's advisors including or especially Brzezinski-- are less likely to go along with Zionist/neocon efforts to extend the war to Iran. We can hope.
Ronald
**
Seth wrote:
What made most impression upon me as I said was Clinton's cheerleading for the war 2002--7. That is not discussed here. It is why I concluded she is DP neo-con, or pretty close. Evidently she's still doing it. "Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton advisors .... Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent. "
It's pretty clear that if Clinton got candidacy--as I said--there would be no debate with McCain on war--the war would be buried.SF
Behind Obama and Clinton
By: Stephen Zunes, Editor: John Feffer
February 11, 2008
Published February 4, on Foreign Policy in Focus (www.fpif.org)
Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed by the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. However, there are still some real discernable differences to be taken into account. Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the lives of millions of people.
As a result, the kind of people the next president appoints to top positions in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs is critical. Such officials usually emerge from among a presidential candidate's team of foreign policy advisors. So, analyzing who these two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination have brought in to advise them on international affairs can be an important barometer for determining what kind for foreign policies they would pursue as president. For instance, in the case of the Bush administration, officials like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle played a major role in the fateful decision to invade Iraq by convincing the president that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and that American forces would be treated as liberators.
The leading Republican candidates have surrounded themselves with people likely to encourage the next president to follow down a similarly disastrous path. But what about Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Who have they picked to help them deal with Iraq war and the other immensely difficult foreign policy decisions that they'll be likely to face as president?
Contrasting Teams
Senator Clinton's foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton's administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor--and her likely choice for Secretary of State--is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband's administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter's assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto's repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.
Senator Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power--author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq--and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel's occupation of the West Bank.
Contrasting Issues
While some of Obama's key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton's advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
While Obama advisors Susan Rice and Samantha Power have stressed the importance of U.S. multilateral engagement, Albright allies herself with the jingoism of the Bush administration, taking the attitude that “If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future.”
While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.
Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
Iraq as Key Indicator
Perhaps the most important difference between the two foreign policy teams concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama's supporters have emphasized that their candidate had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration's exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America's standing in the world.
Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration's false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton's refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it is no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.
Indeed, whatever choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one's position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about how a future president would address such questions as the use of force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of intelligence information.
As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton's foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband's administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush's call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama's foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
Pre-War Positions
During the lead-up to the war, Obama's advisors were suspicious of the Bush administration's claims that Iraq somehow threatened U.S. national security to the extent that it required a U.S. invasion and occupation of that country. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor in the Carter administration, argued that public support for war “should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy.”
By contrast, Clinton's top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”
Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America's leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.
Another key Obama advisor, Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment, argued that the goal of containing the potential threat from Iraq had been achieved, noting that “Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression. Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in WMD capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.”
By contrast, Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband's national security advisor, insisted that “even a contained Saddam” was “harmful to stability and to positive change in the region,” and therefore the United States had to engage in “regime change” in order to “fight terror, avert regional conflict, promote peace, and protect the security of our friends and allies.”
Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors, such as Larry Korb, raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a heavily populated country in the Middle East and the risks of chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war.
And other top advisors to Senator Clinton--such as her husband's former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright - confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O'Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.
These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposed views in the lead-up to the war.
National Security
Not every one of Clinton's foreign policy advisors is a hawk. Her team also includes some centrist opponents of the war, including retired General Wesley Clark and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
On balance, it appears likely that a Hillary Clinton administration, like Bush's, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars. By contrast, a Barack Obama administration would be more prone to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America's allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country's international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort.
Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama's foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted, members of Obama's foreign policy team are “more likely to stress 'soft power' issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.” As a result, “Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.”
And new approaches are definitely needed.
Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.
Copyright © 2004-2007 Progressive Democrats of America • All text available for public use with appropriate attribution.
Bush-Cheney Rapidly Privatizing Medicare
We’ve known from the beginning that the Bush Prescription Drug plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act was deeply flawed in so many ways, in particular because it’s an attack on Medicare, a solid program that is vital to scores of millions of retirees. But there have been so many attacks on the people of this country (and we’re getting off easy compared to so many elsewhere) that for some of us – even a retiree like me – it’s been hard to focus on the particulars and to realize how successful has been the Bush-Cheney assault.
But every so often comes a reminder or something pops to the surface. And this one came for me in the form of a United Federation of Teachers petition on the subject which I took the trouble to read and was duly shocked to see how much they’ve been able to get away with, in this case by already going a long way to privatizing (i.e., destroying) the program.
Note that we can’t blame this one on the Zionists, perhaps the majority of whom are liberals. It’s a good example of how successful Bush-Cheney have been in using the various pressure groups for their own purposes of destruction. --RB
From the
United Federation of Teachers Petition on Medicare
Government health programs such as Medicare have faced substantial cuts while private for profit plans such as Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage) are estimated to gain $54 billion in subsidies over five years.
The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was designed to have an automatic triggering mechanism which will initiate a process calculated to provide a large reduction in Medicare Part B as early as 2009.
Medicare Advantage is a disadvantage to Medicare beneficiaries. The overpayment to private for profit plans increases Part B premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries. 81 % of Medicare beneficiaries are paying to subsidize 19% of those in private for profit plans.
Insurance industries' profits have greatly increased because the subsidies they receive are not completely passed along to their beneficiaries. Private for profit plans $ are subject to few public reporting requirements.
The President has shown his hostility to government health programs as exemplified by his veto to the S-CHIP program (Children's Health Program) and by his insistence that the Federal government can not afford to continue supporting Medicare.
We are demanding that the playing field be made level by equalizing payments between the traditional plan, Part B (Medicare) and the private for profit plans within Medicare Part C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act was deeply flawed in so many ways, in particular because it’s an attack on Medicare, a solid program that is vital to scores of millions of retirees. But there have been so many attacks on the people of this country (and we’re getting off easy compared to so many elsewhere) that for some of us – even a retiree like me – it’s been hard to focus on the particulars and to realize how successful has been the Bush-Cheney assault.
But every so often comes a reminder or something pops to the surface. And this one came for me in the form of a United Federation of Teachers petition on the subject which I took the trouble to read and was duly shocked to see how much they’ve been able to get away with, in this case by already going a long way to privatizing (i.e., destroying) the program.
Note that we can’t blame this one on the Zionists, perhaps the majority of whom are liberals. It’s a good example of how successful Bush-Cheney have been in using the various pressure groups for their own purposes of destruction. --RB
From the
United Federation of Teachers Petition on Medicare
Government health programs such as Medicare have faced substantial cuts while private for profit plans such as Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage) are estimated to gain $54 billion in subsidies over five years.
The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was designed to have an automatic triggering mechanism which will initiate a process calculated to provide a large reduction in Medicare Part B as early as 2009.
Medicare Advantage is a disadvantage to Medicare beneficiaries. The overpayment to private for profit plans increases Part B premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries. 81 % of Medicare beneficiaries are paying to subsidize 19% of those in private for profit plans.
Insurance industries' profits have greatly increased because the subsidies they receive are not completely passed along to their beneficiaries. Private for profit plans $ are subject to few public reporting requirements.
The President has shown his hostility to government health programs as exemplified by his veto to the S-CHIP program (Children's Health Program) and by his insistence that the Federal government can not afford to continue supporting Medicare.
We are demanding that the playing field be made level by equalizing payments between the traditional plan, Part B (Medicare) and the private for profit plans within Medicare Part C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
