Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Obama's War Cabinet
Fremen Bryan
post Jan 5 2009, 01:12 PM
Post #1

"The Sleeper must awaken"

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365

Obama's War Cabinet
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, December 5, 2008

December 1 brought more disappointment but no surprises. Obama's
national security appointees (like all his earlier ones) aren't
"change to believe in" or what people expected for their votes.
They're recycled establishment figures. Their agenda is business as
usual, and they'll continue the same failed Bush administration
policies at home and abroad. Washington's criminal class is
bipartisan. Obama was chosen to lead it and is assembling a rogue team
that's little different from the one it's replacing.

For "security", it means:

-- maintaining the "strongest military on the planet" and do it by
outspending all other countries combined;

-- continued foreign wars;

-- possibly another against Iran;

-- permanent occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan - directly and with
proxy forces; Obama saying he'll withdraw all US forces from Iraq in
16 months (around mid-2010) is false and misleading;

-- a reinvented Cold War against Russia;

-- an "absolute" commitment "to eliminating the threat of terrorism
(with) the full force of our power;"

-- inciting instability anywhere it serves US imperial interests with
special emphasis on resource-rich Eurasia, including the Asian sub-
continent; Exhibit A: the Bombay (Mumbai) terror attacks that Michel
Chossudovsky explains have "the fingerprints of a (carefully planned)
paramilitary-intelligence operation (and) are described as India's
9/11," or at least a mini version of it; the usual suspects are
blamed; the purpose is to incite fear and more violence; the
consequences - an internal hard line crackdown, increased tensions
between India and Pakistan, and a military opening for Washington to
intervene further in the region; and

-- additional North American militarization as evidenced by a
disturbing December 1 Washington Post report - that (on the pretext of
national security) the Pentagon will deploy 20,000 troops nationwide
by 2011 "to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear attack
or other domestic catastrophe;" three "rapid-reaction" combat units
are planned; two or more additional ones may follow; they'll be
supplemented by 80 smaller National Guard units and will be trained to
respond to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, high-yield
explosive, and other domestic "terror" attacks or disturbances; in
other words, homeland militarization and occupation is planned using
combat troops trained to kill.

Media Reaction to Obama's National Security Appointees

The New York Times suggested he's "put(ting) the rancor and even some
of the rhetoric of the presidential campaign behind him on Monday as
he welcomed his chief Democratic adversary into his cabinet and
signaled flexibility in his plans to withdraw troops from Iraq." He
stated: "I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders (and
it's) likely to be necessary to maintain a residual force to provide
potential training (and) logistical support to protect our civilians
in Iraq."

According to the Cato Institute's foreign policy director, Christopher
Preble, Obama chose Iraq war supporters, so it "suggests that we will
only get more of the same."

The Washington Post highlighted Obama's "high-powered national
security team....to face a complex security picture." It quoted him
calling for "a new beginning, a new dawn of American leadership (and)
the power of our moral example."

According to UN ambassador-designee Susan Rice, it's a team "to
prevent conflict, to promote peace, combat terrorism, prevent the
spread and use of nuclear weapons, tackle climate change, end
genocide, fight poverty and disease." More on those aims below.

The Wall Street Journal suggested that Obama's national security team
will make "a clean break from Bush administration policies on Iraq,
Afghanistan and overseas diplomacy." It will differ from "an over-
reliance on the military and a failure to devote enough resources to
political reconciliation and economic development in those nations."
More on that below as well.

Obama's National Security Designees

On December 1 in the UK Guardian, author Jeremy Scahill called them a
"Kettle of Hawks" so it's no surprise that hard line neocon writer Max
Boot was jubilant over the selections and said they "as easily (could)
have come from a President McCain." He and like-minded ideologues
believe this puts "an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal
from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators (aka democrats
like Chavez, president Ahmadinejad of Iran, and Fidel and Raul
Castro), and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama
campaign." His selections "should be powerful voices for neoliberalism
which is not so different from neoconservatism."

According to Boot, Obama will pick up right where Bush left off with a
near-seamless transition. "Only churlish partisans of both the left
and the right can be unhappy with the emerging tenor of our nation's
new leadership."

According to former Chicago congressman, federal judge, and Clinton
White House Counsel Abner Mikva in a Chicago Jewish News article, it's
also true for the nation's Jews and the state of Israel. As some call
Clinton 'the nation's first black president,' "I think when this is
over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish
president." Rabbi Arnold Wolf agrees in saying Obama is "embedded in
the Jewish world." Given the team he's assembling, there's every
reason to believe they're right.

Hillary Clinton

She's co-heading the team (with Robert Gates) as Secretary of State
designee, so it's clear no change is planned given her hard line
neocon ideology. As one analyst puts it: it's why many on the left
"are grinding their teeth" about her and other former Clinton
administration appointees.

