Home > Archive >Bombs for Democracy: Inaugural Address
Author:written by K. Nimmo posted by jc
Sun, Jan 23rd, 2005 11:13:18 PM
Topic: Bombs for Democracy: Inaugural Address

Bush’s Inaugural Address: the Strausscons are Victorious and on Schedule
Kurt Nimmo

It was almost comical, if not so deadly serious, to read the “informed” opinions of corporate media editorialists prior to Bush’s finagling of the last “election,” who predicted a second Bush term would result in a kinder and gentler foreign policy and even a departure of Strausscons, sent back to whence they came, to the conspiratorial neocon think tanks and foundations.

Naturally, it did not work out that way and, in fact, such naivete revealed an inability on the part of such editorialists and so-called opinion makers to understand the Strausscon agenda and their persistence to see through a war on Islam, even at the expense of democracy in America.

As the Washington Post explains and Xinhua Online summarizes, Bush’s inaugural address served as “a crystallization and clarification of policies that Bush is pursuing in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and elsewhere,” most notably Iran and Syria, the next targets on the Likudite-Strausscon roster. “Bush advisers said the speech was the rhetorical institutionalization of the Bush doctrine and reflected the president’s deepest convictions about the purposes behind his foreign policies,” in other words the Strausscons rule the roost, World IV is on track, and we can expect more murder and mayhem over the next four years.

“Bush’s grand ambitions excited his neoconservative supporters, who see his call to put the United States in the forefront of the battle to spread democracy as noble and necessary,” Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei write for the Washington Post, using the now standard code word—i.e., “democracy” —as a rhetorical cover for the fact they plan to spread depleted uranium and kill 100,000 or more innocent people, the current Iraqi death toll, in Iran and Syria. “It was a rare inaugural speech that will go down as a historic speech, I believe,” said William Kristol, top Strausscon and prime motivator of the Likudite-Strausscon World War IV master plan. “He predicted the speech will drive policy for the rest of Bush’s presidency,” the Washington Post added.

Once again emphasizing invasion and occupation will dominate the lives of ordinary Americans—and eventually demand their lives be sacrificed—Michael J. Gerson, Bush propagandist, said World War IV will be “a generational struggle. It’s not the work of a year or two.” Bush “carefully and purposely nuanced” his message to indicate this. More details will be forthcoming in Bush’s State of the Union address, scheduled for February 2. Daniel J. Bartlett, White House counselor, said that speech will serve as a “practical policy blueprint,” as the Post described it, for further invasions and bombing campaigns. “It is a goal that is critically important, one that doesn’t come to fruition overnight,” Bartlett said. “It will move at different speeds and different paces in different countries. But he felt it was important to cast an anchor out into the future” to demonstrate the Strausscon goal dominating Bush policy.

Bush’s Strausscon cooked up “goals are deeply idealistic,” Gerson said. “His methods are deeply realistic. In fact, that was one of the themes of the speech, that this traditional divide between realism and idealism is no longer adequate for the conduct of American foreign policy,” in other words “realpolitik,” that is to say politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations, is out the window and the Strausscon vision—attacking Muslim nations from the Middle East to South Asia, regardless of the cost in lives and the national treasure of the United States—will dominate for the next four years.

As the Post reveals, Bush’s inaugural speech was crafted by the Strausscons William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and John Lewis Gaddis, the latter a proponent of “pre-emption and prevention,” in other words attacking Muslin nations in lieu of any solid reason beyond the fact Muslims and Arabs live in those countries and remain opposed to Israel and its victimization of the Palestinians, essentially the inspiration and template for resistance in the Middle East. “Democratization,” Gaddis writes in the CFR journal Foreign Affairs, “is a long-term objective,” in other words we can expect more Iraqs—and presumably the quagmire of Iraq sprouting up elsewhere with its attendant murderous destruction and loss of life—for a long time to come, that is if the Strausscons and their “Pentagon civilians” remain in power.

