Kissinger: AmerIsrael will not tolerate religion/moraliy-based governments

Kissinger: AmerIsrael will not tolerate religion/moraliy-based governments

To: zerhoune@od.nih.gov, SpinLyme@yahoogroups,com ,
kshepard@calea.org, fitzmas@gmail,com , patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov,
modelt1918@sbcglobal,net , jdrazen@nejm.org, letters@courant,com ,
Jgerberding@cdc.gov, lender@courant,com , michael.cole@po.state.ct.us,
conndcj@po.state.ct.us, executive-editor@nytimes,com , managing-
editor@nytimes,com , news-tips@nytimes,com , the-arts@nytimes,com ,
bizday@nytimes,com , foreign@nytimes,com , metro@nytimes,com ,
national@nytimes,com , dvbid@cdc.gov, brigidcallahan@optonline,net ,
trvl@hotmail,com , ubinas@courant,com , mas1@concentric,net ,
campbell@courant,com , jhornberger@fff.org, thomas.carson@usdoj.gov,
thomas.ryan@po.state.ct.us, kurtzh@washpost,com ,
georgewill@washpost,com , horgan@courant,com ,
commissioner.dcf@po.state.ct.us, cohencolumn@aol,com ,
FalNields@aol,com , bransfield@comcast,net , vtsherr@comcast,net ,
oca@po.state.ct.us, dand@davila-dilzer,com ,
scott.murphy@po.state.ct.us, governor.rell@po.state.ct.us,
attorney.general@po.state.ct.us, randall.samborn@usdoj.gov
Cc: francam@ucia.gov, dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir,
eugenerobinson@washpost,com , horgan@courant,com ,
bmiller@newstimes,com , trvl@hotmail,com , rastro18@aol,com ,
billcurryct@gmail,com , thomas.carson@usdoj.gov, amcguigan@rms-law,com ,
rjmurzyn@aol,com , paulcraigroberts@yahoo,com ,
sidney blumenthal@yahoo,com , criminal.division@usdoj.gov,
karla.dobinski@usdoj.gov, christopher.christie@usdoj.gov

Subject: Brzezinski, Rockefeller & Kissinger

Date: Mar 31, 2008 3:11 PM

Brzezinski WaPo Article Below
===================================

Uuuuh, no.

1) Nick Rockefeller says that we will be having these fake wars over
fake terrorists
and 2) Henry Kissinger announced US Foreign Policy on 9/11 in a
telephone call to
CNN from Europe, about 11:30 AM that morning, that basically:
Whatever countries harbor terrorists shall also be the targets of our
aggression.
He also said, "Whoever is not with us, is against us."
http :// www .actionlyme.org/AARON RUSSO.htm

3) Yesterday or the day before Henry Kissinger announced that
AmerIsrael is indeed
one nation in control of the world, and that the rest of the world
better get used
to the idea:

=================================
"In the early years it was a question of states interacting with each
other,
and now it is part of a whole global situation," Kissinger added,
apparently
alluding to the U.S.-led war on Islamic terror.
http :// www .jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/107790.html

- - -
"I think there is a fundamental conviction that the security of Israel
is in
the American national interest. That has not changed."
http :// www .jpost,com /servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1206632362405&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
"The American government is committed to preventing Iran from getting
nuclear
weapons, and I strongly support that position. I don't want to
speculate what
would happen if they do get nuclear weapons, because that should not
happen."

"Kissinger, who used his skills at conflict management to negotiate
the end
of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and helped set the stage for the Israel-
Egypt peace treaty,
*** said reaching such accommodations 'is more difficult if you have
religious-based
opponents than state-based opponents.'" ***


=================

There you have it.

The PNAC New World Order gig was about a global monopoly over which
AmerIsrael will
prevail, and with the false pretenses of being about chasing
terrorists.

It is not possible that the United States is unable to capture Bin
Laden. Bin Laden
is an unwitting puppet and his group was infiltrated and assisted to
the 9/11 stunt.