Back in May, CounterPunch co-editor Jeff St. Clair referred to her
"Gothic politics" that offer no hope for needed change. He called her
"constitutionally wedded to a stern neoliberalism, a disposition
(she's unable to) camouflage."

Darker still is her hawkishness, far enough to the right to be
indistinguishable from Joe Lieberman or John McCain. It's why one
analyst calls her a "war goddess" and with good reason. She supported
the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and still does.
She voted for the Patriot, Homeland Security, and other repressive acts.

She's extremely bellicose, endorses attacking Iran, supported Israel's
destructive 2006 Lebanon war, praised Israel's apartheid wall,
demeans the Palestinian people, equates them with terrorists, calls
any Israeli criticism anti-Semitism, is close to AIPAC, and at its
June convention said "The United States stands with Israel now and
forever....We have shared interests....shared ideals....common values.
I have a bedrock commitment to Israel's security. (Against Islamic
extremists) our two nations are fighting a shared threat....I strongly
support Israel's right to self-defense (and) believe America should
aid in that defense....I am committed to making sure that Israel
maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats."

"I am deeply concerned about the growing threat in Gaza (and) Hamas'
campaign of terror....Its charter calls for the destruction of
Israel....Iran (also) threatens to destroy Israel....I support calling
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization.
It is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with
Iran before it is too late."

In other speeches, Clinton has been extremely belligerent and
blatantly malicious in accusations mirror opposite of the truth. She
called Iran a strategic long-term threat, a country that practices
state terrorism, that uses "surrogates to supply explosives that kill
US troops in Iraq," and that must be dealt with with "all options on
the table."

She also said that if Iran attacks Israel (that's implausible on its
face), America would respond by "obliterating" the country - in other
words, incinerate its entire population through a nuclear holocaust.
During the 2008 campaign, she told ABC's Good Morning America:

"I want the Iranians to know, if I am the president, we will attack
Iran. And I want them to understand that (if) they might foolishly
consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally
obliterate them."

She's just as extremist on all foreign policy issues. She opposes an
international treaty to ban land mines and was against banning cluster
bomb exports to countries that use them on civilians. She backs arms
transfers and police training to human rights abusing countries like
Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia and similar US allies.

She's for a larger military budget, continuing the "war on terror,"
the nation's illegal wars and occupation, and Israel's repressive
Palestinian occupation. In July 2004, she denounced the UN, accused it
of opposing aggressive US policies, its judicial arm for challenging
Israel's Separation Barrier, and she sponsored a Senate resolution
"urging no further action by the UN to delay" its construction.

She's done nothing to contain nuclear proliferation except to condemn
Iran's legal commercial development. It's in full accord with the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) unlike the world's greatest
nuclear outlaw - America. Israel, India, and Pakistan as well, but
they're US allies unlike Iran. Clinton also supports the Bush Doctrine
and his administration's unilateral position on using first strike
nuclear weapons, including against non-nuclear states.

Hillary Clinton at State sends a strong message to free people
everywhere and especially to all Muslims and the Arab world - the "war
on terror" will continue. Your people are its main target, and America
will continue to invade and occupy your lands. It also tells the anti-
war movement that it's work has just begun and will be no simpler
under Obama than it's been up to now. Clinton is a powerful bulwark
against it and to all freedom loving people everywhere. "Gothic"
indeed - dark and foreboding in the same "war party" under new

Robert Gates

He'll remain as Defense Secretary and is a clear signal of Bush
administration policy continuity. After being named to succeed Donald
Rumsfeld in November 2006, this writer said about him: The appointment
of Robert Gates "replac(es) one controversial (defense) secretary and
accused war criminal with an unindicted liar and equally controversial
former Reagan and senior Bush official." Earlier he was involved "in
cooking the intelligence to fit the policy in the Iran-Contra scandal
he was never held to account for." He also had a hand "in secretly
arming Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. When he
takes over (at DOD), expect the Pentagon under (his) management to be
no different" than the leadership it's replacing. In all respects,
Gates lived up to expectations and will continue the same policies
under Obama.

In an October 28 speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, he argued for expanding the Bush administration's pre-emptive
war doctrine to include first strike nuclear weapons. He said that
pacifist illusions shouldn't deter planning for a broader war.

He added that "As long as other states have or seek nuclear weapons -
and can potentially threaten us, our allies and friends - then we must
have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the US
in the nuclear arena - or with weapons of mass destruction - could
result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response." In other words, if
non-US allies seek nuclear weapons or if Washington (without evidence)
claims it, they then become potential targets for a nuclear response
even if their intentions are peaceful.

