NO! NO! NO! To Zbigniew And War - or "what would karl do?"

[stickernation]

It comes as no surprise that Obama supporters are a lot like me. I am deep within Project Obama's "target addressable market".

Therefore, of course, I *like* a lot of Obama supporters.

However, this doesn't mean that I believe that the shiny object offered me is Jesus.

It is so cool that Obama is attracting new and young voters. God bless them for getting into politics for once.

It's just too bad that I can't trust Barack Obama at all, not with Zbigniew Brzezenski watching over his shoulder to make sure the bombing of the Middle East continues apace.

This is why we with open eyes label Obama supporters a "cult" - not the masses, not the enthusiasm - the utter lack of responsibility for their own candidate, who takes marching orders on foreign policy dictated by The Ancestral Source Of The Neocon Agenda.

In order to strategize about my own activism, I try to imagine how Karl Rove would play his hand, with the assumption that since 9-11, this is Karl's world, we just live in it. If I were Karl, I would want JEB BUSH to be President in 2012. He could do this by creating another Jimmy Carter - someone to let liberals blow off some steam for four years while fumbling incompetently. This is how I am breaking it down, DU. :tinfoilhat:

First, it is so important for us to start with humility. Hating the player will not help; we must understand the game. Rove's been planning this scenario longer than we have, along with his neocon mafia. We should recognize this if we mean to stop his plan. He can't control us if we know the plan too. That's why I am incredibly freaked out by the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski - a name that invokes the Dark Lord if there ever was one - is going to claw his way into stewardship of America's foreign policy once again if Obama supporters don't SPEAK OUT and STOP THEIR CANDIDATE from working with him NOW.

If I were Karl Rove, how I would approach continuing the diabolical war in Iraq, given that the Repugnicans are on schedule for losing the Oval Office for a few years? I would create a fake candidate to touch all the classic liberal touchstones and "i'm not a racist!" insecurities and send him to battle his true enemy Hillary Clinton. I would have Skull&Bones media like TIME magazine introduce him in glowing terms to the liberals of America. I would have him "seize the high ground" and have the media magnify the sins of an increasingly "under attack" Hillary Clinton. And I would create a cult of supporters around him, just as I had done for *, a cult that would insulate Obama from listening to anyone outside of it, a cult that simply wouldn't care that ZB was even there.

I feel sad that I feel this way so strongly, but I was right about the 9-11 conspiracy and I believe I am right about this one as well. If I'm wrong, tell me why Zbigniew Brzezenski - the left wing of Satan Himself - is Obama's foreign policy advisor!!!!!

When Obama supporters fail to address this insanity, or fail to bring this terrorist to their candidate's attention as absolutely repugnant and unacceptable, it makes people think: these people don't question ANYTHING, do they? i mean, henry kissenger could be obama's foreign policy advisor and they wouldn't care. That is the message Obama supporters send with their continued blind support. If only ONE obama supporter would say: "hey man, I totally dig it, I'm going to send Obama an email to urge him to ditch ZB right away", maybe I would take you guys more seriously.

Yeah yeah, Mark Penn, yeah yeah. News flash: ZB is MUCH MUCH MUCH WORSE. google it, in depth, if you want to really talk about this, as many obama fans i have spoken with have been like "he's a nice old man, he gave a nice-sounding speech a few years ago, chill out man". no, there will be no chilling out on ZB for this Edwards supporter. ZB is beyond the pale - the worst resurrection in US History since Sammy Hagar joined the remnants of Van Halen after David Lee Roth's departure. No, actually worse, because although Sammy was godawful, he didn't have the blood of millions on his hands when he was done. After all, you could always turn the dial to the hip hop station, jeez.

As user DemBones DemBones put it when I posted this originally as a comment on another thread:

"I can't believe that Hillary Clinton is now the most progressive candidate in the race but facts are facts."

