|
|
|
archived: 23 - 29 Jan, 2005 Back Next UPDATED: January 25, 2005 SECRET AGENDA Bush’s imperialistic inaugural was the apex of last week’s news. The garish affair was cap-stoned by his curiously bombastic inaugural address. Bush’s flamboyant speech produced ripples of commentary throughout the galaxy. Was Bush’s speech really what he purported it to be: a clarioncall for a global military and diplomatic crusade against tyranny in support of freedom and democracy, or was it something entirely different? Zbigiew Brzezinski deduced that Bush’s call for a new era of military aggression aimed at destroying tyranny was merely a “vacuous sermon” aimed at mesmerizing his domestic audience. I agree with Zbig. Bush always aims his message at the heart of red state America. His call for armed combat against world tyranny will be remembered as the feckless posturing of a demagogue, a rhinestone cowboy who talks a tough talk as he swaggers about in his snakeskin boots, but who does not really walk the walk. The stories that you do not read in the American media reveal the vacuity of Bush’s bellicose demagoguery. For starters, Bush made an obscure comment in his speech that had the pundits guessing. He said, “And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.” This statement is revealing, for Bush was preparing Peoria and Podunk Junction as well as the global audience for what might otherwise be a shocking result in next weekend’s elections in Iraq. The runaway leader for the post of Prime Minister of Iraq, Abul Aziz al-Hakim has been running his campaign on the very simple and powerful platform, “Americans, go home!” The polls predict that Al-Hakim (the Sage) will win the election by trouncing Eyad Allawi, a secular Shi’ite who is leading a dreadfully unpopular ticket that is not making much of an impression anywhere in Iraq. Allawi’s ticket is ingeniously dubbed, “The Iraqi Group,” and it has floundered even though they have run the bulk of the television advertising and even paid journalists an appearance fee for attending their press conferences. This latter practice is nothing less than bribery, but even so, Allawi is still lagging far behind al-Hakim in the polls. But, you must understand, even the people of Iraq believe Allawi to be George Bush’s hand-picked candidate who is not really all that popular in downtown Baghdad, Falluja, Basra or even Mosul. On the other hand, Al-Hakim’s party, the United Iraqi Alliance, enjoys the support of the most revered Shi’ite figure in Iraq, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani as well as that of the younger populist, Moqtadah al-Sadr, who was the leader of the Mehdi Army. There is one other familiar figure supporting Al-Hakim, Ahmad Chalabi, who fell from grace last year after allegedly losing the support of the neocons in the Pentagon. Chalabi has led a chameleonesque existence, and he even studied at the University of Chicago, the birthplace of neoconservativism where it flourished under the tutelage of Leo Strauss. Chalabi’s precise status vis a vis the US intelligence agencies is dubious for he may still wield considerable influence over neoconservative policy in Iraq. There will be an election of sorts next weekend. At this point, the Iraqi public is barely cognizant of the fact that an election will take place any time soon. A Fox News crew working in Mosul this morning asked people on the street whether they were planning to vote, but the Iraqis did not know that an election was being held any time soon. Neither do the Iraqis know the locations of their polling places for their government has not informed them where they are to vote. The polling locations are still classified as a security precaution, of course. That is why it might have been rather embarrassing that reports have leaked out to the European media that the location list of the 5,500 polling places has been obtained by major terrorist organizations who are hellbent on disrupting the elections by planting explosive devices at the polls this coming Sunday. This time next week, we will be able to analyze the results of the first post-Saddam Iraqi elections. What will they reveal? A new and self-determined Iraq probably dominated by a clerical Shi’ite majority with much the same political agenda as Iran or something entirely different? Officials from the United Nations will observe and report on the conduct and the legitimacy of these crucial elections. With less than one week to go, and many of the voters unaware of the elections or the polling places, it would seem that something really ought to be done by somebody in power to inform the people. Another worrying detail is that the Iraqi ballot was televised globally last week, but it does not have the name of a single candidate on it. Why? Because, if the names of the candidates were to be known, they would become the targets of terrorist assassins. Last week, at least three candidates were assassinated. Other candidates have appeared in London to appeal to the diaspora, stating that they simply cannot campaign for votes in Iraq, because they would be immediately assassinated. And so, at long last it appears that Bush’s dream of democracy is slouching