Gates' other credentials include 26 years with the CIA where he was
its deputy director from 1986 - 1989 and director from 1991 - 1993.
Former CIA official, turned political activist, Ray McGovern knew him
there and wrote about his "dexterity in orchestrating his own
advancement (and) never (being) one to let truth derail (his) ambition."

Former CIA analyst Mel Goodman described how he "tried hard to
anticipate the views of policy makers in order to pander to their
needs" and played a major role in politicizing the agency. One of his
key distortions led to higher military spending under Ronald Reagan -
by exaggerating the Soviet menace (along with CIA director Bill Casey)
as a "military behemoth with a robust economy rather than a decaying
power with a shriveling GDP."

Goodman added: "While serving as deputy director for intelligence from
1982 - 1986, Gates wrote the manual for manipulating and centralizing
the intelligence process to get the desired intelligence product." He
promoted pliable CIA careerists to top positions while sidelining or
retiring more independent ones. In 1991 under GHW Bush, his colleagues
staged an unprecedented revolt for his role in destroying the agency's
commitment to objectivity.

At the time, Harold P. Ford, former National Intelligence Council vice-
chairman, told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Bob Gates has often
depended too much on his own individual analytic judgments and has
ignored or scorned the views of others whose assessments did not
accord with his own. This would be okay if he were uniquely all-
seeing. He has not been."

Throughout his career, Gates was devious and opportunistic. He'll
bring those "qualities" to the new Obama administration.

He's also a past president of Texas A & M University (a position
gotten with considerable Bush family help), a member of several
corporate boards, served on the Baker Iraq Study Group, and was George
Bush's first choice for Department of Homeland Security secretary but
declined to remain at Texas A & M.

Retired Marine General James Jones

He's the announced National Security Advisor designee to head the
White House National Security Council (NSC). Since inception under
Harry Truman, it's to advise the president on national security and
foreign policies as well as coordinate them among various government
agencies (including the military branches, CIA, and other intelligence

Jones is a former NATO commander (from 2003 - 2006), Commandant of the
Marine Corp (from 1999 - 2003), and 40 year veteran after retiring
from the Corp in 2007. He's now a US Chamber of Commerce executive and
last November was named the administration's special Middle East envoy
with this endorsement: he's the "person we need to take up this vital
mission....an experienced leader who can address the regional security
challenges comprehensively and at the highest levels...." His
assignment was to draft a strategic security stabilization plan to
complement (so-called) Israeli - Palestinian peace talks. He supports
stationing US forces in Occupied Palestine under the pretext of NATO

He also investigated the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, concluded that
America "t(ook) its eye off the ball" in Afghanistan and is losing.
That view supports Obama's wanting 10,000 more combat troops there
(30,000 according to some reports) and also plans "as our first
priority" increased regional military operations - against Afghanistan
and Pakistan with a more convenient than ever pretext in the wake of
the Bombay (Mumbai) terror attacks in the part of the world he calls
the greatest menace to US security.

Increasing numbers of US missile strikes are killing more Pakistani
civilians. They're inciting growing anger in the country, are
escalating the Afghan war, and threaten to expand the war theater to a
much larger area with potentially catastrophic consequences - a
strategy Obama and his incoming team apparently support.

In his latest article titled "Afghanistan, Another Untold Story,"
Michael Parenti has a different view. After reviewing the country's
recent history, he says:

"US intervention in Afghanistan has proven not much different from US
intervention in Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua,
Grenada, Panama, and elsewhere. It had the same intent of preventing
egalitarian social change, and the same effect of overthrowing an
economically reformist government. In all these instances, the
intervention brought retrograde elements into ascendance, left the
economy in ruins, and pitilessly laid waste to many innocent lives."

"The war in Afghanistan, a battered impoverished country, continues to
be portrayed in US official circles as a gallant crusade against
terrorism. If it ever was that, it also has been a means to other
things: destroying a leftist revolutionary social order, gaining
profitable control of one of the last vast untapped reserves of the
earth's dwindling fossil fuel supply, and planting US bases and US
military power into still another region of the world....In the face
of all this, Obama's call for 'change' rings hollow."

It also suggests a frightening prospect under his leadership - a
continuation of Bush's (preventive war) Doctrine against countries we
claim (true or false) practice "terrorism," harbor "terrorist"
elements, or aid "terrorist" groups. In other words, an agenda that
needs enemies, invents them strategically, and intends to wage
permanent aggressive wars to expand US imperialism globally and
especially over resource-rich parts of the world like Eurasia.

Eric Holder

As Attorney General designee, he's another very troublesome choice
because of his hard line law-and-order reputation. He's Obama's senior
legal advisor, a former District of Columbia Superior Court judge, and
Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton.