If you are astonished by that statement, here is a prescription for you:
1) google ZB's book, "The Global Chessboard", and read criticism of this proto-Neocon position paper, which advocated US world dominion to control oil and gas resources.
2) speak with other obama supporters you know about this to spread the word.
3) start a movement to oust ZB from Obama's inner circle.
4) accept the world's gratitude and sleep soundly knowing that Karl Rove is bitterly screaming "those darned kids" like he were a villain from Scooby Doo.

God, free speech feels good ! I super appreciate this forum :) Thanks for letting me speak my mind.

[Schema Thing]

1. Aww, diddums find a big bad enemy? Diddums??!

yes he is a bad bad man. yes.he.is!!



I couldn't help but notice that you didn't really even make a specific criticism of ZB, and worse, you told us to "google...and read CRITICISM". lol. What, we shouldn't read the actual words of the book? What might we find in someone's actual words? Context? Nuance?
Why, your methodology, if anyone took you up on it, would be almost, dare I say, cult like.

[stickernation]

5. Yeah ! I found a VERY BIG BAD ENEMY !

I am going to do your google homework for you, babycakes:

from http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/060207falseflag.htm:

Brzezinski's words and his desire to see the exercise of a "moral" foreign policy ring hollow, especially when it is understood that it was the former National Security Advisor to Carter himself who was responsible for drawing up the plan to arm and train the Islamic fundamentalist mujahideen at the end of the 70's and groom Osama bin Laden as a client of the U.S.

In addition, in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, Brzezinski calls for the U.S. to install itself as the world's only superpower by taking over the Middle East and using it as a lever to control what he terms the Eurasian Balkans.

Similar to the PNAC yearning for a "new Pearl Harbor," Brzezinski concludes that the realization of such an agenda will only be accomplished with the aid of "a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat," which was helpfully provided by the events of 9/11.

So for Brzezinski to win plaudits for being critical of what's happening in Iraq is not only the height of hypocrisy, it's a myopic leap of logic that omits the past history of Brzezinski's rampant warmongering.

Whatever the reason for Brzezinski's apparent sudden change of heart, be it a pang or consciousness of simple political maneuvering, judging from his previous writings one feels it's more appropriate to take his reference to a false flag attack as a threat rather than a warning.

[stickernation]

7. chill

i am trying not to get furious at the condescension i had to reply to in writing the above.

please treat me better than that, you jerk.

and I CHALLENGE YOU TO READ THE BOOK. I WILL AMAZON IT RIGHT AWAY, AND WILL POST AGAIN IN DETAIL ABOUT WHAT I FIND, 'BOT.

[NightWatcher]

11. quoting Prison Planet does not a great argument make

[stickernation]

16. fair enough, here's some more

i didn't want to clutter my argument with undue quoting, but it seems i'm up for google duty right now. fair enough, you don't like prisonplanet. here you go, from a review of ZB's book "Grand Chessboard" at http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=115&sortorder=issue :

Our eminent author, the former security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, that jellyfish of strength, finds America faced with a unique opportunity. Great empires have existed throughout history: the Roman, the Chinese, the Mongol, the British. But never before now has a country been in a position to dominate the entire world. "The collapse of its rival (the U.S.S.R.) left the United States in a unique position. It became simultaneously the first and only truly global power" (p. 11).

The key to world supremacy, Brzezinski holds, lies in control of the Eurasian continent. "Until recently, the leading analysts of geopolitics have debated whether land power was more significant than sea power and what specific region of Eurasia is vital to gain control over the entire continent. One of the most prominent, Harold Mackinder, pioneered the discussion early in this century with his successive concepts of the Eurasian 'pivot areas'...and, later, of the Central-East European 'heartland' as the pivotal springboards for the attainment of continental domination" (p. 38).

But we have now gone beyond Mackinder. The issues that confront us are no longer land or sea power. No longer can we be concerned only with control over a mere part of Eurasia. A truly global power must dominate the entire Eurasian continent.