Bush’s “historical” inaugural speech serves as a subtext for the next phase of the Strausscon war against Islam and the enemies of Israel. As Seymour Hersh notes, amid frantic denials and denunciations by the Pentagon, covert activity will no longer be the purview of the CIA, ostensibly answerable to Congress, but instead the Pentagon, not answerable to Congress. “Rumsfeld has won a major bureaucratic fight,” Hersh told Amy Goodman.

He is now operating … in up to ten countries. He is sending in covert teams, that is, the word they use inside is “wiped clean.” The soldiers are wiped clean. Their IDs are totally non-American and non-military. They’re going in to make contact with groups inside various countries, set up operations, trying to do some war games, some terrorism themselves. You run with the bad boys to find the bad boys is the way somebody said to me. In other words, look like bad boys to attract other bad boys so we find out who they are. We can’t find the terrorists too often. This is one way of getting at them. And we’re going to be doing that with military people. We’re not going to be telling the American ambassador in the country. We’re not going to be telling the CIA station chief. It’s going to be done by Rummy and his people. That’s a huge shift, an unprecedented shift, in the last 60 years.

In Iran, the “bad boys” and “terrorists” are the government and, indeed, all of the Iranian people who will, naturally, fight to the death to protect their country from foreign invasion and meddling, regardless of what they think of their ossified and medieval leadership. According to Hersh, “the White House and the Pentagon is ignoring the nationalism that exists, the enormous feelings of togetherness inside Iran and love for country.” In Bushzarro world, such realities are ignored, and the Strausscon plan is front and center. In Hersh’s opinion, based on conversations with Pentagon insiders, the Strausscons “really believe [attacking Iran covertly] is one way [of accomplishing their objective]—sort of on the cheap, without committing a lot of troops, an air raid, maybe some commandoes, you know, some guerrillas, American SEALS or other teams go in with the Israelis, some of Israeli commando units go in to certain targets about which we’re not clear. But, basically, they think that’s the ticket.”

For those of us not caught up in the upside gravity of Bushzarro world, Hersh’s prediction of what the Strausscons are up to in Iran will certainly spell disaster—it will result in a wider and more violent situation in the Middle East, and this is precisely what the Strausscons want: a situation that will require more “commitment” on the part of the American people who, as the Strausscons believe, do not have the “stomach” for perpetual war, endless conflict that will naturally require “sacrifices,” that is to say millions of Americans “serving” as bullet-stoppers for the Likudite-Strausscon agenda of completely eviscerating the Muslim Middle East and, eventually, South Asia, home to the largest Muslim population in the world. As it now stands, more and more Americans are expressing reservations about the occupation of Iraq, and an above-the-board escalation in Iran would be nothing short of lunacy (thus the “covert” activity on the part of Pentagon, off record and hidden from the view of Congress and the American people).

Of course, there is one sure fire way to get the American people to line up behind the Strausscon agenda—another “terrorist event” on American soil, one that may rival September 11, 2001. Another terrorist attack would be the coup de grace the Strausscons are looking for, providing more than enough momentum to rub out the current leadership in Iran and Syria and inflict death and misery on the people of those countries.

Bush essentially signaled the beginning of such with his inaugural address. In the months ahead, we can expect not only more saber-rattling and covert nastiness, but the possibility of terrorism at home, perpetuated by “al-Qaeda,” suspiciously linked to the mullahs of Iran and the Ba’athist of Syria. History does repeat itself and in short order, since the Strausscons are on a tight schedule and their ascendancy in Washington, regardless of what dim-witted editorialists and so-called opinionmakers said prior to the “election,” is on track and apparently inexorable.

Author: written by MC Piper posted by jc
Sun, Jan 23rd, 2005 11:13:18 PM

(ed. this article goes quite a distance to explain the 'who' and 'where did it come from' behind the inaugural address)
An Israeli Fanatic Is 'Bush's Brain'
By Michael Collins Piper

Supporters of Israel were delighted to learn that President George W. Bush's recent call in his much-heralded inaugural address for worldwide democratic revolution was based on the philosophy of Israeli cabinet minister Anatoly "Natan" Sharansky.