As senior Democrat Party legal advisor during the Bush administration,
he was actively involved in his party's complicity in enacting
repressive police state laws.

In 1998, he issued a statement known as the "Holder memo" in which he
supported government intervention into policing Internet free speech.
It stated:

"Because of the nature of the Internet and availability of agents
trained in conducting criminal investigations in cyberspace,
investigation and prosecution of Internet obscenity is particularly
suitable to federal resources."

In a 1998 letter to Morality In Media (an extremist religious right
front group against pornography), he said: "I appreciated having the
opportunity to meet with you recently to discuss the prosecution of
obscenity cases." Holder supported multi-jurisdictional prosecutions
of Internet web sites and businesses on such charges, even in cases of
First Amendment-protected material.

Some claim his strategy wasn't to win, but to burden defendants with
mounting legal costs, exhaust them through repeated litigation, and
perhaps drive them into bankruptcy. It's a tactic very similar to so-
called SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) lawsuits
that are used to intimidate and silence critics.

Holder was also involved in Bill Clinton's indefensible last day in
office Mark Rich pardon, the billionaire fugitive commodities trader.
In 1983, Rich and his partner were indicted on 65 counts of defrauding
the IRS, mail fraud, tax evasion, racketeering, defrauding the
Treasury and trading with the enemy. Holder was deputy attorney
general at the time.

As US attorney for the District of Columbia, he also pushed for
stiffer marijuana penalties, and according to one report, advocated
"minimum sentences of 18 months for first-time convicted drug dealers,
36 months for second offenses, and 72 months for each subsequent
conviction." He also wanted to "make the penalty for distribution and
possession with intent to distribute marijuana a felony, punishable
with up to a five-year sentence." The DC Council enacted Holder's
recommendation into law in 2000. His hard line stance against non-
violent drug offenders runs counter to Obama's softer position,
apparently about to harden.

Holder also played a lead role in the 2005 Patriot Act
reauthorization, supported at the time by Obama. In addition, after
his Clinton administration service, he was a partner in the Covington
& Burling law and lobbying firm at which he defended Chiquita Brands
International executives on charges of aiding terrorism by financing
and arming Colombian (AUC) death squads. In spite of overwhelming
evidence and the company's own admission, he got it off with a fine of
around half of one percent of its annual revenue.

Holder also believes that accused "terrorists" have no Geneva
Convention rights. In a January 2002 CNN interview he said:

"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to
have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future
plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva
Convention you are really limited in the amount of information that
you can elicit from people."

"It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted
themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to
the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war."

Holder left unaddressed the question of torture, guilt or innocence.
The fact that they were captured and imprisoned is good enough for him.

As the nation's top law enforcement official, he'll assure more of the
same criminal abuses under George Bush. He's no civil libertarian or
what people should expect from the nation's top law enforcement
officer. He represents business as usual, and a sign of continued dark
times ahead.

Keeping FBI Director Robert Mueller as his chief law enforcement
deputy (even though his term runs until 2011) is an even stronger
signal. Mueller enforced the worst of "war on terrorism" policies,
including witch-hunt prosecutions, illegal spying, and targeting
political dissent.

The possible appointment of former George Tenet aide John Brennan as
new CIA chief is also disturbing although reportedly he's out of the
running. He heads Obama's intelligence transition team, supported
warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and was involved in
politicizing intelligence alleging Saddam's WMDs in the run-up to the
Iraq war.

Possible CIA Directors

On December 2, The New York Times reported that "Obama Faces a
Delicate Task" in choosing his CIA chief - "one of the more
treacherous patches of his transition to the White House" given the
agency's disturbing involvement in extraordinary renditions, torture,
and other illegal practices under Bush.

Even so, "some senior Democratic lawmakers who are vehement critics of
the Bush administration's interrogation policies seemed reluctant in
recent interviews to commit the new administration to following the
Army Field Manual in all cases."

Diane Feinstein will become Senate Intelligence Committee chairperson
in January. She says extreme cases and potential terrorist threats
call for flexibility, so her message is clear even though in a
subsequent statement she softened it. Repressive interrogations,
including torture, will likely continue under Obama even if Guantanamo
is closed and even though they're illegal under US and international

During the campaign, Obama aides said he'd let CIA keep holding
prisoners in overseas jails but that International Committee of the
Red Cross representatives should be given access to them. It matters
little because, when allowed, their tours are carefully orchestrated
to conceal repressive practices and no contact with prisoners most
aggrieved by them.