This Kissinger/Rockefeller CFR-AmerIsrael gang was not successful in
simultaneously
raping Russia under the drunk, Yeltsin. It was always about oil and
minerals, and
their fear of dark races emerging. They really do believe blacks are
inferior and
"excess mouths to feed."
http :// www .actionlyme.org/DURHAM BUSH CRIME.htm

For Kissinger to say what he said this week about AmerIsrael is it and
that's
that. And for him to make a declaration that religion and morality
based governments
are not acceptable is the biggest warning we have ever received about
what is to
come.

Therefore, it is meaningless to discuss getting out of Iraq at this
point. This
gang is not backing down until the world is over.



Kathleen M. Dickson
PS: Another funny thing:
The Treasury says the Federal Reserve should be in charge of funny
financial schemes.
That's like DCF being in charge of children, when if ever there was a
dumber,
more evil, illiterate, illogical, savage clique to ever walk the earth
under one
union, they must have been called Hutus or Huns...
--------------


http :// www .washingtonpost,com /wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032702405 pf.html
washingtonpost,com
NEWS | OPINIONS | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING | Discussions | Photos &
Video
| City Guide | CLASSIFIEDS | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE
ad icon
The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War

By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, March 30, 2008; B03

Both Democratic presidential candidates agree that the United States
should end
its combat mission in Iraq within 12 to 16 months of their possible
inauguration.
The Republican candidate has spoken of continuing the war, even for a
hundred years,
until "victory." The core issue of this campaign is thus a basic
disagreement
over the merits of the war and the benefits and costs of continuing
it.

The case for U.S. disengagement from combat is compelling in its own
right. But
it must be matched by a comprehensive political and diplomatic effort
to mitigate
the destabilizing regional consequences of a war that the outgoing
Bush administration
started deliberately, justified demagogically and waged badly. (I
write, of course,
as a Democrat; while I prefer Sen. Barack Obama, I speak here for
myself.)

The contrast between the Democratic argument for ending the war and
the Republican
argument for continuing is sharp and dramatic. The case for
terminating the war
is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for
"staying
the course" draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies
on worst-case
scenarios. President Bush's and Sen. John McCain's forecasts of
regional
catastrophe are quite reminiscent of the predictions of "falling
dominoes"
that were used to justify continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
Neither has provided
any real evidence that ending the war would mean disaster, but their
fear-mongering
makes prolonging it easier.

Nonetheless, if the American people had been asked more than five
years ago whether
Bush's obsession with the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth 4,000
American
lives, almost 30,000 wounded Americans and several trillion dollars --
not to mention
the less precisely measurable damage to the United States' world-wide
credibility,
legitimacy and moral standing -- the answer almost certainly would
have been an
unequivocal "no."

Nor do the costs of this fiasco end there. The war has inflamed anti-
American passions
in the Middle East and South Asia while fragmenting Iraqi society and
increasing
the influence of Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent
visit
to Baghdad offers ample testimony that even the U.S.-installed
government in Iraq
is becoming susceptible to Iranian blandishments.

In brief, the war has become a national tragedy, an economic
catastrophe, a regional
disaster and a global boomerang for the United States. Ending it is
thus in the
highest national interest.

Terminating U.S. combat operations will take more than a military
decision. It will
require arrangements with Iraqi leaders for a continued, residual U.S.
capacity
to provide emergency assistance in the event of an external threat
(e.g., from Iran);
it will also mean finding ways to provide continued U.S. support for
the Iraqi armed
forces as they cope with the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The decision to militarily disengage will also have to be accompanied
by political
and regional initiatives designed to guard against potential risks. We
should fully
discuss our decisions with Iraqi leaders, including those not residing
in Baghdad's
Green Zone, and we should hold talks on regional stability with all of
Iraq's
neighbors, including Iran.

Contrary to Republican claims that our departure will mean calamity, a
sensibly
conducted disengagement will actually make Iraq more stable over the
long term.
The impasse in Shiite-Sunni relations is in large part the sour
byproduct of the
destructive U.S. occupation, which breeds Iraqi dependency even as it
shatters Iraqi
society. In this context, so highly reminiscent of the British
colonial era, the
longer we stay in Iraq, the less incentive various contending groups
will have to
compromise and the more reason simply to sit back. A serious dialogue
with the Iraqi
leaders about the forthcoming U.S. disengagement would shake them out
of their stupor.

