Liberalscum Buster

August 30, 2008

THE NEOCONSERVATIVES HAD THEIR AGENDA PREPARED AND PUBLISHED IN THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, hillary clinton, John McCain, life, mideast, news, politics, war — gasdocpol @ 3:49 pm

before they propped up an uniformed, inexperienced, failed businessman named George W. Bush as their poster candidate.

GW Bush had great appeal among the good ole boys and the bible thumpers who were not very likely to vote for the scowling man behind the curtain, Dick Cheney.

George W. Bush had not been sitting around for the previous 10 years thinking about foreign policy. Rather, he was being coached on foreign policy by handlers who had to teach him that Africa was a continent and not a country.

The stated aims of PNAC can be followed from their war plans to their hopes of global military superiority. George W. Bush was not a factor when PNAC was writing its openly published policies. But once the 2000 election was secured, PNAC members became and remain the mainstay of the Bush administration, holding virtually every major position relating to foreign policy.

NEOCONS WILL BE DICTATING McCAIN POLICY SO IF YOU LIKED GW BUSH, YOU WILL LOVE JOHN McCAIN

IT DID NOT END WITH HITLER

Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, hillary clinton, John McCain, life, mideast, news, politics, war — gasdocpol @ 3:35 pm

THE NEOCONSERVATIVES HAVE INFILTRATED THE GOP. THEY ARE THE NAZIS OF OUR TIME.

According to Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff, the GW Bush White House was run by a Neoconservative cabal headed by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

McCain’s top foreign policy advisor, Randall Scheunemann, got rich from the Iraq war which he helped to get us into and has been a lobby for Republic of Georgia while simultaneously a top McCain advisor. He is now stirring up trouble with Russia

JOHN McCAIN IS A TRUE NEOCON GW BUSH WAS JUST A FRONT FOR THE NEOCONS

Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, hillary clinton, John McCain, life, mideast, news, politics, war — gasdocpol @ 3:28 pm

Neocon President John “Bomb Iran” McCain?

There’s no doubt, for the Republicans the funfair-like ballyhoo of the candidate-shooting-gallery, aka primaries, is over and the hard slog of winning the party’s faithful has begun. John McCain is their nominee, whether they like it and whether Mike Huckabee will one day resign himself to the evident or not (truth-denying seems to have become a synonym for passionate conservatism in this GOP). Time to start contemplating on what a future Iraq and Iran policy of a McCain presidency may bring.

I’ve been repeatedly asked if President Whitman in The Writing on the Wall is a barely disguised John McCain. Truth be told, while I may remotely have had John McCain at the back of my mind as a role model, my prime concern was not to dwell on clichés and stereotypes of Cheney-like warmongers and Pat Robertson-like Elmer Gantrys but have my Republican president be a battle-hardened honest broker most Americans can sympathize with. At the end of the day, Jim Whitman is manipulated into aerial strikes against Iran by a coalition of aching-for-Armageddon televangelists and big oil. Whether Whitman resembles McCain or not, the burning and troubling question is, does it require Machiavellian puppeteers and Iagonian manipulations to get McCain giving American B-2s flying orders for Tehran at all?

As soon as McCain has risen from the dead the question has occupied the political blogsphere to what extent he is the neocon reincarnate. This can be answered verbosely but vacuously as in Philip Giraldi’s John McCain and the Neocon Resurgence, more thoughtfully but yet not satisfactorily as in Jacob Heilbrunn’s John McCain, Neocon, or in terms of a historic retrospection as in John Judis’ dated but excellent Neo-McCain. I’m not George Bush, I don’t claim to be able to realize someone’s soul by looking deep into his eyes; but I’m a historian, and I believe that more than forty years in public and military service in the national limelight should provide us at least with some clues to make a few cautious assumptions about someone’s future behavior.

Judis does a remarkable job in portraying McCain’s changes from a young firebrand, gung-ho interventionist to a prudent realist after his return from Vietnam, and back to aggressive idealism or militant Wilsonianism in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union:

“In the months and years that followed, McCain, seeking to differentiate his views from those of other Republican presidential aspirants and from the growing isolationism of House Republicans, would place his new interventionist instincts within a larger ideological framework. That ideological framework was neoconservatism … The senator’s embrace of neoconservatism was accompanied by a reevaluation of his childhood hero, Theodore Roosevelt. McCain had long admired Roosevelt’s adventurous spirit, but Kristol – as well as other neoconservative writers like Robert Kagan and David Brooks – was busy building the former president into something more: a model for “national greatness conservatism,” a philosophy that linked the development of American character to the exercise of power overseas.”