The Army Field Manual (No. 27-10) is explicit on the rule of law. It
incorporates the Nuremberg Principles prohibiting crimes against
humanity, and in paragraph 498 states that any person, military or
civilian, who commits a crime under international law bears
responsibility and may be punished. In addition, paragraph 499 defines
a "war crime." Paragraph 500 refers to conspiracy, attempts to commit
it and complicity with respect to international crimes. Paragraph 509
denies the defense of superior orders in the commission of a crime;
and paragraph 510 denies the defense of an "act of state."

Most members of Congress from both parties have been complicit with
the administration in egregiously violating both US and international
laws. All signs point to little, if any, change under the incoming
Obama administration.

The Times reports that Obama will replace CIA director Michael Hayden.
Possible candidates include:

-- deputy director (since 2004) Stephen Kappes, a 27-year CIA veteran;

-- former Indiana congressman and member of the 9/11 commission Tim
Roemer; he's now president of the Center for National Policy, a
Washington-based national security think tank;

-- Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel who's retiring from the Senate in
January; he's also a former conservative talk-show host and is (or was
during his runs for the Senate) part owner, chairman, and CEO of the
Election Systems & Software (ES&S) electronic voting machine company;
it installed, programmed and operated the equipment used by most
voters for the elections in which he ran; he won a second term in 1982
with 83% of the vote - the largest ever political victory in the
state; some critics called it a dress rehearsal for Bush's 2004
electoral theft and various state ones favoring Republican candidates;

-- Jack Devine, a 32-year CIA veteran, now retired, and former head of
clandestine service; he describes himself as "a covert action person
(who believes) we should be out there pushing US policy wherever we
can, covertly and overtly."

Admiral Dennis Blair

Reports are that retired Admiral Dennis Blair is top choice to be
Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The office was established by
the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and was
formed in April 2005. It's the president's principal national security
intelligence advisor; heads the nation's 16 intelligence agencies; and
oversees and directs the National Intelligence Program.

Now retired, Blair is a 34 year Navy veteran and currently holds the
(former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman) John Shalikashvili Chair in
National Security Studies at The National Bureau of Asian Research
(NBR). Also the General of the Army Omar Bradley Chair of Strategic
Leadership at Dickenson College and the US Army War College. He's the
immediate past president of the Institute for Defense Analyses, a US
government Washington, DC think tank that calls itself "a non-profit
corporation that administers three federally funded (R & D) centers to
assist the (government) in national security issues."

Blair was also an Oxford classmate of Bill Clinton and a Naval Academy
classmate of Senator Jim Webb. If appointed, he'll bring more
militarist credentials to Obama's war cabinet. In his various command
assignments during the Bush administration, he was a point man in the
"war on terrorism." He'll continue that role as the nation's
intelligence chief.

An obstacle in his way was in a Pentagon inspector general finding
regarding DOD conflict-of-interest standards. Earlier he was involved
with a study of a major military contract for the F-22 fighter while a
board member of the company that makes it, Lockheed Martin. It
occurred while Blair was president of the Institute for Defense
Analyses. Whether this will derail him is an open question, but it
highlights the pervasive Washington revolving-door and overall
corrupted culture.

Janet Napolitano

According to Michael Lacey of LA Weekly News, the current Arizona
governor and designee for Homeland Security secretary is a troublesome
choice. He cites her sorrowful Arizona service "consorting with anti-
immigrant enforcers, indulging rank opportunism, and adhering to
failed policies (that make for) an unlikely recipe for change we can
believe in. And yet this very cocktail of mediocrity" made her Obama's
choice for DHS chief or what this writer calls the nation's Gestapo.

As Arizona governor, Napolitano defended her states border with a
"pitchfork. Her multi-pronged strategy: embrace the nation's most
regressive legislation; empower a notorious sheriff using cynical
political calculations; (and) employ boots on the ground" - shock
troop enforcers against defenseless Latino immigrants forced north
because of destructive NAFTA policies.

Lacey goes on to describe Napolitano's "bungled billions," hiring
companies embedded with former state agency employees and cronies,
ducking hard choices, using accounting gimmicks in state budgets, and
various other practices amounting to "corruption, greed, and the
cupidity of boondoggle bookkeeping in hard times." She also signed
legislation criminalizing the need to work and support one's family
and created a state atmosphere reminiscent of Prohibition - today
against Latino immigrants driven north to find work. Now she'll do for
America what she's doing to Arizona.

Susan Rice

She'll be Obama's nominee for UN ambassador. Earlier under Bill
Clinton, she was on the National Security Council and served as
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. Some call her
progressive but recommending the unilateral use of military force
against any country violates the Charter of the organization where
she'll work. In 2006, she recommended it against Sudan in stating:

"History demonstrates that there is one language Khartoum understands:
the credible threat or use of force....After swift diplomatic
consultations, the United States should press for a UN resolution that
issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the UN
force within one week or face military consequences."

