Charles,
It's no surprise a couple of Jewish/pro-Israeli spin-doctors have geared themselves up for anti-Powell and anti-Condi smear tactics.... Here's a hint:
Following the trip to Israel, [G. W.] Bush began to assemble a coterie of policy advisers now informally dubbed, “the vulcans.” For his main foreign policy adviser, Bush selected an African-American woman, a member of the National Security Council under President Bush, Condoleeza Rice. Rice, who spoke at last year's American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference, is viewed mainly as an expert on Russia. She is closely linked, however, to Richard Haass, with whom she served in the Bush Administration and currently is based at the Brookings Institution. Haas carries a Middle East portfolio.
Elsewhere, within the Bush camp stand two former Reagan administration officials, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. The name of Wolfowitz, the dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, is circulating in Washington as a possible high Bush administration official -- either Secretary of Defense or National Security Adviser. For voters with an interest in Israel, the difference between the Rice-Haass team and that of Perle-Wolfowitz is a significant one. Rice-Haass both come from the Dean Scowcroft school of foreign policy that seemed to favor Arab interests in comparison to Israel. Perle and Wolfowitz, on the other hand, are both in the Neo-Conservative Reaganite tradition that not only sees Israel as preeminent in America's policy in the Middle East, but seeks to aid and foster democracy in that part of the world and elsewhere.
In order to put Jewish voters at ease, Bush's Jewish allies have been promoting the presence of Perle and Wolfowitz within the Texan's ranks for at least a year. Yet careful observers point out that the extent of the influence of the pair is not yet known. And with the exception of a commitment to strategic missile defense, which both men strongly advocate and Bush has added as a foreign policy talking point and run television ads on, the men's influence on Bush from policy perspective is unclear. For example, both men support the Iraq Liberation Act, a piece of 1998 legislation that earmarks American funding to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. [snip]
Excerpted from:
jewishworldreview.com
Yesterday, I watched that W. Bush-and-wife interview by Larry King on CNN and, when asked about foreign policy, the first name W. Bush blurted out was "his friend Condoleeza Rice", followed by H. Kissinger and others.... And now, there's Gen. Colin "Overkill" Powell back in the Rep. ticket's beauty contest for the Secretary of State post.
THAT IS NOT TO PLEASE THE BILDERBERGERS!! Ever heard of that selective club open to white, western top-brass only?? Here's a little backgrounder:
bilderberg.org
(BTW, the lavish Château du Lac also accomodated the French soccer team during the Euro2000 championship).
Interestingly for our purpose, there's at least one guest who's worth spotting: former CIA Director/dummy Mossad John Deutch. Indeed he was photographed at the Brussels Bilderberg Conference:
ourworld.compuserve.com
To get back to my point, as a US outsider, I have the feeling that there might be some kind of bipartisan willingness to appoint an African-American guy as the US's next Secretary of State. Of course, so far it might just as well be labelled as election sweet-talk aimed at black voters.... Yet, the odds on an African-American Sec. of State have never been so good. Now, if you mix that with Africa's rise on the US's foreign agenda you get a pretty interesting situation.
I know that I once again look like a hopeless Third-World/Africa freak --after all, the whole African continent has been, and still remains, the blind spot of US foreign policy. So many other hot spots are likely to deserve the US's most accute attention: Indonesia, Taiwan, China, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Central Asia, the Balkans,... you name it!
However, history taught us that, too often, watershed developments come out of nowhere. Today, as far as US geopolitics is concerned, "nowhere" means "Africa", the blind spot of mainstream media (except for AIDS and famine), the soft underbelly of that great Transatlantic Partnership (that is, the NATO-Bilderberg gang).
The current US administration has already increased the US military presence in Kenya. The US also maintains military bases in Uganda and Rwanda and is likely to put the squeeze on Kabila in Eastern Congo.... where will the US westward drive stop? How will skirmishes on the French/US squall line develop? Up to now, with Bilderbergers such as Kissinger or megamole Deutch holding top-level posts inside US foreign affairs, the political line was straightforward: African issues were never to get spun out to the point of standing in the way of the neocolonial alliance between Europe (mainly France, Belgium, the UK) and the US.
Such an Entente Cordiale between US and French capitalisms (or colonialisms) might not hold true in the future: as the case of late (Sec. of Commerce) Ron Brown showed us, the background of the topsiders involved in US policy does matter. Accordingly, the good ol'times when European decision-makers could all too easily downplay Africa in the eyes of the White House just by appealing to the US executive's racial prejudice might be over....
Hence we can safely expect the Hungtingtonites, the Neocons, and the other culture-warmongers to join forces to foil the appointment of a "wog" to the Secretary of State :o(
Gus. |