Here, in the years after the fall of the Iron Curtain and the descent of a dozen of new nations in Europe and Central Asia, yearning for individual freedom and Western-style democracy, lies the natal hour of John McCain the neocon, best illustrated in his chairmanship of the International Republican Institute. More telling than his 100-years-in-Iraq comment and his stubborn support for the surge, is his biblical hate for Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko, together with his and IRI’s behind-the-scenes activities in Eastern Europe. Hans Werner Klausen from the Berliner Umschau provides us with an exhaustive list of McCain’s neocon supporters, advisers and dogsbodies – this eye-opening compilation together with McCain’s personal Damascus experience of the victorious First Gulf War in combination with the democratization of the Ukraine, Georgia, Poland et al. leads me to believe that the true neocon in the White House is yet to come. Heilbrunn is right in his Washington Post op-ed: George Bush has never been a neocon, but John McCain is to the bottom of his heart. For him the democratization of the Middle East, by force if necessary, is not a pretense you can seek refuge in if the damn WMDs turn out not to exist; for John McCain and the neocons this is the essence of American exceptionalism, her raison d’etre in the twenty-first century.
And Iraq is where they will take up a stance. They have tied their entire ideological concept to success there. Worse, in John McCain’s case, I can’t help myself but fear that he seeks to cure his own personal Vietnam trauma at the banks of the Euphrates and the Tigris.

And this is where my book proves outdated. The Iranian nuclear program no longer is the sticking point; except for Israeli hawks it does not even suit as an official casus belli anymore. The issue over which John McCain and Tehran will clash is the future of Iraq and the latter’s sway over it. A weakened, lame duck George Bush may have had to grin and bear it by reluctantly greenlighting talks on ambassodarial level between the U.S. and Iran. For a reinvigorated John McCain and his neocon team, endowed with a public mandate to fight the “War on Terror” and elected on a national security ticket, this is no option. That smells too much of the Paris Peace Accords and Kissinger-détente. Neither is containment or harsher sanctions, as still nonsensically considered a better than nothing response to Iran’s stubbornness on the nuclear issue, a viable approach here. It would only postpone the inevitable confrontation.

I never get tired of referring to Peter Galbraith’s brilliant analysis of the situation in Iraq on Salon.com from last year: Iran is the major gainer of George Bush’s war in Mesopotamia, and Tehran is the one who dictates terms there now. Something the neocons are all too aware of. Given this predicament of their let’s-make-the-world-free-for-democracy crusade having played into the hands of the hated mullahs better than dealing them a Royal Flush, any future American administration is left with two choices: you either start all-issues-on-the-table, no precondition talks with Iran trying to get them to adopt a constructive role in Baghdad with a healthy combination of incentives and threats – which, of course, would result in America having to make painful sacrifices and accepting Iran as a regional power – or you take Iran out of the Iraqi equation. To John McCain, the former would be like losing Vietnam again. If yielding to his Vietcong guards was out of the question, abandoning a people America has liberated to an Islamist theocracy and state sponsor of terrorism certainly is. Then rather go down in flames in defending freedom’s cause and Teddy Roosevelt’s legacy.

No, we should make no mistake, John McCain is no Jim Whitman. He doesn’t need to be manipulated into war with Iran.


Hannes Artens is the author of The Writing on the Wall, the first anti-Iran-war novel.

Hannes Artens February 22, 2008 – 10:29am

JOHN McCAIN’S TOP FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR, RANDALL SCHEUNEMANN

Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, hillary clinton, John McCain, life, mideast, news, politics, war — gasdocpol @ 2:48 pm

IS THIS WHAT WE WANT?
Foreign Policy Guru and Adviser to John McCain: Who is Randy Scheunemann?
August 24, 2008 by sudhan

Sudhan @18:41 CET

By Patrick J. Buchanan | Global Research, August 22, 2008

He is the principal foreign policy adviser to John McCain and potential successor to Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security adviser to the president of the United States.

But Randy Scheunemann has another identity, another role.

He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man.

From January 2007 to March 2008, the McCain campaign paid Scheunemann $70,000 — pocket change compared to the $290,000 his Orion Strategies banked in those same 15 months from the Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili.

What were Mikheil’s marching orders to Tbilisi’s man in Washington? Get Georgia a NATO war guarantee. Get America committed to fight Russia, if necessary, on behalf of Georgia.

Scheunemann came close to succeeding.