Chapter VII of the UN Charter authorizes only the Security Council to
"determine the existence of any threat to the peace, or act of
aggression (and, if necessary, take military or other actions to)
restore international peace and stability." It permits a nation to use
force only under two conditions: when authorized by the Security
Council or under Article 51 allowing the "right of individual or
collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a
Member....until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain
international peace and security."

Calling for unilateral force against another state for any reason is
illegal and criminal. Susan Rice did it, yet will serve as America's
UN ambassador as her reward.

Obama continues to round out his team, and each appointment mirrors
the others. On his watch, it'll be business as usual, but what else
would we expect.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on
Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at ....

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Nov 4 2009, 03:41 AM
Post #2

"The Sleeper must awaken"

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365

Richard Holbrooke - The Zionist Running the War in Afghanistan

Dick Holbrooke in Afghanistan in 2006. Understanding Holbrooke's mission in Central Asia requires knowing who this "hyperaggressive" Zionist "master of disaster" really is.

War weary Americans who hoped the new Obama administration would change U.S. policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring the troops home must be sorely disappointed. The only Americans coming home these days are those who have died in the senseless conflict. More troops are being sent to fight a war that is understood neither by the American public nor by the people doing the fighting.

Americans are coming home from Afghanistan in caskets under the cover of night.

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared on "Face the Nation" on Sunday, July 5, to discuss U.S. military actions in the Middle East. During the interview Mullen revealed what he called the real strategy in Afghanistan: to clear, hold, and build. The first question asked of Mullen was about the military situation in Afghanistan as the U.S. Marines carry out a large offensive known as Operation Strike of the Sword or Operation Khanjar (Arabic for "dagger"):

Admiral Mike Mullen: I suspect it's going to be tough for a while. And again, we have enough forces there now not just to clear an area but to hold it so we can build after. And that's really the strategy.

The logical question to ask Mullen would have been, "What is it that we want to build in Afghanistan?" although John Dickerson of CBS News did not ask. If building is "really the strategy" in Afghanistan as Admiral Mullen says, what is it that so badly needs to be built?


U.S. troops have been in Afghanistan since October 2001 when they were supposedly sent in response to 9-11, although no Afghans were involved in the terror attacks. The stated aim of the Anglo-American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was to find Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaida members and put them on trial. The U.S., however, said it had given up its pursuit of Osama Bin Laden years ago. So why did the U.S. and Britain really invade Afghanistan -- and why are we still there? Why has President Obama increased troop levels in Afghanistan? The short answer is the TAPI gas pipeline, which will carry gas from Israeli-owned and managed gas fields in Turkmenistan to Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and China.

The TAPI pipeline needs to cross Helmand province in the south of Afghanistan.

Turkmenistan and Afghanistan are both very rich in gas reserves. The Turkmen mineral assets are managed by the former Mossad agent Yosef Maiman. Building the TAPI pipeline is a Zionist pipe dream that will use the mineral wealth of Turkmenistan to benefit Maiman and his partners. This is the main development project that U.S. policy is trying to accomplish. Transit fees from the gas pipeline are intended to support the government in Kabul.

Yosef Maiman, Israeli Mossad agent, owns much of the gas of Turkmenistan and controls all of it.<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->

Mullen touched on this development in the interview:

We've got to move to a point where there's security so that the economic underpinnings can start to move, development, that we can create governance so that the Afghan people can get goods and services consistently from their government.

Are we to believe that the U.S. is fighting an 8-year war in Afghanistan in order to make sure the Afghans can get "goods and services consistently from their government?" Have we spent hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan so we can build post offices, train stations, and power plants? What are the "economic underpinnings" that need to "start to move?" Why would the U.S. government care more about providing "goods and services" to the people of Afghanistan than, say, the people of California?

Mullen touched only lightly on the subject and CBS News was certainly not asking the questions that would allow Americans to really understand the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->

"The economic development the generals talk about, including gas pipeline construction, requires stability," Gary Leupp wrote in Counterpunch on July 6, "But Afghanistan, like Iraq, was destabilized precisely by a U.S. attack and occupation in the first place. More ominously, Pakistan has been destabilized by the invasion of the next-door country." Why are Americans fighting wars in Central Asia for a pipeline from Turkmenistan?

To understand why Obama is pushing the war in Afghanistan, one needs to understand that the Obama administration is really a Zionist-controlled government. If this were not already abundantly clear, it can be seen by the person appointed to apply U.S. policy in the region. That person is Richard Charles Albert Holbrooke, one of Obama's first appointments. Holbrooke, a Zionist Jew and a long-time associate of Henry Kissinger, is the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Holbrooke is described by State Dept. workers as "abrasive and arrogant." He is a student of Kissinger-style diplomacy with a "hyperaggressive style," according to Meryl Gordon of New York Magazine. Holbrooke and Kissinger have been friends and co-workers since the early 1960s in Vietnam. Gordon wrote that Holbrooke is often described as "arrogant, ambitious, pushy, relentless, argumentative, ego-obsessed, social-climbing, and just plain rude." James Hoge, editor of Foreign Affairs said, Holbrooke is brusque and impatient with those who disagree with him. "Dick can't brook argument. He's right, you're wrong."