toward Iraq. A secret election with secret polling places with a secret ballot and secret candidates – at least that appears to be Bush’s god-given gift of “freedom and democracy” to the Iraqis. Is this the secret form of a secret democracy that Bush encoded in his demagogic inaugural address? Apparently, it is. Bush did not mention the word ‘Iraq’ in his inaugural address. Neither did he mention Iran, but this week his administration has been rattling the B-52 bombers. The intelligence is now indicating that Iran could have a nuclear bomb and the capability to deliver it via long-range missiles in 2009. Seymour Hersh has reported that covert US commandos are already working in Iran to identify the crucial targets for a US bombing campaign. At this point, nobody in Bush’s government has charged the Iranians with tyranny, but they have charged them with developing their own nuclear deterrent. Surrounded by four potentially threatening nuclear powers: Russia; Israel; Pakistan and India, Iran appears to be in the process of developing the capability of eventually building a nuclear bomb because they have engineered facilities for the reprocessing of plutonium which could mean that they are after nuclear equality with their neighbors. We might do well to remember that Bush, Cheney, Rice and the neocons have urged that America abrogate both the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why? So America can develop a new generation of mini-nukes that could be used on the battlefields of the future as well as deployed to Space Force for implantation in orbit high over the purple mountain majesties and high above the fruited plains for our ever loving eternal security and the protection of our children and our children’s children. The latest polls indicate that 56% of Americans believe that it was a mistake for us to go to war against Iraq. When the numbers began to shrivel for Bush’s original war against terror after he failed to get his most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, either dead or alive, we marched off to conquer Iraq in order to liberate them from the dictator and to give them the special gift of a secret form of democracy. What is bait and switch advertising? Is it a form of the old shell game where deft moves of empty walnut shells conceal the true location of a shriveled pea? We are the most heavily armed nuclear power in the known universe, and we are on the march in a perpetual war for perpetual peace, freedom and democracy – even if the elections we manufacture are conducted on voting machines with top secret codes, the elections themselves are held in secret at secret polling stations with secret candidates and secret agendas. PS. Iran has a lot of oil (far more than the US), and it is a militarily weak nation. __________ RELATED SOURCES: Bush Inauguration Speech: A "Vacuous Sermon," A "Global Crusade" Against "Defenseless States" by Zbigniew Brzezinski 01/21/05 " PBS News Hour "-- If the speech was to be taken literally, then clearly it would imply commitment to some sort of a global crusade vis-a-vis a variety of states with many of whom we have all sorts of mutual concerns, even if we don't like their practical policies. I mean, take a few examples. Take China; we have a major state instability with China, but China is hardly a democracy. What about the Tibetans? Take Russia; we have a common stake with regards to terrorism, but what about the Chechens? They're being treated in a tyrannical fashion. Take an even more complex issue: what about Israel, which is a friend of ours, and its security against Palestinian terrorists? But what about the oppression of the Palestinians and their desire for freedom?
Straw snubs US hawks on Iran
by David Cracknell and Tony Allen-Mills, Washington JACK STRAW has drawn up a dossier putting the case against a military attack on Iran amid fears that President George W Bush’s administration may seek Britain’s backing for a new conflict. Straw and his officials fear that hawks in Washington will talk the American president into a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, just as they persuaded him to go to war in Iraq. The foreign secretary has produced a 200-page dossier that rules out military action and makes the case for a “negotiated solution” to curbing the ayatollahs’ nuclear ambitions amid increasingly bellicose noises from Washington.
Blair’s loyalty tested as Bush
menaces Iran by Tony
Allen-Mills, Washington AFTER two years of unswerving solidarity over the war in Iraq, Tony Blair’s relationship with President George W Bush is coming under strain from the newly revived threat of an American military attack on nuclear facilities in Iran.
‘God-drenched’ pledges of
the president split Republicans
by Tony Allen-Mills PRESIDENT George Bush’s bold inauguration vow to end tyranny around the world does not amount to a “right turn” or signal dramatic changes in US foreign policy, according to senior administration officials. Startled by reaction to what one well-known Republican described as the president’s “God-drenched” speech, the White House has discouraged speculation that Bush is embarking on a crusade to spread democracy around the globe.
