Obama Ends Neo-Conservative Crusade

The President of the United States declared an end to the Iraqi Evangelical Crusade by the end of this year. The Libyan People have shown us the way. While Raging Reaganites spent trillions waging a Jihad against Islam, their Bankers stockpiled trillions of dollars in their high towers.

It is time to start placing these Traitors under arrest, time to take their war booty, and give it back to The People! I posted the following in 2006

The Neo-Conservative Crusade
Jon Presco <braskewitz yahoo.com>
2006-07-20 20:22:46 GMT

The Neo-Conservative Crusade

The Neo-Conservatives Have Launched a Covert Crusade.

“The most fervent supporters of Likud in the Republican electorate
are Southern Protestant fundamentalists. The religious right
believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and
fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidize Jewish
settlements in the occupied territories.”

Here is Pat Buchanan’s prophecy made in August 2004. For four years
now I have put Denis de Rougemont at the core of my study of the
Priory de Sion, saying he and those around him fit the bill of an
orginization bent on ruling the world. This is not to say there is a
Priory de Sion, but rather “Truth is stranger then fiction.”

“The Congress for Cultural Freedom was controlled by American
intellectuals, mostly New Yorker Trotskyites like Sol Levitas, the
man who encouraged the publication of the New Leader, and Elliot
Cohen, founder of Commentary [1] as well as the supporters of the
Federal Europe (Altiero Spinelli, Denis de Rougemont…).”

“But the film directly challenges the conventional wisdom by making
a powerful case that the Bush administration, led by a tight-knit
cabal of Machiavellian neoconservatives, has seized upon the false
image of a unified international terrorist threat to replace the
expired Soviet empire ‘cold war’ threat in order to push a political
agenda.”

America’s Next War?

by Patrick J. Buchananby Patrick J. Buchanan

“The United States of America will not permit the world’s most
dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive
weapons.” This is the heart of the Bush Doctrine from the
president’s “axis of evil” address to Congress. And the nations that
constituted that axis were Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Under this doctrine, Iraq was invaded, Saddam overthrown and his
army disbanded, though we have yet to find any of the “world’s most
destructive weapons.”

With North Korea, the train has left the station. Pyongyang can now
produce nuclear weapons and may possess half a dozen. For nations
like North Korea and men like Kim Jong Il do not build costly and
complex ballistic missiles simply to throw conventional explosives
across an ocean.

Which leaves Iran. With Moscow’s assistance, Tehran has been
constructing a nuclear power plant at Bushehr. Once operational,
Bushehr will, like Yongbyon in North Korea, yield plutonium as a
byproduct.

Last year, the International Atomic Energy Agency also stumbled on a
secret uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz. Its centrifuges were
found to contain traces of weapons-grade uranium. Highly enriched
uranium, U-235, is a component of atomic bombs. Little Boy, dropped
on Hiroshima, had a uranium core. Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki, had
a plutonium core.
Lately, an effort by Russia, France and Germany to have Iran open up
its nuclear plants to inspection has been rebuffed by Tehran. Having
seen how America dealt summarily with Iraq, but proceeds gingerly
with North Korea, Tehran has likely concluded that when a superpower
is threatening pre-emptive strikes and preventive war, only nuclear
weapons can deter it. Those who do not have such deterrents get the
Saddam and Taliban treatment.

So it appears that the decisive test of the Bush Doctrine will come
in Iran. And that test is probably not far off.

The Israelis have reportedly practiced strikes on Iran by crossing
Turkish airspace and have special forces in the Kurdish regions of
Iraq. There are rumors Sharon has told the White House that if we do
not effect the nuclear castration of Iran, Israel will do the
surgery herself, because she cannot live under the cloud of an
atomic bomb in the possession of the patrons of Hezbollah.
Enter the “cakewalk” neoconservatives. Though disastrously wrong
about Iraq’s receptivity to U.S.-imposed democracy, and though they
face disgrace and oblivion if Bush loses, they have one last card to
play: That is to have America widen her wars with Afghanistan and
Iraq with a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. For the
neoconservatives, Iraq was simply Phase II of “World War IV” for
imperial domination of the Middle East and serial destruction of the
regimes in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as of
Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

The neocons have not abandoned this imperial project. Nor has Bush
removed a single one from power, though they may yet cost him his
presidency. And the neoconservative commentariat is again beating
the drums for war — this time on Iran.

This is their hole card. If they can ignite a new war, the country
may forget how they bungled the old war. In escalation lies
vindication.

