>> Nonsense. The arguments you've already advanced explain why he will defer to the advice of Cheney and Rumsfeld due to their age and experience. <<
i'm not suggesting that people like cheney and rumsfeld aren't interventionist, internationalist war-hawks in their own right. i feel that they honestly believe in the foreign policy objectives they espouse. the point i'm making is, why has the hawkish stance held by cheney and rumsfield prevailed and not the doveish stance of powell and scowcroft?
simple. the jew attack dogs kristol and krauthammer are sent out in the media to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with their interventionist, internationalist, pro-israeli war mongering. the wolfowitz cabal works on the parties within the administration.
just read the articles below and you can see that the most aggressive advocates for war with iraq and for an accommodative stance toward israel are jews inside and outside the administration. they have all their bases covered. the fact that some non-jews play along with this jewish-hijacked form of conservatism a.k.a "neo-conservatism" is explained by the fact that people like cheney and rumsfeld would be marginalized like powell if they didn't play along with the jew-hawks. as the articles below show, anyone who doesn't play along with the jew war-mongers gets slammed. this would explain why there is rampant rumors saying that powell won't be back for a second term.
top jew-hawks who are very aggressively pursuing war with iraq while holding a decisively pro-israeli stance.
paul wolfowitz
richard perle
doug feith
william kristol (runs weekly standard)
charles krauthammer
wall st journal (jewish controlled)
joe lieberman
of course all the top current and former israeli officials are on tv talking hawkish about going after saddam.
benjamin netanyahu (former israeli pm)
shimon peres (foreign minister & former israeli pm)
ehud barak (former israeli pm)
ariel sharon (current israeli pm)
Hawks gang up against Powell
telegraph.co.uk
William Kristol, a leading figure on the Right, accused the Secretary of State of undermining President Bush's war aims.
Mr Kristol, chief of staff to the former vice president Dan Quayle, wrote in the Washington Post: "Virtually every major political figure has gone out of his way to support the president. Except for his secretary of state...Colin Powell has revised or modified many of his boss's remarks."
...............................................................................................................
The battle between the Powellites and hawks - such as Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz - promises to intensify once initial action against bin Laden has been taken and the debate begins in earnest about what phase two should be.
The War Within Washington
alternet.org
This war is over going to war, specifically against Iraq. The hawks are led by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the neo-conservative Likudniks who surround them. Also arrayed on their side are a host of cheerleaders in the media, including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and Fox News channel, and political pundits like Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol.
Speaking out against the planned attack are the foreign-policy veterans of the elder Bush administration, led by the old man's national security adviser, retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger, and, inside the younger Bush administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War.
...................................................................
At the same time, the chairman of the Defense Policy Board (DPB), neo-con Richard Perle, with the support of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and his like-minded deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, convened the DPB to discuss possible ways to overthrow Saddam. The DPB also invited the head of an Iraqi opposition group to address them, without notifying the Powell-led State Department.
As war drums began sounding in Washington, the usually low-profile Scowcroft published an op-ed in the Washington Post stressing the need to build a broad coalition of European and Arab allies to support the war against terror. The elder Bush's national security adviser argued that any unilateral action against Iraq would be potentially ruinous for such an effort. In response, columnist Charles Krauthammer accused both Scowcroft and Powell of being responsible for the ultimate betrayal of the Gulf War: persuading Bush Sr. to stop the war at the Kuwaiti border instead of taking it all the way to Baghdad.
.............................................................
Scowcroft fired the opening salvo in a broadside published in the staunchly neo-conservative Wall Street Journal. Apart from jeopardizing international cooperation in the war on terrorism, Scowcroft warned that the attack "could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam's strategic objectives."
................................................................
The bomb-Saddam crowd was quick to respond. On Monday, readers got a double blast, with both the Journal and the Standard taking aim at the Times and Scowcroft. In its lead editorial titled "This is Opposition?" the Journal ridiculed any notion of a split within Republican ranks. Journal editors claimed that Scowcroft and Powell were practitioners of "realpolitik," which "striv[es] for balance of power in the old European sense, [and] ... typically favors 'stability,' even when it's imposed by dictators over democratic aspiration." They went on to blame Scowcroft for "stop[ping] the Gulf War early, based in part on a CIA fear that a divided Iraq without a dictator was worse than a 'stable' Iraq ruled by Saddam or his Baath Party successor."