Holbrooke was a director of Maurice Greenberg's incredibly badly-run A.I.G. insurance company from 2001-2008. A.I.G. is really a criminal enterprise, indicted on numerous charges, which insured investment banks against losses from the extremely risky financial "instruments" that caused the financial collapse of 2008. When these risky instruments failed, A.I.G. was bailed out with more than $180 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars, which it then distributed to the dodgy investment banks it had insured. A.I.G. has already cost every man, woman, and child in the United States about $600 each. Holbrooke was a key insider in this tremendous scam. Greenberg and A.I.G. are also involved in the terror attacks of 9-11 and the fraudulent "War on Terror" in many ways. The first plane that struck the World Trade Center, for example, flew directly into the secure computer room of a Greenberg-owned and managed company, Marsh.

Prior to A.I.G., Holbrooke was a vice chairman at Credit Suisse First Boston. First Boston was the place where the mortgage-based securities were first created under Laurence D. Fink. (Fink developed mortgage-based securities at First Boston in the mid-1970s when 9-11 "whistle-blower" Indira Singh worked there on the IT and risk consulting end of the business.)

On January 22, two days after taking office, Obama named Holbrooke as special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. At this point, the U.S. government had already bailed-out Holbrooke's company to the tune of some $180 billion, the largest government bail-out in U.S. history. Yet two months later, Obama blasted A.I.G., calling their business practices "outrageous" and trying to distance his administration, which includes a former director of A.I.G., from the tremendous cost the A.I.G. bail-out imposed on the U.S. taxpayer: "Nobody here was responsible for supervising A.I.G. and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in," the president said.

Richard Holbrooke of A.I.G. and George Mitchell were both early Obama appointments. Obama reportedly did not talk with Holbrooke about the $180 billion bail-out of the company he had been a long-time director of. Instead he lied by saying no one in his administration was responsible for supervising A.I.G.

Obama's denial is clearly not true. Holbrooke, an Obama appointee, had his hands deep in the A.I.G. scam for 8 years and had made a good living doing so. Fox News reported on March 19, 2009, that Holbrooke made more than $250,000 a year as a director at A.I.G.:

Holbrooke joined AIG's board in February 2001 and resigned in July 2008, two months before the company nearly collapsed. Over more than seven years as a board member, he may have earned as much as $800,000 in cash and company stock, according to AIG financial documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Since September, AIG has received $180 billion in taxpayer money to keep it from failing and causing more damage to the U.S. economy…

For much of his tenure on the AIG board, Holbrooke had a role in approving salaries and compensation. From 2001 until mid-2005, he was a member of the board's compensation committee. According to AIG financial statements, the committee sets the salary for the company's chief executive officer [Maurice Greenberg] and gives advice on how other senior managers are to be compensated.


When critics call the conflict in Afghanistan "Obama's Vietnam" they are not far off. Holbrooke was a key player in the Vietnam war from 1962 to 1969. His biography concerning Viet Nam looks like this: Joined Foreign Service US Department State, 1962, served in South Vietnam Saigon, 1963-66; staff member The White House, 1966-67; assigned US Department State; staff Paris Peace Talks on Vietnam, 1968-69. From his high-level position in the development of the war in Viet Nam as assistant to ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Holbrooke and Henry Kissinger have worked closely together since the early-1960s. Holbrooke was sent to Vietnam in 1962 to serve as an assistant to ambassador Lodge, while Henry Kissinger, a Harvard professor, was the ambassador's adviser. Gordon wrote that Kissinger recalled watching a parade in Saigon from Holbrooke's apartment.

Holbrooke and Kissinger have continued to work very closely together at the American Academy in Berlin, which they founded in 1994. The academy is located in a lakeside mansion across from the train station in Wannsee. In 2008, Holbrooke gave the Kissinger award to George H.W. Bush. Why are Holbrooke and Kissinger giving prizes to former U.S. presidents?

George W. Bush receiving the Kissinger Prize in 2008

In an odd breach of protocol, Henry Kissinger was sent by the Obama administration to hold high-level talks with the leaders of Russia in March instead of the Secretary of State. Why was Kissinger speaking for the United States under the newly-elected Obama administration? Who really makes U.S. foreign policy?