Ending the U.S. war effort entails some risks, of course, but they are
inescapable
at this late date. Parts of Iraq are already self-governing, including
Kurdistan,
part of the Shiite south and some tribal areas in the Sunni center.
U.S. military
disengagement will accelerate Iraqi competition to more effectively
control their
territory, which may produce a phase of intensified inter-Iraqi
conflicts. But that
hazard is the unavoidable consequence of the prolonged U.S.
occupation. The longer
it lasts, the more difficult it will be for a viable Iraqi state ever
to reemerge.

It is also important to recognize that most of the anti-U.S.
insurgency in Iraq
has not been inspired by al-Qaeda. Locally based jihadist groups have
gained strength
only insofar as they have been able to identify themselves with the
fight against
a hated foreign occupier. As the occupation winds down and Iraqis take
responsibility
for internal security, al-Qaeda in Iraq will be left more isolated and
less able
to sustain itself. The end of the occupation will thus be a boon for
the war on
al-Qaeda, bringing to an end a misguided adventure that not only
precipitated the
appearance of al-Qaeda in Iraq but also diverted the United States
from Afghanistan,
where the original al-Qaeda threat grew and still persists.

Bringing the U.S. military effort to a close would also smooth the way
for a broad
U.S. initiative addressed to all of Iraq's neighbors. Some will remain
reluctant
to engage in any discussion as long as Washington appears determined
to maintain
its occupation of Iraq indefinitely. Therefore, at some stage next
year, after the
decision to disengage has been announced, a regional conference should
be convened
to promote regional stability, border control and other security
arrangements, as
well as regional economic development -- all of which would help
mitigate the unavoidable
risks connected with U.S. disengagement.

Since Iraq's neighbors are vulnerable to intensified ethnic and
religious conflicts
spilling over from Iraq, all of them -- albeit for different reasons
-- are likely
to be interested. More distant Arab states such as Egypt, Morocco or
Algeria might
also take part, and some of them might be willing to provide
peacekeeping forces
to Iraq once it is free of foreign occupation. In addition, we should
consider a
regional rehabilitation program designed to help Iraq recover and to
relieve the
burdens that Jordan and Syria, in particular, have shouldered by
hosting more than
2 million Iraqi refugees.

The overall goal of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to undo the errors
of recent years
should be cooling down the Middle East, instead of heating it up. The
"unipolar
moment" that the Bush administration's zealots touted after the
collapse
of the Soviet Union has been squandered to generate a policy based on
the unilateral
use of force, military threats and occupation masquerading as
democratization --
all of which has pointlessly heated up tensions, fueled anti-colonial
resentments
and bred religious fanaticism. The long-range stability of the Middle
East has been
placed in increasing jeopardy.

Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming the
Middle East,
but other measures will be needed. It is in the U.S. interest to
engage Iran in
serious negotiations -- on both regional security and the nuclear
challenge it poses.
But such negotiations are unlikely as long as Washington's price of
participation
is unreciprocated concessions from Tehran. Threats to use force on
Iran are also
counterproductive because they tend to fuse Iranian nationalism with
religious fanaticism.

Real progress in the badly stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process
would also
help soothe the region's religious and nationalist passions. But for
such progress
to take place, the United States must vigorously help the two sides
start making
the mutual concessions without which a historic compromise cannot be
achieved. Peace
between Israel and Palestine would be a giant step toward greater
regional stability,
and it would finally let both Israelis and Palestinians benefit from
the Middle
East's growing wealth.

We started this war rashly, but we must end our involvement
responsibly. And end
it we must. The alternative is a fear-driven policy paralysis that
perpetuates the
war -- to America's historic detriment.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy
Carter. His
most recent book is "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of
American
Superpower."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other
inappropriate comments
or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that
are unsigned
or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will
be
removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of
our posting
standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies
governing this
site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and
discussions. You are
fully responsible for the content that you post.
© 2008 The Washington Post Company