[BlackVelvet04]

6. How incredibily stupid. n/t

[killbotfactory]

2. Zbigniew has been criticized by PNAC for not wanting to go to war against Iran.

And yet he's a warmongering Neocon now?

[PaulaFarrell]

28. ZB in his own words.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense!.... <more>

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

[anigbrowl]

32. Welcome to the hardball game of international relations.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is a realist, and a very intelligent fellow. Like it not, Kissinger is also a pretty smart fellow. It's naive to think that you can conduct policy on a global stage without sometimes having to threaten or even use force. The important thing is to use it judiciously. Military force is scary and unpleasant, but it's also a reality of the world that you have to deal with.

That's why candidates like Dennis Kucinich never succeed and never should. Don't get me wrong - I like the guy. I've even volunteered for him and met him a few times, because I think it's good that he gets some issues onto the agenda and reminds people of kichen-table issues at the heart of Democratic party values.

But a guy like Kucinich can never be anywhere near the White House. Not because he's for peace - everybody's for peace, even most Republicans (they just think it needs to be enforced by the US military more than the Democrats do). The problem is that when you're facing a serious threat - and we do face genuine threats - guys like Kucinich simply don't have a fucking clue. If you doubt this, try to imagine Dennis Kucinich dealing with Kim Jong Il, the leader of North Korea.

For that matter, remember Bill Clinton's decisive leadership during the genocide in Darfur?

[PaulaFarrell]

33. There are plenty of intelligent realists out there

who do not think the world is their global chessboard to slash and burn as they desire. ZB had one perspective - that Russia was the big bad enemy who must be defeated at whatever cost to foreign countries. You mention Darfur, but seem to forget about the Afghan (and Russain) casualties in that long horrific war and it's equally dire postscript. I don't know the figures for the dead and maimed, but I know there were at least 4 million refugess in Pakistan, that Kabul was left a war zone, and that the resulting chaos led to the rise of the taliban and 911, etc etc. and of course, paved the way for the disaster that is Iraq.

ZB doesn't actually appear to me to be very intelligient - couldn't recognise the rise of Islamic fundamentalism for what it was - or realistic, given that his only concern appeared to be the downfall of Russia, ignoring the volatility of the whole region if it could be used as a pawn in his game.

Military use is absolutely necessary sometimes, I do agree, but treating living, breathing people as tnings to be used for one's own ends is beneath contempt. I wonder how sanguine you would be if the milllions of refugees were American, not Afghan, if the dead were your friends and neighbours, not faceless poeple thousands of miles away, and if shattered cities your own home town. I think you'd have another take on realism then.

As for Kim JOng-IL, I suspect he is only a real threat to his own people. He may be crazy, but, like most dictators, he's not completely stupid. Trying to paint him as the new 'enemy', whom we pull out all our Machiavllian dirty tricks for, is a joke.

If you want an enemy, look to Russia, which has now said that it is embarking on a new arms race with the US. Lo and behold, the evil empire has risen from the ashes in spite of ZB's best efforts.

The man has blood on his hands, and as long as people like him advise our government, we do too.

Not sure why you dragged Dennis into this - thought we were talking about ZB.

[CGowen]

34. deleted

[CGowen]

35. I think he is intelligent and knows what 911 was and the Russians know it, too

Brzezinski and OBL

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-poison27jan27,0,1497346.story

Poisoning suspect a hero in Russia
...

With his sporty carriage and bashful grin, the tow-headed Lugovoy doesn't look like the embodiment of neo-Soviet tensions between Russia and the West. But when he talks, he sounds the part.

He refers to the fall of the Soviet Union as a blunder. He says he wants Russia's military might to return to the sweep and power of its Soviet heyday. He accuses U.S. intelligence agencies of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks "because they needed to create a certain mood."

...