Will Bush still do business
with these 'oppressive' allies? from
Roland Watson in Washington PRESIDENT BUSH’S pledge to spread freedom to the darkest corners of the Earth has been greeted with scepticism at home and hostility abroad. The day after he vowed to work towards ending tyranny, analysts questioned how his rhetoric meshed with the realities of US economic and military interests. In its pursuit of the War on Terror, the US depends economically, logistically or politically on at least six countries that could fall into the category of “oppressors”: Russia, China, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. “The US is closing its eyes towards dictators who serve its own interests, but attacks those that damage it,” Abdul Hussein Shaaban, an Iraqi analyst, said. Even Republican supporters cautioned that Mr Bush may have overreached himself by promising to put pressure on “every ruler and every nation”. Michael Rubin, who used to work for Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, said that “the speech was great but it can do more harm than good” if Mr Bush fails to follow through.
Hardliner slips into the team
HE IS the “most important neoconservative you’ve never heard of”, according to one of his admirers, writes Tony Allen-Mills. He is an “ideologue’s ideologue”, according to a senior American official. His name is Robert Joseph, and he seems to have slipped under his enemies’ radar as one of the most intriguing appointments of President Bush’s second term as a replacement for the caustic and flamboyant, John Bolton. There was relief in London and other international capitals when Bolton’s departure from the State Department was announced. He was seen by many as a loose cannon and North Korea had labelled him “human scum”. But the only difference between Bolton and Joseph, one Washington insider claimed last week, is that Joseph tends not to brief the media on his radically right-wing views.
Go home Yanks, says Iraqi PM in
waiting by Hala Jaber, Baghdad
THE Shi’ite Muslim cleric tipped to become prime minister after next Sunday’s election in Iraq has said it will be the duty of the new government to demand the withdrawal of American forces “as soon as possible”. “No people in the world accepts occupation and nor do we accept the continuation of American troops in Iraq,” said Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. “We regard these forces to have committed many mistakes in the handling of various issues, the first and foremost being that of security, which in turn has contributed to the massacres, crimes and calamities that have taken place in Iraq against the Iraqis.” In comments certain to raise eyebrows in the United States, al-Hakim spoke of a role for Iran and Syria — both regarded in Washington as enemies in the war on terror — along with Iraq’s other neighbours, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, in the security of the country.
Terrorists ‘have found vote
station locations’ by Hala
Jaber IRAQI insurgents claim to have discovered where some of the polling stations will be sited from sympathisers on the country’s electoral commission, compounding concern about terrorist attacks during voting. The authorities have attempted to keep the location of the polling stations a secret to reduce the risk of violence next Sunday. Officials said the country’s 14.2m voters would be told where to vote closer to polling day. It is believed there will be about 5,500 polling stations throughout the country. A senior insurgent commander from Falluja, known as Abu Abdallah, who is now based in Baghdad, said last week that rebel groups determined to disrupt the election had been provided with inside information about the polling stations that would help them plan attacks.
Leaders feud over missing
millions A POLITICAL stand-off between two of Iraq’s best-known Shi’ite leaders took a curious twist yesterday when Hazim Shalan, the interim defence minister, threatened to arrest Ahmed Chalabi, a one-time political favourite in Washington, writes Hala Jaber . Shalan said on live television that Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress and a prominent election candidate, would be captured and handed to Interpol immediately after this weekend’s Muslim feast of sacrifice (Eid al-Adha) because of his alleged involvement in a financial scandal in Jordan in the 1990s. Shalan appeared to be reacting to claims by Chalabi that $300m in banknotes had been clandestinely removed from Iraq’s Central Bank earlier this month, loaded onto a charter plane and flown to Lebanon. __________________ Since 1968, Michael Carmichael has been a professional political consultant. Beginning as a Student Coordinator for Robert F. Kennedy, he has worked in five US presidential campaigns as well as over 100 major American political campaigns for federal and state offices. In 1985, he founded The Oxford Centre for Public Affairs in the United Kingdom. In 2003, he founded The Planetary Movement Limited, a global political action organization based in the United Kingdom.
Last Update: 03/23/2006 |