And, in truth, Iran is a matter the president and Pentagon must
address. Can we live with an Iranian atom bomb, which will restrict
U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and likely lead to proliferation
of nuclear weapons in the Arab world? Or is Iran the place where the
Bush Doctrine must be applied, even if it ultimately requires U.S.
air and missile strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites?

Given the overstretch of U.S. forces, the invasion and occupation of
a nation three times as large and populous as Iraq is off the table.
And what would be the probable result of America launching air
strikes and starting yet another fire in the middle of the world’s
gasoline station?
Tehran would likely retaliate by sending fighters into Iraq,
stirring up Shia guerrillas in the south, aiding anti-American
warlords in Afghanistan, sponsoring terror attacks on U.S. citizens
and inciting Hezbollah to refire the Lebanon front.

We could find ourselves in a third war with no allies save Israel.
Another consequence could be the disruption of oil shipments from
Iran, Iraq and the Gulf, a run-up in prices to $60 or $70 a barrel,
and recessions in Japan, Europe and the United States.

Presently, America and her European allies appear to be moving
toward Security Council sanctions if Iran does not render hard
assurances it is not going nuclear. But if the mullahs have
concluded their only defense against U.S. or Israeli pre-emptive
strikes is a deterrent of their own — a not unreasonable assumption
given what happened next door — we are headed for a showdown that
will change our world forever.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article136478.html

When the CIA financed European Intellectuals by Denis Boneau*

To counteract the Soviet influence in Europe, at the end of WWII the
United States created a network of pro-American elites. Thus, the
CIA financed the Congress for Cultural Freedom in which many
European intellectuals participated. Among the most distinguished
ones were Raymond Aron and Michel Crozier. Responsible for designing
an anti-communist ideology welcomed by the conservative right as
well as the socialist and reformist left of Europe during the Cold
War, these networks were reactivated by the Bush administration.
Today, they are the European sounding board of American
conservatives.

In 1945 and ruined by WWII, Europe became the target of influence of
the United States and the Soviet Union which both wanted to control
the continent. Since 1947, the American administrations implemented
an interventionist policy backed up by the secret services and the
CIA in particular, aimed at preventing the development of Communist
Parties in Europe
The purpose was to develop a pro-American elites group through the
Marshall Plan supported in France by the Commissariat du Plan and to
finance the anticommunist intellectuals. This project of cultural
diplomacy took shape with the foundation of the Kongress für
Kulturelle Freiheit (Congress for Cultural Freedom) which gathered
personalities usually involved in different activities of American
interference in Europe (modernization commissions, project for a
federal Europe…)

Secretly financed by the CIA during 17 years until the 1967 scandal,
the Congress for Cultural Freedom was the spearhead of the postwar
American cultural diplomacy. Intellectuals, writers, journalists and
artists met to design a diplomatic program aimed at ideologically
defeating Marxism. Magazines, media seminars, research programs,
university scholarships and the development of informal relational
networks allowed the organization to have a real impact on
university, political, artistic, etc… circles.

The Congress for Cultural Freedom recruited intellectuals for 25
years to found long-lasting interference networks in Europe,
especially in France, country targeted as on of Washington’s
priorities. Such networks survived the dissolution of the
organization and have been reactivated by the Bush Administration.

Today, they are the European sounding board of the cultural
diplomacy designed by American neoconservatives and neoliberals who
came from the Congress for the Cultural Freedom themselves.

The origin of the Kongress für Kulturelle Freiheit

The Kongress für Kulturelle Freiheit was founded in 1950 in Berlin,
specifically in the American occupation zone. The secretary general
of the meeting, Melvin Lasky, was a New Yorker journalist that lived
in Germany since the end of the war. A militant of the anti-
Stalinist left, he became editor in chief of Der Monat (The Month),
a magazine founded in 1947 with the support of the Office of
Military Government of the United States and General Lucius Clay in
particular, “proconsul” of the American occupation zone in Germany.

Melvin Lasky

Supported by a “non-official and independent” committee, Melvin
Lasky tried to gather liberal and socialist intellectuals in only
one organization, an anti-communist “international”. The support
committee included personalities such as German philosopher Karl
Jaspers, French socialist Léon Blum, French writers such as André
Gide and François Mauriac, university professors like Raymond Aron
and American intellectuals such as James Burnham and Sidney Hook,
leading theorists of the New York Intellectuals. Although the
Congress gathered personalities of the whole world, including the
Third World, its field of operation was exclusively European.