The Standard weighed in with its own attack penned by William Kristol, a PNAC founder and reliable spokesman for the neo-cons allied with Cheney and Rumsfeld. The article, "The Axis of Appeasement," accused the Times of "shamelessly" mischaracterizing Kissinger's position, noting that "the establishment fights most bitterly and dishonestly when it feels cornered and thinks it's about to lose."
"Reading the Scowcroft/New York Times 'arguments' against the war, one is struck by how laughably weak they are," Kristol wrote. "European international-law wishfulness and full-blown Pat Buchanan isolationism are the two intellectually honest alternatives to the Bush Doctrine," he added. "Scowcroft and the Times embrace neither, so they pretend instead to be terribly 'concerned' with the administration alleged failure to 'make the case' [for going to war]."
But the central target of Kristol's attack was Colin Powell, who is seen as the heart of the "axis of appeasement."
"Colin Powell is an impressive man. He is loyally assisted by the able (Deputy Secretary of State) Richard Armitage. They are entitled to their foreign policy views. But they will soon have to decide whom they wish to serve -- the president, or his opponents," Kristol wrote. The column also cited various statements made by Rumsfeld, Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the war, presumably as evidence of their loyalty.
.....................................................
Democrats, who control a majority of the Senate, are keeping so far to the rear as to be virtually invisible. While neo-con Joseph Lieberman is clearly on the Baghdad bandwagon and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden is lined up behind Powell, other leading Democrats have been more cautious. Party heavyweights, however, worry that a failure to support the war on Iraq will make them vulnerable to charges of disloyalty. A more immediate concern is the risk of alienating major Jewish donors, who have already contributed heavily to the defeat of southern black incumbent congressmen who criticized the extension of the war on terrorism to include Yassir Arafat and Saddam.
The State Dept. vs. Bush
weeklystandard.com
This line of reasoning seems to be gaining currency among those opposed to intervention. Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, suggested recently that Pentagon adviser Richard Perle might "like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad."
Washington hawks get power boost
guardian.co.uk
And for the Washington hawks, Israel is a strategic ally which should not be bullied into giving ground - a view promoted by Doug Feith at the Pentagon, and Frank Gaffney, his former colleague at the Centre for Security Policy (CSP).
....................................................................
The CSP has now established itself as an influential player in Washington, a policy powerhouse focused on establishing a radical, unilateralist and aggressive new defence doctrine.
The ballroom for the "Keepers of the Flame" gathering was packed with the high priests of the new security establishment. They included Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Feith and another Pentagon advisor, JD Crouch, sitting alongside the former CIA director, James Woolsey, a leading proponent of a new war against Saddam.
Among them was Richard Perle, known as the "prince of darkness" in the Reagan-era arms race, who has been reborn as the chairman of the defence policy board.
Hawks push to include Saddam on target list
old.smh.com.au
But the influential Mr Wolfowitz is a conservative who has often clashed with Mr Powell and the State Department. He has continued to press for a military campaign against Iraq that would not only punish Hussein for his historic support for terrorism, but eliminate the danger he represents to Israel and the West arising from his quest to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Flying With The Hawks
President Bush Ignores CIA, State Department Experts
tompaine.com
The hawks' most prominent spokespeople include former drug czar and Empower America co-director William Bennett; former CIA director James Woolsey; Weekly Standard editor and PNAC founder William Kristol; nationally syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer; AEI foreign policy dean, Richard Perle, who also serves as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; and CSP director Frank Gaffney, who worked under Perle at the Pentagon in the 1980s.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
notice how the jews who run the media and our foreign policy won't allow anyone with an america-first foreign policy to have any say within any administration, democrat or republican.
Bush's hawks and doves
news.bbc.co.uk
But before everyone gets too hyped up about fault lines and face time, Norman Ornstein, an analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, says it is important to remember the big four have more in common than divides them. "What you have here is a group of people who believe in free trade, internationalism, a strong American role in the world with some difference more in tactics than basic philosophy," he said.
Most notably absent, he added, is that not one of the four represents the "populist, isolationist protectionism that elsewhere is out there in conservative thought". |