Although a recent popular documentary, Bush's Brain, suggested that Karl Rove, the president's political advisor, was the mastermind who tells the president what to think, it is now clear - based on solid evidence - that Sharansky is the one who actually has bragging rights to that title.

Although he gained worldwide attention in the 1970s as a Soviet dissident and "human rights activist," Sharansky emigrated to Israel and soon emerged as one Israel's most outspoken hard-line extremist leaders who damns even Israel's heavy-handed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as being "too soft" on the Palestinian Christians and Muslims.

The role of Sharansky in guiding Bush's thinking is no "conspiracy theory." Instead, recent disclosures from the White House itself - published, although not prominently, in the mainstream media - demonstrate that not only did Sharansky personally consult with the president in drafting the now-controversial inaugural address, but that - in addition - at least two of Sharansky's key neo-conservative American publicists, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, were among those brought in to compose Bush's revolutionary proclamation.

Bush himself told The Washington Times in an interview published on January 12 - even prior to his inauguration: "If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy. It's a great book."

Buried in the very last paragraph of a very lengthy article published on January 22, The New York Times reported that "The president was given[Sharansky's] book and asked Mr. Sharansky to meet with him in the Oval office . . . Mr. Bush also gave the book to several aides, urging them to read it as well. Mr. Sharansky visited the White House last November."

The Times did not say who gave the book to the president in the first place, the determination of which would be no doubt very telling indeed.

Affirming the Times, disclosure, The Washington Post likewise revealed on January 22 (although, again, in the closing paragraphs of an extended analysis) that an administration official said that planning for Bush's address began immediately after the November election and that Bush himself had invited Sharansky to the White House to consult with him and that, in the Post's words, "Sharansky also helped shape the speech with his book."

It was the Post which revealed that two well-known hard-line "neo-conservative" supporters of Israel - William Kristol, publisher of billionaire Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard magazine, and psychiatrist-turned-pundit Charles Krauthammer, a strident advocate for harsh U.S. military and economic warfare against the Arab and Muslim worlds - were also among those brought in to help draft the president's address.

Kristol - in particular - and Krauthammer are generally acknowledged even in the mainstream media in America as being among those dubbed by AFP as "the high priests of war" who were instrumental in orchestrating the U.S. war against Iraq, which was a measure high-up on Israel's "want list" for the Bush administration.

It is no coincidence that the individual on the White House staff whom the Post says helped set up the planning conferences to direct Bush's thinking was one Peter Wehner who is director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives. Wehner - it just so happens - is a Kristol protégé, having been his deputy when Kristol was chief of staff for former Reagan administration Education Secretary William Bennett who was himself a protégé of Kristol's father, famed "ex-Trotskyite" communist-turned-neo-conservative, Irving Kristol.

Considering Kristol's wide-ranging input, shaping Bush's mindset, it is thus no surprise that, as the Post put it, "Bush's grand ambitions excited his neoconservative supporters who see his call to put the United States in the forefront of the battle to spread democracy as noble and necessary."

Meanwhile, for his own part, William Kristol chimed in with an editorial in The Weekly Standard on January 24 declaring that "it's good news that the president is so enthusiastic about Sharansky's work. It suggests that, despite all the criticism, and the difficulties, the president remains determined to continue to lead the nation along the basic foreign policy lines he laid down in his first term."

The BBC News noted on January 22 that Sharansky "has in fact been moving in American conservative circles for some time."

As far back as July 2002 - just prior to the time Bush delivered a hotly-debated speech calling for "democratization" of the Arab world - neo-conservative Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was in attendance at a conference addressed by Sharansky during which the Israeli leader put forth the same demand.

Shortly thereafter, when Bush gave his own speech, echoing Sharansky, the Israeli hard-liner "provided an important bit of last minute affirmation," according to American neo-conservative Richard Perle, who - between stints in government, during which time he was suspected of espionage on behalf of Israel - peddled weapons for an Israeli arms manufacturer.

Although the news of Sharansky's profound influence is not widely known among grassroots Americans outside official Washington, it is big news in Israel where The Jerusalem Post headlined a story declaring "White House takes a page out of Sharansky's democracy playbook." In fact, the Israeli newspaper actually went so far as to say on January 20 that Bush is "doing [Sharansky's book] promotion free of charge," pointing out that the president hyped Sharansky's book in an interview on CNN.