The Congress for Cultural Freedom was controlled by American
intellectuals, mostly New Yorker Trotskyites like Sol Levitas, the
man who encouraged the publication of the New Leader, and Elliot
Cohen, founder of Commentary [1] as well as the supporters of the
Federal Europe (Altiero Spinelli, Denis de Rougemont…).

Behind the public façade, the Congress’ leading authorities had
multiple connections with the post-war American interference
networks: the Administration of the Marshall Plan and the American
Committee for United Europe (ACUE).

Founded during the fall of 1948 with the support of governmental
personalities (Robert Paterson, Secretary of War, Paul Hoffman, Head
of the Administration of the Plan Marshall, Lucius Clay) and
financed by the CIA, the ACUE was in charge of promoting the
construction of a Federal Europe in accordance with the interests of
Washington [2].
This improvement of relations was publicly acknowledged in 1951 when
Henri Freney, on behalf of ACUE, met officially with those in charge
of the Congress for Cultural Freedom.

BBC FILM QUESTIONS REAL THREAT OF ‘TERRORISM’

Why are we not surprised to learn that a new BBC film argues that
much of what we have been told about the threat of international
terrorism “is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by
politicians”. A new BBC film produced by one of Britain’s leading
documentary filmmakers systematically challenges this and many other
accepted articles of faith in the so-called “war on terror”.

The Power of Nightmares

The Rise of the Politics of Fear, a three-hour historical film by
Adam Curtis recently aired by the British Broadcasting Corporation,
argues that much of what we have been told about the threat of
international terrorism “is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and
distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread
unquestioned through governments around the world, the security
services and the international media.”

Consider just a few of the many questions the program poseso If
Osama bin Laden does, in fact, head a vast international terrorist
organisation with trained operatives in more than 40 countries, as
claimed by Blair, Bush and Howard, why, despite the torture of
prisoners, have the authorities failed to produce hard evidence of
it?o How can it be that in Britain since 9/11, 664 people have been
detained on suspicion of terrorism but only 17 have been found
guilty, most of them with no connection to Islamist groups and none
who were proven members of al Qaeda?o Why have we heard so much
frightening talk about “dirty bombs” when experts say it is panic
rather than radioactivity that would kill people?o Why did Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim on Meet the Press in 2001 that al
Qaeda controlled massive high-tech cave complexes in Afghanistan,
when British and U.S. military forces later found no such thing?

The documentary doubts not that an embittered, well-connected and
wealthy Saudi man named Osama bin Laden helped finance various
affinity groups of Islamist fanatic terrorists, nor does it
challenge the notion that a terrifying version of fundamentalist
Islam has led to gruesome spates of violence throughout the world.
But the film directly challenges the conventional wisdom by making a
powerful case that the Bush administration, led by a tight-knit
cabal of Machiavellian neoconservatives, has seized upon the false
image of a unified international terrorist threat to replace the
expired Soviet empire ‘cold war’ threat in order to push a political
agenda.

While the BBC documentary acknowledges that the threat of terrorism
is both real and growing, it disagrees that the threat is
centralised.
“There are dangerous and fanatical individuals and groups around the
world who have been inspired by extreme Islamist ideas and who will
use the techniques of mass terror – the attacks on America and
Madrid make this only too clear. But the nightmare vision of a
uniquely powerful hidden organisation waiting to strike our
societies is an illusion. Wherever one looks for this al Qaeda
organisation, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the ‘sleeper
cells’ in America, the British and Americans (and Australians…ed)
are chasing a phantom enemy.”The fact is, despite the efforts of
several government commissions and a vast army of investigators, we
still do not have a credible narrative of a “war on terror” that is
being fought in the shadows. Consider, for example, that neither the
9/11 commission nor any court of law has been able to directly take
evidence from the key post-9/11 terror detainees held by the United
States. Everything we know comes from two sides that both have a
great stake in exaggerating the threat: the terrorists themselves;
and the military and intelligence agencies that have a vested
interest in maintaining the facade of an overwhelmingly dangerous
enemy.

How could you not love a house in Brooklyn that was, in 1941, home
to W. H. Auden and his lover, Carson McCullers, Benjamin Britten,
Gypsy Rose Lee, and Virgil Thompson? When Denis de Rougemont, the
author of Love in the Western World, visited their salon at #7
Middagh Street, he wrote that “all that was new in America in music,
painting, or choreography emanated from that house, the only center
of thought and art that I found in any large city in the country.”

Neocon Treason

by Paul Craig Roberts

Having experienced the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations,
do Americans wish they had elected Patrick J. Buchanan president?
Was Buchanan America’s last chance to put a true patriot in the Oval
Office?