You could also google " General Ivashov: “International terrorism does not exist” "

[PaulaFarrell]

36. NOt sure I get you n/t

[CGowen]

37. It's the Arc of Crisis and 911 was a good way to proceed with the encirclement of Russia

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1178arcofcrisis#a1178arcofcrisis

In December 1978, President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski says, “An arc of crisis stretches along the shores of the Indian Ocean, with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation. The resulting political chaos could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries.” (Time, 1/8/1979) There is widespread discontent and rioting in Iran at the time. State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea “that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets.” (Scott, 2007, pp. 67) In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an “arc of crisis” and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union. The Shah will later comment in exile, “I did not know it then, perhaps I did not want to know? But it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted. What was I to make of the Administration’s sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.” (Engdahl, 1992) While there is later debate about US policy towards Iran actually is at this time, it will be noted that the Carter administration had “no clear policy” due to internal divisions and confusion. (Keddie, 2003) The Shah abdicates on January 16, 1979, and Ayatollah Khomeini returns from exile to Iran on February 1, 1979, taking over the government.

Brzezinski knows that islamic terrorism is not a threat for the continental USA, he helped to create it.


The Bernard Lewis plan can still be seen through operations like P2OG in Iraq

According to a classified document, "Special Operations and Joint Forces in Countering Terrorism" prepared for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, a new organization has been created to thwart potential terrorist attacks on the United States. This counter-terror operations group— the "Proactive Preemptive Operations Group" (P2OG) will require 100 people and at least $100 million a year. The team of covert counter-intelligence agents will be responsible for secret missions designed to target terrorist leaders. The secret missions are designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces.

...

http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2004/4.html

or destabilization efforts in Pakistan and Iran (MEK,Jundulah,PJAK)

DIVIDE PAKISTAN TO ELIMINATE TERRORISM

http://www.dividepakistan.blogspot.com/

To go into the region like Afghanistan or (Tajikistan/Uzbekistan) was planned before 911

U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida
White House given plan days before Sept. 11

WASHINGTON, May 16, 2002 - President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.

The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski.

The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

US 'planned attack on Taleban'


By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm

And Brzezinski thinks that an attack on Iran could benefit Russia and harm America

In that context, the outbreak of a political conflict in the Persian Gulf may not be viewed by all Moscow strategists as a one-sided evil. The dramatic spike in oil prices would harm China and America while unleashing a further wave of anti-American hostility. In that context, Europe might distance itself from America while both Europe and China would become more dependent on Russia's energy supplies. Russia would clearly be the financial and geopolitical beneficiary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112901876.html?sub=AR

[PaulaFarrell]

38. "Brzezinski knows that islamic terrorism is not a threat for the continental USA, he helped to creat

except for that pesky blowing up the WTC thing...

I'm still unclear on what you're trying to say: are you saying ZB is so brainy that everything that has happened since 1979 is part of his master plan? or that he's an idiot who thinks he can play with fire and not get burnt?

[CGowen]

40. Either you believe Al Qaeda is an autonomous entity or a tool

I tend to agree what General Ivashov has to say

he now explains that international terrorism does not exist and that the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them. He affirms that, instead of faking a “world war on terror”,

...

Today’s international terrorism is a phenomenon that combines the use of terror by state and non-state political structures as a means to attain their political objectives through people’s intimidation, psychological and social destabilization, the elimination of resistance inside power organizations and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries’ policies and the behavior of people.

Terrorism is the weapon used in a new type of war. At the same time, international terrorism, in complicity with the media, becomes the manager of global processes. It is precisely the symbiosis between media and terror, which allows modifying international politics and the exiting reality.

In this context, if we analyze what happened on September 11, 2001, in the United States, we can arrive at the following conclusions: 1. The organizers of those attacks were the political and business circles interested in destabilizing the world order and who had the means necessary to finance the operation. The political conception of this action matured there where tensions emerged in the administration of financial and other types of resources. We have to look for the reasons of the attacks in the coincidence of interests of the big capital at global and transnational levels, in the circles that were not satisfied with the rhythm of the globalization process or its direction.
Unlike traditional wars, whose conception is determined by generals and politicians, the oligarchs and politicians submitted to the former were the ones who did it this time.