But it's not only Bush who is relying on Sharansky. On January 20, Scotland's independent-minded newspaper, The Scotsman noted that "Mr. Sharansky's influence on the way Washington now sees the world was clear this week when Condoleeza Rice quoted him during her Senate confirmation hearings," confirming that the Israeli hard-liner is very much the brains behind Bush policy.

The fact that Sharansky happens to be in charge of "diaspora affairs" in the Israeli cabinet is significant indeed. The term "diaspora" refers to all Jews living outside the borders of Israel and the "mission statement" of Sharansky's cabinet office says it places its "emphasis on Israel, Zionism, Jerusalem and the interdependence of Jews worldwide.

In essence, this translates into a single, general aim: securing the existence and the future of the Jewish people wherever they are." In short, Sharansky is no less than a powerful spokesman for the worldwide Zionist movement. And now, beyond any question, his views are directing George Bush's worldview.

Considering all of this, it is no wonder that on January 22, Korea's English-language media voice, Chosun Ilbo, went so far as to describe Sharansky's philosophy as outlined in his book The Case for Democracy - now being touted by Bush - as "a blueprint for U.S. foreign policy."

Bush the New Woodrow Wilson?
That propaganda line of Israeli hard-liner Natan Sharansky is the foundation upon which President George W. Bush's second inaugural address was based is virtually a complete turn-about from Bush's rhetoric in the 2000 presidential campaign is a point that - theoretically - should give pause to many Republicans who voted for Bush the first time he ran for the presidency.

Enthusiastic proclaiming in a front-page analysis on January 21 that Bush's address laid the "groundwork for [a] global freedom mission," The Washington Times - a leading "neo-conservative" voice which advocates a hard-line globalist foreign policy in sync with Israel's security demands - stated flat-out that:
"President Bush's inaugural address sends the United States on a new, expansionist and far more aggressive global mission to free oppressed countries from dictators - a sharp departure from his 2000 campaign that warned against becoming the world's policeman . . . an ambitious, perhaps unprecedented internationalist doctrine that could deploy U.S. military power far beyond America's present commitments . . ."

For its own part, the Times's daily counterpart, The Washington Post, declared editorially on January 21 that Bush's address was "more Wilsonian than conservative""that is, recalling the messianic internationalism of former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, hardly a hero of American conservatives.

Effectively endorsing Bush's turnabout, the Post acknowledged. that Bush's pronouncement "promised an aggressive internationalism, one that if seriously pursued would transform relations with many nations around the world," saying that if Bush is serious, U.S. policy "is on the verge of a historic change."

Sharansky A Hypocrite: Human rights for some - but not for all.
Although the worldwide media hails President Bush's philosophical mentor, Israeli politician Natan Sharansky, as some sort of "human rights activist," there is much more to Sharansky's point of view than the media is saying.

Writing on January 9 in The Washington Post Book World - in response to a review of Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy, published on December 26 - M. J. Rosenberg of Chevy Chase, Maryland laid out Sharansky's hypocrisy in no uncertain terms:
"Sharansky advocates for human rights only when his own country, Israel, is not involved. Throughout his post-Soviet-prison career, he has used his celebrity to support human rights for everyone"except Palestinians. [Sharansky believes] that before Palestinians are permitted a state and perhaps (just perhaps - he is a strong supporter of Israel's settler movement) an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, they must fulfill a host of conditions. For Palestinians, basic rights are conditional; for everyone else, they are fundamental."

Pointing out Sharansky's double-standard in proclaiming himself a human rights activist, Rosenberg concluded,
"The test of whether one is a human rights activist or one who simply uses the issue for political ends is that person's willingness to apply the human rights measuring stick to his own people. It is pretty easy to limit your calls for human rights to nations other than your own. For Sharansky, concern for Palestinians is the test of whether or not his claim to the mantle of human rights activist is genuine.

As [Sharansky's] book demonstrates, he fails"big time"...

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service