America was meant to cultivate its own garden, to steer clear of
foreign entanglements and permanent alliances, and to serve as an
example to others. Instead, the U.S. has become a “democratic
imperialist.”

In a new book dedicated to Ronald Reagan, Where the Right Went
Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and
Hijacked the Bush Presidency, Buchanan rues the rise of Jacobin
America. A neoconservative cabal allied with Israel’s right-wing
Likud Party has captured our government and initiated a new crusade
against Islam.
In a chapter that is must reading for every American who thinks
President Bush should be reelected, Buchanan asks: “Who are they,
the neoconservatives?”

When you find out, you will want nothing further to do with the
president who sponsored them and gave them unbridled power to launch
America into permanent war in the Middle East.
The neocons have declared America at war with 1 billion Muslims who
have done us no harm. Simultaneously, the neocons destroyed our
traditional alliances. Instead of isolating a terrorist enemy,
neocons have isolated America.

Al-Qaeda is not a state or a country. It is a non-governmental
organization that rejects America’s decadent culture and opposes the
U.S.-Israeli alliance that brutally oppresses Palestinians to the
shame of all Muslims.

It is impossible to fight al-Qaeda by invading and occupying Muslim
countries. Bush’s invasion of Iraq has achieved nothing for the U.S.
but death and expense. For al-Qaeda it has radicalized the Muslim
world and created recruits.

“The neoconservatives,” writes Buchanan, “are marinated in conceit,
and their hubris may yet prove their undoing. And ours as well.”

The failure of the U.S. occupation in Iraq has certainly
demonstrated the limits to U.S. hegemony. Despite limited armed
opposition, U.S. military forces do not seem able to control a
single Iraqi city. If rebellion were to become general or if Iraqis
had effective weapons against tanks and air power, the U.S. would
have to withdraw its army.

Buchanan explains how the neocons used the Sept. 11 terrorist attack
on the World Trade Center to put into operation their preconceived
plan, drafted years prior to Sept. 11, to invade Iraq.

In 1996, neoconservatives currently serving in the Bush
administration wrote a policy paper for Israeli right-wing Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the policy paper, Douglas Feith
(currently undersecretary of defense), David Wurmser (VP Cheney’s
staff) and Richard Perle (Defense Review Board) called for “removing
Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic
objective in its own right.”

Today the entire world, with the exception of the propagandized
American public, knows that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with
the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. But for “Washington’s Likudniks,”
that was beside the point. It was Israel’s interests that they had
in mind, not America’s. Osama bin Laden got away while the U.S. was
diverted into invading Iraq.
In 1997 Feith wrote in his “Strategy for Israel” that the U.S. and
Israel should conquer Iraq, Syria, and Iran. Moreover, Israel should
reoccupy “the areas under Palestinian Authority control,”
though “the price in blood would be high.”

We are now watching this neocon strategy unfold. Iraq has been
invaded. Israel’s Likud Party, with U.S. complicity, is grabbing
more of the Palestinian West Bank. Last week, neocon Undersecretary
of State John Bolton began beating the war drums against Iran for
allegedly possessing weapons of mass destruction that “pose grave
threats to international society.”
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, neocon Max Boot defined support
for Israel as a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” What, asks Buchanan,
about support for America? America’s interest should be the focus of
the Bush administration. When did America’s interests become
subsumed in the interests of Israel’s right-wing Likud Party?

If Americans don’t want a generation of sons dying in Middle Eastern
deserts, they had best take Buchanan’s question to heart.

http://batr.net/neoconwatch/archives/2005_09_01_neoconswatch_archive.
html

The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel
lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute
for National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish
defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the
retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of
occupied Iraq. In October 2000, he cosigned a Jinsa letter that
began: “We … believe that during the current upheavals in Israel,
the Israel Defense Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the
face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of [the]
Palestinian Authority.”

The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings.
Wolfowitz and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel
lobby. Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the
Bush administration’s liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee. Feith was given an award by the Zionist Organization of
America, citing him as a “pro-Israel activist.” While out of power
in the Clinton years, Feith collaborated with Perle to coauthor a
policy paper for Likud that advised the Israeli government to end
the Oslo peace process, reoccupy the territories, and crush Yasser
Arafat’s government.

Such experts are not typical of Jewish-Americans, who mostly voted
for Gore in 2000. The most fervent supporters of Likud in the
Republican electorate are Southern Protestant fundamentalists. The
religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews,
and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidize Jewish
settlements in the occupied territories.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html

http://www.policyreview.org/apr04/selden.html

Jon ‘The Highwayman’