[anigbrowl]

41. Many of your points are correct...

...but remember that, that playing hardball in international relations is one strategy among many. Both I and Obama favor the 'soft power' approach advocated by foreign policy experts such as Joseph Nye - in brief, a 'hearts and minds' strategy rather than a 'bombs and bullets' one. However, one has to always be aware that power politics is a reality in the world and many other countries play that way. To try to change the game is good; to pretend the game doesn't count is foolish.

And when I call it a 'game', please don't think I am trivializing it. I originally come from Ireland, so I know plenty about about the abuse of both state power and paramilitary power and how violence wrecks lives.

I mentioned Kucinich because he's the outstanding example of a candidate who's a really nice person (I've met him a few times) but who would probably fall apart in a crisis.

[killbotfactory]

3. MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS. FROM: WILLIAM KRISTOL. SUBJECT: CFR Report on Iran

One has to hand it to the Council on Foreign Relations. Just as Iran has spent the last several months reconfirming why it was a charter member of the "axis of evil," a CFR taskforce, led by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and former DCI Robert Gates, has concluded that the time is now ripe for a policy of "engagement" with Iran. This, in spite of the fact that:

* Iran continues to tell the International Atomic Energy Agency - along with the British, Germans and French - to stuff it when it comes to Tehran's nuclear weapons program.
* Iranian officials, caught red-handed in New York photographing likely terrorist-targets, were expelled from the United States.
* Iranian intelligence agents were caught in Iraq building car bombs and are now assisting Iraqi radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's efforts to rebuild his militia.
* Iran's hard-line clerics and revolutionary guards have eliminated virtually all remaining reformist elements from the government over the past year.
* Iran apparently has had and continues to have a working relationship with bin Laden's al Qaeda. Indeed, if the 9-11 commission report is accurate, Tehran might well have been involved in both the 1996 Khobar Towers attack and in 9-11. Furthermore, Iran today harbors senior al-Qaeda leaders.
* And, today, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports that the head of Israeli military intelligence research has warned the Knesset defense committee that Iran might well give non-conventional weapons, such as chemical weapons, to Hizballah, the Iranian-backed terrorist organization.

We do need a coherent, serious policy toward Iran; one of containment, pressure, accountability and, ultimately, regime change. If the CFR report helps force a real debate on Iran policy and encourages the Bush Administration not simply to kick the can down the road until after election day, it will have (inadvertently) performed a service.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040720.htm

[killbotfactory]

4. Going Soft on Iran: The temptation of America’s foreign policy “realists”

According to many American “realists”—the school
of foreign policy most often associated with such men as
former national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former diplomats James Baker,
Richard Murphy, Thomas Pickering, and Richard Haass,
and institutions like the Nixon Center and the Council
on Foreign Relations—there may be a silver lining in the
bad news. Iran’s “hard-liners” may in fact be “pragmatic
conservatives,” to borrow a phrase often heard now in
the colloquies of Washington’s think tanks where the
intellectual laborers of American realism are trying to
devise a new strategy for Iran and the Greater Middle
East. In the post-9/11 world, the fear of weapons of mass
destruction in the wrong hands dominates public policy
debates, and a growing number of American realists
believe that Iran’s “pragmatic mullahs”—in Persian
translation, this means former Iranian president Ali
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the major-domo of the cleri-
cal establishment, and Ali Khamenei, the “spiritual
leader” of the country—are the men to cut a deal to halt
Iran’s WMD programs.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040301.pdf

Again, he is criticized for not being enough of a warmonger for PNAC, but I'm supposed to believe he's a neocon?

[stickernation]

8. so ZB is a changed man?

hm...



wait for it...




:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[anamandujano]

9. Thanks for this well reasoned thread.

It's a sad commentary on the intelligence of Obama's followers that killbotfactory has to quote Kristol, who is to the right of Karl Rove, in order to make the case that ZB is an OK guy.

[Usrename]

15. Obama is some kind of KKKarl Rove zomby? Well reasoned?

There are a whole lot of reasons to criticise any candidate, but I'm not sure about promoting all these wild Rove theories.

Actually, I am pretty sure about this one.. it's baloney.

[stickernation]

17. strip the metaphors then

my basic argument is: WHY ZB.

it boils down to that. NWO puppet then. Whatever floats it.

the word "baloney" signifies that you aren't up for a debate, so have a nice day ! :)

[Usrename]

22. Obama has many accomplishments, besides running for president.

He's hardly the kind of tool that these guys ever use. (I do know exactly what you are talking about, in general.)

He is not, and never will be, a "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie" type of candidate. A lot of posters ignore his outstanding resume.

[stickernation]

23. i appreciate that

i'm just looking at ZB's resume too. but thanks for the reply. my point in bringing up rove is to underscore the fact that i am certain that this is how the armageddon conspiracy manipulates public opinion. Bot behavior, no matter who the candidate, is programmable by definition. "the masses are angry at nixon, so let's toss them carter for a few years, keep 'em satisfied, meanwhile we'll have ZB behind the scenes managing THE MASTER PLAN".

if you are of the opinion that a monster like ZB is checked by Obama's own sense of ethics, I must share with you my opinion. I am concerned the story is somewhat different from this. I believe Obama is absolutely aware of ZB's background. I think to believe otherwise would be disingenuous - cultish even("it's not obama's fault, he didn't know!" ?!?) And if he doesn't know, um, doesn't that make him, um, let's just say not very thorough?

Obama supporters should be responsible and look into ZB's fingerprints all over 9-11 and the Project for the New American Century. ZB is absolutely in contradiction with any "antiwar" platform, no matter what he may say today. Obama supporters cut Edwards zero slack for IWR. Obama's apparently very deep involvement with ZB is fair game. After all, i detest war too, and will not support its engineers. I'll personally do what I can to dislodge ZB from Obama's inner circle, and this is why I posted today. Such an effort would be much more effective if it came from Obama supporters, but it seems there are no takers.

[Usrename]

27. I see what you mean.

I don’t think Obama will be a savior in any sense of the word. I don’t think anybody can really save us from people like ZB or Rove. There will be other criminals to take their places, even if we did manage to lock some of them up. My complaint is that we should be at least trying to lock some of them up.

I wouldn’t joke about what Obama might be capable of. Being duped, or naïve, are both pretty far down my list of what I think he’s capable of. Here’s one thing that he did that I think is inhuman. It happened not too long ago. It was the day before the militants blew holes in the wall separating Gaza from Egypt to allow the Palestinians to cross into Egypt to get food and medicine.

The UN Security Council was preparing a memorandum calling for the international community to help end the siege of Gaza. Obama sent the following letter, encouraging the US to effectively scuttle the Security Council’s efforts to halt the blockade, since Libya wouldn’t be prepared to immediately accept changes to the agreed upon language without review:







So he might actually be in pretty good company when he is meeting with some of these warmongers. Then again, he may just be whoring himself to AIPAC for the time being, in an effort to at least have a chance at reaching the Whitehouse. I have no idea which is the case, but he sure can make it all sound sincere when he talks about this stupid war and the stupid people who started it. He is holding some of his cards very close to the vest, so it's very difficult to tell.

He exhibits no obvious signs of psychopathy that I can recognize, and all his friends even seem pretty normal. A far cry from what I'm used to seeing from that PNAC crowd. Vastly different.