Had he done so, U.S. soldiers and Marines from Idaho and West Virginia would be killing Russians in the Caucasus, and dying to protect Scheunemann’s client, who launched this idiotic war the night of Aug. 7. That people like Scheunemann hire themselves out to put American lives on the line for their clients is a classic corruption of American democracy.

U.S. backing for his campaign to retrieve his lost provinces is what Saakashvili paid Scheunemann to produce. But why should Americans fight Russians to force 70,000 South Ossetians back into the custody of a regime they detest? Why not let the South Ossetians decide their own future in free elections?

Not only is the folly of the Bush interventionist policy on display in the Caucasus, so, too, is its manifest incoherence.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says we have sought for 45 years to stay out of a shooting war with Russia and we are not going to get into one now. President Bush assured us there will be no U.S. military response to the Russian move into Georgia.

That is a recognition of, and a bowing to, reality — namely, that Russia’s control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and occupation of a strip of Georgia cannot be a casus belli for the United States. We may deplore it, but it cannot justify war with Russia.

If that be true, and it transparently is, what are McCain, Barack Obama, Bush, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel doing committing the United States and Germany to bringing Georgia into NATO? For that would commit us to war for a cause we have already conceded, by our paralysis, does not justify a war.

Not only did Scheunemann’s two-man lobbying firm receive $730,000 since 2001 to get Georgia a NATO war guarantee, he was paid by Romania and Latvia to do the same. And he succeeded.

Latvia, a tiny Baltic republic annexed by Joseph Stalin in June 1940 during his pact with Adolf Hitler, was set free at the end of the Cold War. Yet hundreds of thousands of Russians had been moved into Latvia by Stalin, and as Riga served as a base of the Baltic Sea fleet, many Russian naval officers retired there.

The children and grandchildren of these Russians are Latvian citizens. They are a cause of constant tension with ethnic Letts and of strife with Moscow, which has assumed the role of protector of Russians left behind in the “near abroad” when the Soviet Union broke apart.

Thanks to the lobbying of Scheunemann and friends, Latvia has been brought into NATO and given a U.S. war guarantee. If Russia intervenes to halt some nasty ethnic violence in Riga, the United States is committed to come in and drive the Russians out.

This is the situation in which the interventionists have placed our country: committed to go to war for countries and causes that do not justify war, against a Russia that is re-emerging as a great power only to find NATO squatting on her doorstep.

Scheunemann’s resume as a War Party apparatchik is lengthy. He signed the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) letter to President Clinton urging war on Iraq, four years before 9-11. He signed the PNAC ultimatum to Bush, nine days after 9-11, threatening him with political reprisal if he did not go to war against Iraq. He was executive director of the “Committee for the Liberation of Iraq,” a propaganda front for Ahmad Chalabi and his pack of liars who deceived us into war.

Now Scheunemann is the neocon agent in place in McCain’s camp.

The neocons got their war with Iraq. They are pushing for war on Iran. And they are now baiting the Russian Bear.

Is this what McCain has on offer? Endless war?

Why would McCain seek foreign policy counsel from the same discredited crowd that has all but destroyed the presidency of George Bush?

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence … a free people ought to be constantly awake,” Washington warned in his Farewell Address. Our Founding Father was warning against the Randy Scheunemanns among us, agents hired by foreign powers to deceive Americans into fighting their wars. And none dare call it treason.

A NEOCONSERVATIVE CABAL RAN GW BUSH’S WHITE HOUSE

Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, hillary clinton, John McCain, life, mideast, news, politics, war — gasdocpol @ 2:28 pm

McCAIN’S CLOSEST ADVISORS (SCHEUJNEMANN, BOLTON, AND KAGAN) ARE NEOCONS TOO.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Frontline to Examine “Neo-Conservative Cabal”
Last fall, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for Colin Powell said there was a “neo-conservative cabal” running the U.S. government. It appears that PBS’s Frontline investigated his allegations.

Here’s a link and a quote from a post at Raw Story about the Frontline episode on “The Battle to Control ‘the Dark Side'” that will air this Tuesday:

In the initial stages of the war on terror, Tenet’s CIA was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with the president that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the agency and Tenet. Through interviews with DoD staffers who sifted through mountains of raw intelligence, FRONTLINE tells the story of how questionable intelligence was “stovepiped” to the vice president and presented to the public.
Posted by Dr. Bruce Prescott at 9:04 AM

NEOCONS RAN GW BUSH AND THEY WOULD RUN JOHN McCAIN

Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, hillary clinton, John McCain, life, mideast, news, politics, Uncategorized, war — gasdocpol @ 2:20 pm

IT WOULD BEHOOVE AMERICANS TO KNOW ABOUT NEOCONSERVATIVES IF THEY DO NOT KNOW ALREADY.
Neoconservative / Neocons
Fukuyama, a top neocon, has recently defected (2/9/2006), explaining that the hopelessly unrealistic neocon agenda has turned Iraq into a “base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at.”