Kissinger meeting Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on March 19, 2009

Holbrooke also played a key role in the U.S.-led bombing and subsequent Balkanization of Yugoslavia, in which the formerly prosperous and socialist nation was carved up into ethnic mini-statelets. The breaking up of Yugoslavia resulted in a significant reduction in the standard of living across the nation. NATO continues to control the statelet of Kosovo, which was literally ripped off from Serbia along with Trepca, one of the richest mines in Europe.

The New York Times of May 5, 2009 describes Holbrooke as a key member of the Obama team and says he is being considered as a possible national security adviser. During the disastrous conflict in August between Russia and Georgia, the NYT profile says Holbrooke "was one of the first Americans to fly to Tbilisi to meet with the Georgian leader Mikhail Saakashvili, a friend." Whatever advice Holbrooke gave his "friend" Saakashvili was clearly bad advice.

Holbrooke, who is called "the bulldozer" by some who know him, is a pushy individual who has been involved at the highest level in one disaster after another since the early 1960s. Now he is the point man in a disastrous and senseless war in Central Asia, which has gotten much worse since he joined the effort in January 2009. Why is Holbrooke put into such positions of power in the first place? The man, after all, has a long record of creating mega-disasters.

Holbrooke visited refugees who had been driven from Pakistan's Swat valley in early June. "Are you glad the army came in, even though you were driven out of your homes?" Holbrooke reportedly asked the refugees.


To understand why Holbrooke is put into these positions, it is necessary to understand who he really is. Although it is not reported in biographical sketches, Holbrooke belongs to a very highly-connected family that is related to the Rothschild and Guggenheim families, among others. It is his German Jewish family connections that have placed him in positions of power in the U.S. government.

Richard Charles Albert Holbrooke was born April 24, 1941, to Dan Holbrooke and Gertrudis "Trudi" Moos Holbrooke. Dan, his father, was a Polish Jewish immigrant who changed his name to Holbrooke. Biographical sketches claim that Dan's original surname has been lost, which is very unlikely. Dan Holbrooke's real name has been hidden in the same way that the family has sought to hide its Jewish roots. But why would the Holbrooke family want to hide its Jewishness? It it because that is their secret connection to power that they want to conceal?

Celia Mcgee of the New York Observer wrote about Holbrooke in 1998:

The son of Dan and Trudi Holbrooke, raised in Scarsdale, N.Y., schooled at Brown University, he was a son of assimilated, upper-class Jews who fled Nazi racism. "I've been with him plenty of times when his Jewishness was obvious," said his friend Stanley Karnow, the journalist and author, "and he jokes about it plenty, too. It just isn't an issue with him, or Kati."

Holbrooke's father, whose real name is not known, died when Holbrooke was 16. His mother comes from the influential merchant Moos family of Baden-Württemberg in southern Germany. The Moos family is engaged in leather trading and moved their business to Argentina in 1922. Holbrooke's grandfather Samuel Moos was born in Reutlingen in 1889 and married Valesca Friedheim of Zurich. Samuel and Valesca lived in Buenos Aires where the leather-trading business is run in the name of the company founder, Elias Moos S.A. The Moos family, which is related by marriage to the Rothschild, Guggenheim, Weil, Marx, and Einstein families, traveled frequently by ship between Buenos Aires, New York, and Europe. There is even a seminar room at Tel Aviv University named in honor of Samuel and Valesca Moos. The Moos family collected nearly 1 million Swiss francs from Switzerland in 2007 for money they claimed to have lost in accounts during the war, which was multiplied by a factor of 12.

The graves of Ludwig Rothschild and his wife Hanchen Moos in the Jewish graveyard of Gailingen, Germany.

[size="4"]By understanding who Richard Holbrooke really is, what his agenda is, and who he is working for, we can see that there is a secret Zionist agenda behind the war in
. With the appointment of Holbrooke, who is known as "the bulldozer" to oversee U.S. policy in the region, the 8-year-old war which has now spread to Pakistan is bound to become much worse. The strategic goal of the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with terrorism and never did. Officials and media who claim that it is are simply lying.


This article is the result of a great deal of time and research. If you appreciate my work please click on the donation button at the top of the page.

Sources and Recommended Reading:

Bollyn, Christopher, "
The Great Game: The War For Caspian Oil And Gas," October 14, 2001

Bollyn, Christopher, "Obama's Deception: Afghanistan, 9-11 & Dresden," June 5, 2009

Gordon, Meryl, "Ambassador A-List," New York Magazine, December 27, 1999

Leupp, Gary, "Operation Khanjar Begins," CounterPunch, July 6, 2009

This post has been edited by Fremen Bryan: Nov 4 2009, 03:51 AM

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic


Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 9th April 2020 - 09:41 PM