I don't think that Rove or any of his masters or minions really want to give up power for even one term, although I have heard that fear expressed a lot. The stakes are just too high. There are capital crimes that have been committed (and admitted to) by this administration. I think they are scared, and I think that fear outweighs any thoughts that any of them have that the Republicans can avoid the blame for much of the damage they have done to the economy by sitting this next one out.

And lastly, as much as I would like to see it happen, I would also be terrified if I thought it might be my job to try and start rounding some of these criminals up next year.


:hide:

[stickernation]

31. totally.

You know, I am going to have to find something that tipped me on Rove so long ago. It was a journalist speaking to Rove in a helicopter over DC, with the Pentagon still smouldering beneath from the 9-11 event a day or two previous. Rove said something like "this is the end of history, there will be no swaying from the plan, it will ever be thus". This means - there is no retiring for the Rove plan, it is deception, he has a VERY SNEAKY plan up his sleeve, and when I think VERY SNEAKY, I can't help but think: "control the other Party through populism, keep the sinister team in there".

The angst I feel is multiplied by the fact that I'm in Obama's "target market" - i mean jeesh, the Grateful Dead survivors coming together for Obama, who next, the GZA? - and now I realize that nobody in my "target market" knows or cares who ZB even is. Or to look a little closer at where he came from and who has influenced him since (at? before?) Harvard Law. At any rate - where the HELL did "they" scare up ZB from? under what rock has he been hiding? how does a purported "progressive" like Obama choose this monster as a foreign policy advisor? and what kind of foreign policy "advice" could ZB possibly be giving him? shouldn't Obama supporters debate this?

As an Edwards supporter, I felt that I and other Edwards supporters debated his positions in detail, sensing our influence on John showing through as he found his voice. We feel that at least indirectly we had our candidate's ear. You could sense Edwards responding to our core progressive ideas more and more as he built up his organization for his primary run and started battling with his rivals. I am hoping and praying Obama is something, anything like that responsive. Because the only leverage I have is influence over his "target market", and I am going to try to get that "target market" to learn a little something about ZB.

If the Obama supporters can get their candidate to repudiate ZB, I will be DULY IMPRESSED - not just by them, but by their candidate. I know many people who are not for Obama who have issues with his policies in general - I agree with most of them - but I am willing to say: if Obama cans ZB because of his supporters' outcry, that is the CRITICAL INCH. That is the most important topic for me for the duration of this campaign. I shudder at the idea of a Democratic candidate that won't commit to withdrawal, but it has sounded to me that Clinton has equivocated on this as well. So ZB is the tiebreaker as far as I am concerned.

As bad as * has been, it is Cheney that is the proper target of DU ire - he is "the man behind the mask" as it were. This is how I see ZB performing in an Obama administration. We need to stop that before it has a chance to happen !!! And the best way is for Obama supporters to get their freak-out on and get Obama to nix him from the campaign. Even if that alone doesn't root out the neocon corruption from his inner circle, it would make a fabulous start. Plus, POWER TO THE PEOPLE eh? If Obama can't listen to his own outraged supporters, they will soon no longer be his supporters. The question is - are Obama supporters so enthused about their candidates' recent victories that they have lost their will to Google the truth like the dolt in Reply #1 ??? Are they so starry-eyed that they've become programmable?

In Brave New World, even the Alpha intellectuals were carefully programmed and fed hypnotic training in their sleep. The sense I have from Obama's campaign is that of being fed the lines I have been programmed to want to hear. ZB's presence should shake such people awake. This is how Karl would love it - anti-war, anti-racist progressives putting a man like ZB in the foreign policy circle of the next "Democratic" President.


Appreciate the information you posted GREATLY !!! :toast:

[DemBones DemBones]

24. Excellent point. Quoting Bill Kristol

would be funny if it were not terrifying that his word is taken to defend ZB.