All political persuasions agree neocons are not conservatives. Irving Kristol, who accepts the title of neoconservatism’s “godfather,” has written that the neoconservative’s goal is:
“to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”
Two conservatives, Halper and Clarke, in their recent book, America Alone, conclude:”Neoconservatives have taken American international relations on an unfortunate detour, veering away from the balanced, consensus-building … approach that has characterized traditional Republican internationalism … and acted more as a special interest focused on its particular agenda.”

neocon cliqueHow the neoconservatives maneuvered the US into the Iraq War: Neocons began promoting the Iraq “detour” in 1996 through a report explaining why Israel needed Saddam removed from power. Richard Perle delivered this report to Netanyahu, then the new Prime Minister of Israel. Perle later became a key advisor to Rumsfeld. Wurmser, another author, became Cheney’s advisor on Mid-East affairs, while a third author, Feith, was appointed second in command under Wolfowitz.
Conservatives vs. Neocons: What conservatives say about neocons and what neocons say about conservatives.

Neocons & Deceptions: Leo Strauss, the neocon “philosopher,” taught that the elite (the neocons) need to deceive the masses who cannot handle or benefit from the “truth.” Consequently neocons feel justified in hiding the real reasons for the war behind the WMD excuse or giving secret documents or technology to Israel, since they know better what is good for America.

A Neocon Who’s Who: Special emphasis on those in the Administration.

A Neocon Timeline: A few important events in the development of the neocon ideology and the strategy for the Iraq war.
z Facts.com
KNOW THE FACTS. GET THE SOURCE

August 27, 2008

JOHN McCAIN HAS CHARACTER ALL RIGHT

Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, hillary clinton, John McCain, life, mideast, news, politics, war — gasdocpol @ 1:22 pm

1. In High School he was “Punk McNasty”
2. At USNA he was a raunchy rowdy underachiever, 895 out of 899.
3. As a flyboy, he was a hot dog riskktaker who lost at least 3 planes before Vietnam.
4. As a POW, he sang like a canary causing US aviators to be shot down.
5. In the one year he ostensibly made something go, he used his position to violate ther UCMJ with fraternisation and adultery.
6. In Senate he was superstitious compulsive gambler with an anger management problem.
7. Made a crude tasteless joke about Chelsea Clinton.
8. Called his wife the “c” word in public.
9. Surrounds himself with the same Neocons who ran GW Bush.
10. A real crass act

August 24, 2008

JOHN McCAIN WILL BE READY TO BE YOSEMITE SAM ON DAY ONE

Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, hillary clinton, John McCain, life, mideast, news, politics, war — gasdocpol @ 1:57 am

COUNT ON HIM TO GO OFF HALF COCKED AS HE DID WHEN HE WAS PUNK McNASTY IN HIGH SCHOOL.

When he was a raunchy,rowdy party boy at the Naval Academy. A risk-taking hot dog flyboy. A superstituous compulsive gambler with an anger management problem as a Senator.

August 23, 2008

OBAMA NEVER SAID THAT HE WANTED TO CHANGE EVERYTHING

Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, hillary clinton, John McCain, life, mideast, news, politics, war — gasdocpol @ 3:24 pm

AND WHO WOULD BE MORE QUALIFIED TO HELP OBAMA CHANGE THE THINGS THAT NEED CHANGING?

That is no argument that choosing Biden means that change is no longer possible.

August 22, 2008

DOES THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF NEED MILITARY EXPERIENCE?

Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, hillary clinton, John McCain, life, mideast, news, politics, war — gasdocpol @ 7:42 pm

LET US LOOK AT AMERICAN HISTORY

War of 1812 Madison no military exp we won
Civil war Lincoln 3 months military exp (in Blackhawk War) we won
Mexican war Polk No military exp we won
Spanish-American war McKinley no mil. exp We won
WW1 Wilson No mil exp We won
WW2 Roosevelt No mil. exp we won
Korea Truman (Artillary officer IN WW 1) Eisenhauer Tie
Vietnam Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon (All had military exp) WE LOST
Desert Storm Bush the Elder Mil exp We won
Kosovo Slick Willie No mil exp We won No combat deaths
Iraq FIASCO Alfred E. Newman Texas Air Natioinal guard

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.