Revealing story on how Feith subverted the DOD
We read from The Dream Is Dead, an op-ed in the New York Times, that:
The man crowned by Tommy Franks as “the dumbest [expletive] guy on the planet” just made the dumbest [expletive] speech on the planet.
Doug Feith, the former Rummy gofer who drove the neocon plan to get us into Iraq, and then dawdled without a plan as Iraq crashed into chaos, was the headliner at a reunion meeting of the wooly-headed hawks Monday night at the American Enterprise Institute.
The room was packed as the former No. 3 at the Pentagon, previewing his upcoming book, “War and Decision,” conceded that the case could be made that “mistakes were made.” His former boss, Paul Wolfowitz, and the former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle sat supportively in the front row.
So right under Rumsfeld, the top three players in the Department of Defence were Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle. All three are rabid Zionists. All three have histories of SPYING for Israel. All three were involved in writing A Clean Break for Israel, then converting it to PNAC for America. And all three were involved in getting the US to invade, destroy and loot Iraq, then quietly left their posts when it all got messy. The job was done.
But he wasn’t self-flagellating. He was simply trying to put an egghead gloss on his Humpty Dumpty mishegoss.
“At the end of the day, here we are, and as of now there’s a reasonable chance that the country is going to remain united,” he said. Not quite the original boast of democracy cascading through the Middle East.
Feith goes on to defend some 'errors' and conjure 'what if's, spreading the blame to the intelligence community for not anticipating the problems of occupying Iraq.
But anyone with eyes and ears at the time would have known (as the mainstream media seems to be reluctantly realizing nowadays) that there were no problems with intelligence at the time. The problems were with the likes of Feith and other warmongers who lied us into war, and subverted and bypassed the intelligence channels to get their lies across. Even Maureen Dowd is saying this openly:
... But the intelligence community didn’t miss it. The neocons tried to scrub out that sort of analysis, knowing it would make the war harder to sell.
Dowd goes on to share some thoughts on Feith, and explores some personal reasons that may explain his aggressive zeal in getting wars started, as well as for his rabid support for Israel:
Jay Garner, America’s first viceroy in Iraq, deemed him “incredibly dangerous” and said his “electrons aren’t connected.”
Feith’s disdain for diplomacy and his credo that weakness invites aggression were shaped, Ricks reported, by personal history: “Like Wolfowitz, Feith came from a family devastated by the Holocaust. His father lost both parents, three brothers, and four sisters to the Nazis.”
Feith told Jeffrey Goldberg in The New Yorker that “My family got wiped out by Hitler, and ... all this stuff about working things out — well, talking to Hitler to resolve the problem didn’t make any sense to me. The kind of people who put bumper stickers on their car that declare that ‘War is not the answer,’ are they making a serious comment? What’s the answer to Pearl Harbor? What’s the answer to the Holocaust?”
What’s the answer to bin Laden? According to Feith, it was an attack on an unrelated dictator. He oversaw the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, whose mission was to amp up links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Also, we read from the Angry Arab blog that Feith's subversion of Middle East intelligence and policy starts earlier than fabricating lies to promote war. It starts at the interview level:
... a former US official in the executive branch (in Bush's 1st term) told me that once Feith interviewed a Middle East expert from one of the intelligence agencies for a job in the Defense Department. The interview went well until Feith saw that the candidate had studied Arabic. He made it very clear that his knowledge of Arabic disqualified him.
So Feith wasn't allowing those knowledgable of Arabic to get into the DOD, where wars were being planned against Arabs!? One might think Arabic would be a pre-requisite! Or was Feith afraid of an Arab-wise staffer of revealing the falsehoods and challenging the DOD's claims against Iraq?
Apparently, this is not new, and we shouldn't be surprised considering how the least qualified and most biased Zionists tend to get the most sensitive jobs when it comes to the Middle East:
By the standards of the Bush administration (and the Clinton administration), knowledge of and experience in the Middle East, is a disqualifier. This explains why Indyk was in charge of Middle East policy in the Clinton administration, and why Abrams and Hanna are in charge of Middle East policy in this administration.
For the dodgy history of Martin Indyk, I highly recommend reading this piece by Edward Said in full:
American Zionism -- The Real Problem
Just one excerpt:
On the very eve of Clinton's inauguration in January 1993, it was announced that Martin Indyk, born in London, and an Australian citizen, had been sworn in as an American citizen at the president-elect's express wishes. Proper procedures were not followed: it was an act of peremptory executive privilege, so that, after having gained US citizenship, Indyk could immediately thereafter become a member of the National Security Council staff responsible for the Middle East. All this, I believe, was the real scandal, not Indyk's subsequent carelessness or indiscretion or even his complicity in ignoring official codes of conduct. For before he came to the very heart of the US government in a top and largely secretly run position, Indyk was the head of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a quasi-intellectual thinktank that engaged in active advocacy on the part of Israel, and coordinated its work with that of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the most powerful and feared lobby in Washington. It is worth noting that before he came to the Bush administration Dennis Ross, the State Department consultant who has been leading the American peace process, was also the head of the Washington Institute, so the traffic between Israeli lobbying and US Middle East policy is extremely regular, and yes, regulated.
Also, you can read about Abrams here:
Return of Zionist Extremist Elliott Abrams
Just one excerpt:
Abrams, who first came to national prominence as a controversial political appointee in the Reagan administration who later pleaded guilty to lying to Congress regarding the Iran-Contra scandal, has also opposed the Oslo peace process and called for Washington to "stand by Israel," rather than act as a neutral mediator between Israel and the Palestinians.
"Yet another American Likudnik is moving to a position where they control Washington's agenda in the Mideast," said Rashid Khalidi, a Mideast historian at the University of Chicago. "This is a tragedy for the Israeli and American people." Likud is the rightwing Israeli party headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon...
... After Reagan left office in 1989, Abrams, like a number of other prominent neo-conservatives, was not invited to serve in the Bush Sr. administration. Instead, he worked for a number of think tanks and eventually became head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) where he wrote widely on foreign-policy issues, including the Middle East, and the threats posed by U.S. secular society to Jewish identity. He also remained an integral part of the tight-knit neo-conservative foreign-policy community in Washington that revolved around one of his early mentors, Richard Perle and former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Finally, a bit about John Hannah here:
John Hannah profile at Right Web
An excerpt:
Soon after his promotion, Hannah, along with Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, and National Security Council Deputy Adviser Elliott Abrams, conducted high-level, strategic meetings with Israeli officials regarding “the Iranian government's growing radicalization and its irresponsible policy on nuclear issues” (State Department, November 29, 2005). Hannah is among the hardliners on Iran within the vice president's office. When Tehran refused to suspend its uranium enrichment operations in August 2006, Hannah insisted on a firm U.S. response, arguing that anything less risked “allowing Iran's response to appear reasonable” (New York Times, August 25, 2006).
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Hannah worked closely with Libby, who was part of an informal White House team called the “White House Iraq Group,” which was tasked with culling information about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (Washington Post, October 20, 2005). The Libby-Hannah team produced a 48-page draft for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's now-infamous 2003 speech at the United Nations in which he used erroneous evidence to justify invading Iraq. According to commentator Robert Dreyfuss, Powell regarded the draft to be “so extreme” that he “trashed the entire document.”
--------------
All emphasis by MonkeyZerg
Elliot Abrams as the most evil of the creeps listed above. This two-legged pile of Jewish feces helped organize death squads in Central America, and is now Bush's the point man for helping Jews perpertrate the genocide against Palestinians.
And yes, it's
JEWS
I have no time for anyone who wrings his hands and says we must distinguish between "Jews" and "Zionists." Where has that gotten us? How has that helped the Palestinians?
Jews regard you as "anti-Semitic" even if you worship them. Consider that recent poll in which Jews regard evangelical "Christians" as the second most "anti-Semitic" group after Muslims.
Those who say we must distinguish between Jews and Zionists are in error. They would have us grovel. They would have us maintain a feeble hope that somehow, somehow Jews can be reasoned with.
Here's a clue: Jews hate you.
Any Jew that does not publicly renounced Zionism is a
PIECE OF SH*T
ANY JEW