[Mz Pip]

10. Obama's Foreign Policy Advisor is

Dr. Samantha Power, a Pulitzer Prize winning genocide scholar.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[stickernation]

18. i appreciate the correction

ZB is perhaps just "a" foreign policy advisor of Obama. Makes it easier for Obama supporters to get him dropped, right? good news.

http://www.nysun.com/article/62439

[newmajority]

12. Clinton's foreign policy team is as clueless as she is

Clinton's advisors are similarly confident in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force. This is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon.

Clinton's top foreign policy advisor - and her likely pick for Secretary of State - Richard Holbrooke(PNAC signator), insisted that Iraq remained "a clear and present danger at all times." He rejected the broad international legal consensus against such offensive wars and insisted European governments and anti-war demonstrators who opposed a U.S. invasion of Iraq "undoubtedly encouraged" Saddam Hussein.

Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband's national security advisor, insisted that "even a contained Saddam" was "harmful to stability and to positive change in the region" and insisted on the necessity of "regime change." Other top Clinton advisors - such as former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (PNAC signator) - confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-heeds-hawks-how-_b_85853.html

Oops.... looks like they were wrong on all of the above. Why the Hell would you want people like that in charge again?

[stickernation]

19. also fair enough

So Hillary's advisors may be as corrupt as Obama's; I haven't done that research yet.

Let me know what else you find. I am not chill with militarists in the advisory committees of EITHER candidate.

[MadHound]

13. Well then, what is the alternative?

Hillary has already stated, time and again, that she will keep combat troops, going on combat missions, in Iraq for the foreseeable future. She is also rattled the saber hard at Iran, and with AIPAC backing, is the most likely to go into Iran.

You stack that up against Obama, who indeed is being advised by ZB. However all of that adds up to a "maybe", not a call one way or the other.

I don't like the choices, believe me, the last true anti-war candidate was Kucinich. But at this point I will take Obama's "maybe" over Clinton's "let's roll" any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[stickernation]

20. angst ? actually reread the OP

i did my level best

a) to suggest a plan of action for Obama supporters
b) to avoid directly criticizing their candidate

basically, OBAMA - ZB = i'll live with that.

[CGowen]

14. "Grand" Chessboard not "Global", also read this interview

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

[stickernation]

21. too much coffee !

sorry about that, it is the GRAND chessboard. shudder.

this is a cool sample of your link:

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war (in Afghanistan) and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

[DemBones DemBones]

25. That was my mistake, not the OP's. In another thread

stickernation posted about ZB being an advisor to Obama and I replied and mentioned the book, getting the name wrong as I hadn't thought about ZB for years, plus it was the wee hours of the morning then.

I take the blame for implanting the wrong title in stickernation's mind; assume that he or she just didn't notice what the actual title is in looking up reviews.

Thanks for the correction. It's important to get things right.

[DemBones DemBones]

26. A key point is what you said in one paragraph.

"If I were Karl, I would want JEB BUSH to be President in 2012. He could do this by creating another Jimmy Carter - someone to let liberals blow off some steam for four years while fumbling incompetently. This is how I am breaking it down, DU."

I have this same fear and of course they could try to do this to either Clinton or Obama. Most will argue that they won't fumble incompetently but JImmy Carter is not incompetent, either. He was brought down by the GOP in Congress and the media and finished off by Poppy, for whom Rove was working. Poppy was forced to take the second spot with Reagan, a puppet, and he arranged some dirty tricks so they would win. Not long after he got into office, Reagan was shot. But he lived so Poppy had to wait eight whole years to run.

Don't think that Karl or Poppy are out of the game yet.

[HeraldSquare212]

29. They tried to bomb Iran and I said, No, No, No...

I agree re: ZB - I was disappointed to see him involved with Obama's campaign.

[CGowen]

30. He is not against war, just against incompetent executed wars or losing power

Just reread his Senate statement from last year

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody
involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to
be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large.
A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure
to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility
for the failure; then 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 that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire
eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/BrzezinskiTestimony070201.pdf

[GalleryGod]

39. Your post is an insult

Hand in your blue book:puffpiece: