The Bush administration has finally gotten what it wanted: American missiles stationed in Poland, potentially less than 250 miles from the Russian border and less than 600 miles from Moscow -- a short missile flight. Scared by the Russian invasion of Georgia, the Polish prime minister backed down on his previous attitude of carefully negotiating the missile issue in the NATO-Russia Council and rushed his fence, agreeing to the missile deal offered by the US.
Here are some of the deal's terms:
The missile defense system is claimed to defend against Iran and North Korea (countries which do not have long-range missiles yet), but the Patriot missiles clearly are not. They are an open and unnecessary threat to Russia. After all, Poland is a member of NATO and Russia may be bold, but not retarded. Nevertheless, Condi Rice still has appetite for war after getting the US in two of them, and underline
"It is an agreement that deepens the defense cooperation between Poland and the United States," she explained. "It does so, of course, in the context of our great alliance with NATO and our Article-5 commitments to one another in that alliance."
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is the promise that NATO members will defend each other.
John McCain delayed the development of the missile defense system in the Armed Services Committee. Now he's welcoming the Bush administration starting a new arms race.
Senator Obama, please take Mr. Brzezinski's advice and renegotiate the treaty with Poland, and enter into a critical dialogue with Russia.
For folks that find this type of operation incredible, here is an extensively, well documented false-flag example:
"Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington". This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on foreign governments. The plan states, "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense."OPERATION NORTHWOODS, BAMFORD VIDEOJanuary 31st, 2003 Bush’s proposal to Tony Blair was to paint a U.S. plane in UN colors and fly it over Iraq in the hopes of getting it shot down was straight out of Operation Northwoods (Philippe Sands, Lawless World)
"Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington". This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on foreign governments. The plan states, "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense."
OPERATION NORTHWOODS, BAMFORD VIDEO
January 31st, 2003 Bush’s proposal to Tony Blair was to paint a U.S. plane in UN colors and fly it over Iraq in the hopes of getting it shot down was straight out of Operation Northwoods (Philippe Sands, Lawless World)
*
Brzezinski: On The Path To War With IranThe Rationale for War “...a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran...” Zbigniew Brzezinski.01 Feb 2007 The National Security Advisor to former President Carter testified before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 1 Feb 2007. Dr.Zbigniew Brzezinski delivered a scathing assessment of the core mistakes made by the Bush administration in the Middle East. Just before describing what he termed the “mythical historical narrative” of the policy, he offered a scenario that the Bush administration might use as a convenient invitation to attack Iran...“…by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran…”
Brzezinski: On The Path To War With Iran
The Rationale for War
“...a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran...” Zbigniew Brzezinski.
01 Feb 2007 The National Security Advisor to former President Carter testified before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 1 Feb 2007. Dr.Zbigniew Brzezinski delivered a scathing assessment of the core mistakes made by the Bush administration in the Middle East. Just before describing what he termed the “mythical historical narrative” of the policy, he offered a scenario that the Bush administration might use as a convenient invitation to attack Iran...
“…by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran…”
To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At ThemThink Progress | July 31, 2008Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, Seymour Hersh -- a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker -- revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President's office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.In Hersh's most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The "meeting took place in the Vice-President's office. 'The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,'" according to one of Hersh's sources.During the journalism conference event, I asked Hersh specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney's office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them:HERSH: There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build -- we in our shipyard -- build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.Hersh argued that one of the things the Bush administration learned during the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz was that, "if you get the right incident, the American public will support it.” "Look, is it high school? Yeah," Hersh said. "Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We're playing, you know, who's the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran."Transcript: HERSH: There was a meeting. Among the items considered and rejected -- which is why the New Yorker did not publish it, on grounds that it wasn't accepted -- one of the items was why not...There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build -- we in our shipyard -- build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives...
To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them
Think Progress | July 31, 2008
Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, Seymour Hersh -- a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker -- revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President's office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.
In Hersh's most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The "meeting took place in the Vice-President's office. 'The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,'" according to one of Hersh's sources.
During the journalism conference event, I asked Hersh specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney's office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them:
HERSH: There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build -- we in our shipyard -- build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.
Hersh argued that one of the things the Bush administration learned during the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz was that, "if you get the right incident, the American public will support it.” "Look, is it high school? Yeah," Hersh said. "Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We're playing, you know, who's the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran."
Transcript: HERSH: There was a meeting. Among the items considered and rejected -- which is why the New Yorker did not publish it, on grounds that it wasn't accepted -- one of the items was why not...There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build -- we in our shipyard -- build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives...
False Flags by Captain Eric H. May Global Research, February 23, 2008The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out. As I'll detail below, this is exactly how government perpetrators in the US and UK handled the 9/11 and 7/7 "terror" attacks, which were in reality government attacks blamed on "terrorists."...
False Flags by Captain Eric H. May
Global Research, February 23, 2008
The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out. As I'll detail below, this is exactly how government perpetrators in the US and UK handled the 9/11 and 7/7 "terror" attacks, which were in reality government attacks blamed on "terrorists."...
The necon regime has had plenty of precedent to study and exploit. Let’s hope we can throw a monkey wrench into their schemes to prevent another.
More Info Here:
The Power of Nightmares - Why We Fight
When is a Surge not a Surge: When an Invasion/Occupation is not a War
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
This is a must see from the MSNBC Morning Joe program. Yes I hear you, Mica always seems to bias the comments so hillary looks good,, but take a listen to her father:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VeXwboxjyI
In this video, Former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is interviewed on MSNBC. This highly intelligent, perceptive man does a remarkable analysis of the Iraq war, past and future, and his perspective on the presidential candidates. Needless to say, he endorses Barack Obama. To view the view, click this link -----------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23726367#23726367
The difference between globalism and internationalism becomes strikingly apparent in Zbigniew Brzezinski's book from 2004, The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. Here is what he has to say:
"A World Without Borders, Except for People. Globalization envisages a worldwide community without borders for money or for products. When it comes to people, however, neither the proponents nor the opponents of globalization have much to say...."
Greetings. As a fellow campaigner, I'd like to humbly share a few ideas with my colleagues in Pennsylvania on how Barack Obama can win the primary based on supplementing the campaign's exisiting strategy with some additional tactics based on the state's unique historical and demographic profile to: 1) win the working class vote, 2) win the rural vote, 3) slam dunk the urban voters, 4) recover from advisors' gaffes, and 5) win the City of Brotherly Love. Herewith follows a list of ideas of which one or more may be cross-postable and/or threadworthy:
I just completed Brzezinski's latest book, Second Chance, trying to catch up on his thinking. I found it interesting to note how his perspective has adapted to the changing world situation over the past 40 years and that his earlier positions have now begun to give way to a broader, hopefully more responsible view of human history. His appeal to Obama is understandable, if only to provide Barack with some back story. In fact, it appears that this book was written for the primary purpose of marketing his considerable intellect and analytical prowess to a presidential candidate such as Obama, in effect giving both himself and the US a "second chance."
But to utilize this resource most effectively, Sen. Obama needs to surround himself with people who can help mine, mind and encourage the extraction of those usable portions of Dr. Brzezinski's work and not assist him in the adoption of his entire system en toto. In many respects, try as he may, Dr. Brzezinski will never really be able to erase his own fingerprints from the file; he can only explain how and why they got there, something that he does not do in this book. Perhaps this is the role that Samantha Power was called upon to play in advising Senator Obama; to serve as a counterbalancing influence to a fairly heavy handed global agenda. Still, more analysis is needed.
Sadly, some of the more valuable and dynamic notions that he introduced in Between Two Ages were not carried forward. This may be due to the fact that advancing them was no longer necessary, given the end of the cold war. The decline of dialectical and historical materialism as a philosophical system and method of historical analysis has rendered Dr. Brzezinski's more important contributions moot, not because they no longer have any value but because their introduction was no longer necessary. This is a shame because I believe that Dr. Brzezinski's true claim to history should be based on some the very creative ideas that he developed en route to the plans that he was able to put into play, not those plans themselves that, in large part, have proven disastrous. This is important because it would arm Obama with significantly greater ideological weapons with which to wage the war of ideas in his campaign for the presidency and in his subsequent administration than the ones Dr. Brzezinski has provided so far. Perhaps I will be called upon to share my insights and where my humble but vital corrections to Dr. Brzezinski's theses and courses might be applied to both the Obama campaign and presidency. Until that time, The Grand Chessboard awaits.
One of the big moments in the second Democratic candidate's debate on CNN was when Blitzer asked Edwards to clarify what he meant when he called the "War on Terror" nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan, and then turned to get Hillary's opinion on the matter. From his response, it appeared that Edwards did not quite understand the question. Hillary, for her part, took the opportunity to showcase her solidarity with NY and the occasion probably served her well. By not being able to give a clear answer, or at least cite an authority on the subject, Edwards saved Hillary the trouble of actually addressing the problem to which the question pointed, namely, whether the Bush administration has been even a little honest with the American people or whether it has manipulated them and abused their good faith. Hillary clearly believes the latter, as her repeated criticism of Bush would suggest, but it looks like she chose to make the question serve her needs.
One compelling and recently highly visible and vocal authority on the matter is Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski ["ZBEEG-nyeff bjeh-JEEN-skee"].
Brzezinski is currently a Professor of Foreign Policy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University in Washington D.C. He is forthright and articulate and has criticized the abuse of language for political ends, especially as applies to the "war on terror".
Perhaps John Edwards could have benefitted from reading some of his material, or, barring that, getting a thorough debriefing from his reading staff, or barring that, getting Brzezinski on the phone for a half an hour for a quick lesson on how he might better present his belief that the "war on terror" has served Bush as a powerful propaganda tool. I think that might have curbed some of Hillary's enthusiasm in declaring America safer because of the war on terror. (I can just imagine her holding her breath and then letting it out with relief when Edwards did not mention Brzezinski - they say she does her homework, so you can pretty much bet she knows the former NSA's work...).
Anyway, here are a few articles and interviews on Brzezinski's views of the "war on terror" that you might find interesting:
