[Face Ache]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...546588325.html

Hawks demand an end to all evil, and maybe France, too

By David Rennie in Washington
January 1, 2004

Washington's hawks have sent a public manifesto to President George Bush demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.

The manifesto, which was sent on Tuesday, is presented as a "manual for victory" in the war on terrorism. It also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.

The manifesto is contained in a new book by Richard Perle (pictured), a Pentagon adviser and "intellectual guru" of the hardline neo-conservative movement, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. They warn of a faltering of the "will to win" in Washington.

In the battle for the President's ear, the manifesto represents an attempt by hawks to break out of the post-Iraq doldrums and strike back at what they see as a campaign of hostile leaking by their foes in such centres of caution as the State Department or in the military top brass.

Their publication, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, coincided with the latest broadside from the hawks' main enemy, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

Though recovering from prostate cancer, Mr Powell summoned reporters to his bedside to hail "encouraging" signs of a "new attitude" in Iran and call for the US to keep open the prospect of dialogue with Tehran.

Such talk is anathema to hawks like Mr Perle and Mr Frum, who urge Washington to shun the mullahs and work for their overthrow in concert with Iranian dissidents.

The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear program.

As North Korea will probably refuse such terms, the book urges a Cuba-style military blockade and overt preparations for war, including the rapid withdrawal of US forces from the South Korean border so that they move out of range of North Korean artillery.

Such steps, with luck, will prompt China to oust its nominal ally, Kim Jong-il, and install a saner regime in North Korea, the authors write.

The authoritarian rule of Syria's leader, Bashar Assad, should also be ended, encouraged by shutting oil supplies from Iraq, seizing arms he buys from Iran, and raids into Syria to hunt terrorists.

The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of offsetting US power. "We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington," it says.

The Telegraph, London

Tell you what, instead of discussing Perle's agenda, let's talk about the article's tone for two pages.

Note: We've been doing training exercises for a naval blockade of NK for the last few months. Just in case, you understand...

[MathewM]

Powell is a good guy but was revealed to be rather impotent during the UN diplomacy rounds.

I don't disagree with Perle. I think the agenda is one of high moral ground. He wants to get rid of despots. The bad guys. Nothing wrong with that. Is it an achievable goal? Not sure.

Interesting how the left minded try to defend the bad guys. Queer folk you are. If Hitler or Stalin were alive today you might not be so 'compassionate'.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by MathewM:

Interesting how the left minded try to defend the bad guys. Queer folk you are. If Hitler or Stalin were alive today you might not be so 'compassionate'.

When Hitler was alive, it was Bush's grandad that funded the Nazi party. What's more evil, a dictator that rules with an ironfist openly(Saddam?); or one that does it maliciously, and under the false pretence of justice (Bush?)?

[chris v]

To invade Syria and Iran as well as blockade Korea while continuing to occupy Iraq would require a tripling of manpower for the armed forces. They'd have to re-instate the draft, and if they do that, they'll have to figure out a fancier trick than Florida to rig the next election-- unless they wait until Dec. 2004 to reinstate the draft and set their plan (prong 3) in motion.

I don't know about you, but 4 years of unfettered lame-duck Neocons scares the bejeebus out of me.

CV

[kindbud]

I think there would be a lot of support in the US for those plans.

Count me in. I'm all for liberating France.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by chris v:
To invade Syria and Iran as well as blockade Korea while continuing to occupy Iraq would require a tripling of manpower for the armed forces. They'd have to re-instate the draft, and if they do that, they'll have to figure out a fancier trick than Florida to rig the next election-- unless they wait until Dec. 2004 to reinstate the draft and set their plan (prong 3) in motion.

I don't know about you, but 4 years of unfettered lame-duck Neocons scares the bejeebus out of me.

CV

Do you know what the words 'lame-duck' mean?

Lame Duck N. An elected officeholder or group continuing in office during the period between failure to win an election and the inauguration of a successor. b. An officeholder who has chosen not to run for reelection or is ineligible for reelection. 2. An ineffective person; a weakling.

I suspect you'd be delighted at the prospect of lame duck neo-conservatives.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
When Hitler was alive, it was Bush's grandad that funded the Nazi party.

That is ridiculous. I realize that the anti-Bush crowd has worked overtime in proliferating this nonsense all over the internet, but even so, it's still a blatant misrepresentation of history contrived solely for partisan purposes.

Prescott Bush worked for a bank that had worlwide interests, including some in Germany.

In I Paid Hitler Thyssen confessed his role in financing the Nazis and denounced the F�hrer. Arrested in Vichy France, he spent the balance of the war as an Axis prisoner. Prescott Bush, for his part, owned a single share of stock (of 4,000) in UBC, the Thyssen bank. According to a 2001 Boston Globe piece, the New York Herald Tribune ran a story in July 1942 headlined "Hitler's Angel Has 3 Million in US Bank," in which Prescott and other BBH partners "explain[ed] to government regulators that their position [as directors of UBC] was merely an unpaid courtesy for a client."

So, did Bush and his firm finance the Nazis and enable Germany to rearm? Indirectly, yes. But they had a lot of company. Some of the most distinguished names in American business had investments or subsidiaries in prewar Germany, including Standard Oil and General Motors. Critics have argued for years that without U.S. money, the Nazis could never have waged war. But American business has always invested in totalitarian regimes--witness our dealings with mainland China.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by kindbud:
I think there would be a lot of support in the US for those plans.

Count me in. I'm all for liberating France.

Thing is, you and your opinions are such a laughable minority, in the rest of the world. Right-wingers, and Bush supporters harp on about liberation, and explaining away all your little justifications for dominating sovereign nations, that you actually believe that what you say has any ears listening to you, and believing you.

Like any other empire, the US will fall, in time, liek a dog dying, the tail wags furiously until it's dead. Once an empire is in decline, it churns out sickening propaganda of the liek we hear form neocons, bushites, and so on; words such as homeland security, civil rights being eroded, shambolic reasons for invading counties and controlling external resources, and so on.

Just read history, and you'll see what will happen; weaker nations will only take so much, and then revolt against the an order propped up by nations like the US. Oh, and don't feel so secure that you have military might, or that the media is mostly on your side; greater nations have crumbled, and yours will too, from within, and without. Over-confidence will your downfall, and it's already happening.
You talk like you are preaching to the converted, well keep watchign FOX news, makes you happy and secure, but walk outside your nation, and you'll see how much your beliefs are laughed at. We don't want the US stomping over other nations, and the seeds of stopping that are sown, time my friend, just a matter of time.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That is ridiculous. I realize that the anti-Bush crowd has worked overtime in proliferating this nonsense all over the internet, but even so, it's still a blatant misrepresentation of history contrived solely for partisan purposes.

Prescott Bush worked for a bank that had worlwide interests, including some in Germany.

OMG, you talk so much sh!t, and will go to any lengths to stick up for your buddy bush. Please, do yourself a favour and go read a bit more than an apologetic paper on Prescott, then come back a little more educated on the topic.

You look pretty dumb trying to defend that man. FYI, there are many, many documents, and books on how Bush financed the Nazis, but did so well into WW2.
A little something for you, bankers, and business like war, in fact, they are known to plan out an outcome in their favour prior to hostilities, it's milleniums old. They like to fund both sides of possible, and reap the rewards later.

One thing, in the ancient world, peoples went to war for very blatant reasons, to plunder resources, to conquer any future threat to their bootie, and any taken. Those reasons are still the ones being used, only now we get palmed off with humanitarian, or shad justifications; the actual reasons have never changed. People get rich out of it, and this latest Iraq war is just another example, the so-called reasons put forth by the few, adn yes they are the few, is just nonsense, and only the blind faithful, those who benefit, and those who defend those, are the ones who take it to heart. Do you think most people who watch that monkey of a man Bush when he smirks his way through another pitiful explanation for his latest episode actually believes him?

You'd do those asses, the NSA, good.

[sanity assassin]

Here, to help you expand your knowledge on the Bush's association with crime, I did a little quick googling for you.

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/bushcrimefamily.htm

Oh, and before you do the usual, liek other right-wingers, by assuming this is all left-wing propoganda, here's a snippet for you.

These links connect to sites run by the left, the religious right,
conservative think tanks, political independents and the
mainstream media. Some are pro-Bush and are included for
cross reference value.

[kindbud]

Hey, I'm convinced.

[MathewM]

Sorry sanny,

Half those links are dead and the rest is a bunch of hogwash linking everyone and your own grandma to the Nazis.

My great granduncle fought in the Nazi army. Does that make me a Nazi? By your cracked out convictions it does.

Plenty of companies have been shown to have connections to the Nazis: Volkswagen, Bayer etc. Does that make them bad companies?

Sorry sacks like yourself live off the ramblings of conspiracy theorists. It makes you angry and some days you probably just feel like blowing yourself up and taking a few innocents with you.

[kindbud]

I noticed that all the angry people are also anti-Dubya.

Just like all the angry people were pro-Clinton.

This oughtta get real interesting by the end of Dubya's 2nd term in office.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Here, to help you expand your knowledge on the Bush's association with crime, I did a little quick googling for you.

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/bushcrimefamily.htm

Wow...great info from this site titled 'The Bush Crime Family". I had no idea that Prescott Bush had a body double reside here in the states while the actual Prescott spend a decade in Germany single-handedly building the Third Reich. And Jimmy Hoffa? Who knew that Prescott Bush was responsible for his disappearance. The most shocking "fact", though, was that Prescott Bush led the Japanese fighter pilots in their attack on Pearl Harbor while simultaneously managing the operations at Auschwitz.

His building of the atom bomb was a big achievement, too. Too bad his attempts to reinstitute slavery in the US failed.

I also don't understand why Prescott refused to use his birth name. Oh wait - i just saw that link - "Prescott' is the underworld translation for "Satan", so he was using his birth name (albeit in a different language).

[chris v]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Do you know what the words 'lame-duck' mean?

Lame Duck N. An elected officeholder or group continuing in office during the period between failure to win an election and the inauguration of a successor. b. An officeholder who has chosen not to run for reelection or is ineligible for reelection. 2. An ineffective person; a weakling.

I suspect you'd be delighted at the prospect of lame duck neo-conservatives.

Okay, let's derail a thread by quibbling over semantics, and word definitions. How Clintonesque. I've seen the term "lame duck" used in reference to politicians who have nothing to fear from an upcoming election; definition b. by your example above. (b. An officeholder who has chosen not to run for reelection or is ineligible for reelection.)

Is there a different phrase for a politician who has a full term ahead of him, but no prospects for re-election (due to term limits) that you would prefer I use, in order to avoid semantic quibbling/derailing?

Without using the objectionable phrase, what concerns me is Bush, inc. being freed from the constraints of the electorate if they win a second term, esp. in regards to the draft, which they would definitely need to re-instate in order to carry out their grand design. (Of course Spliff Daddy won't be drafted, because he's already down at the induction center, volunteering, as we speak)

If they attempt to reinstate the draft prior to the Nov. 2004 election, it will cost them at the ballot box. If they wait until Dec. 2004 (provided they win in Nov) then they won't have to worry about what it might cost them politically with the electorate.

CV

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by chris v:
what concerns me is Bush, inc. being freed from the constraints of the electorate if they win a second term, esp. in regards to the draft, which they would definitely need to re-instate in order to carry out their grand design. (Of course Spliff Daddy won't be drafted, because he's already down at the induction center, volunteering, as we speak)

If they attempt to reinstate the draft prior to the Nov. 2004 election, it will cost them at the ballot box. If they wait until Dec. 2004 (provided they win in Nov) then they won't have to worry about what it might cost them politically with the electorate.

CV

The president can't reinstate the draft even if he wanted to. Only Congress can do that because it requires legislation and because the power to raise armies is not a presidential power, it is given to the Congress under Article 1, Section 8. Congress is always up for election. 1/3 of the Senate and all of the House of Representatives are elected every two years. It doesn't matter if the president is a lame duck, Congress can't be and this is Congress' area of authority, not the president's. Your fear is a legitimate one, but the framers of the Constitution were way ahead of you. They thought about the problem, and solved it back in 1789 by making sure that a president can't do that kind of thing alone.*

Since a president can't do this without the popularly elected House and Senate, it's worth remembering that a lame duck president usually has a harder, not easier time getting his legislation passed precisely because he is a lame duck. Lame duck presidents have very little authority with which to cajole Congress. That's why presidents who want to do big things almost always have to do it at the beginning of their terms.

Moreover, there is no constituency for a return to the draft. The military hates the draft. They like the all-volunteer force because the quality of volunteers is vastly better than the quality of the average draftee, not to mention several levels more motivated. The only people who have talked about the draft lately are some left-wing Democrats, notably Charlie Rangel. He basically wanted it as a poison pill (he figures a draft makes wars harder to fight). Nobody in the mainstream supports it.



* Note: the senate was originally appointed by the State legislatures, not elected directly. But the effect was still to separate powers to prevent the very kind of thing you are worried about.

[mfdynusore]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Moreover, there is no constituency for a return to the draft. The military hates the draft. They like the all-volunteer force because the quality of volunteers is vastly better than the quality of the average draftee, not to mention several levels more motivated. The only people who have talked about the draft lately are some left-wing Democrats, notably Charlie Rangel. He basically wanted it as a poison pill (he figures a draft makes wars harder to fight). Nobody in the mainstream supports it.
[END QUOTE]



Let me guess, you volunteered right? Well of course you did. Me too. My volunteer service took place when a draft did exist however, and I thought very highly of the draftees I served with and under. I found the average draftee to be of a very high quality, but that perception could be colored by the relative lack of quality of the Vietnam era volunteer when compared to the superior specimens that constitute todays all volunteer army. Remember the more thing change the more they remain the same.

[SimeyTheLimey]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mfdynusore:

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Moreover, there is no constituency for a return to the draft. The military hates the draft. They like the all-volunteer force because the quality of volunteers is vastly better than the quality of the average draftee, not to mention several levels more motivated. The only people who have talked about the draft lately are some left-wing Democrats, notably Charlie Rangel. He basically wanted it as a poison pill (he figures a draft makes wars harder to fight). Nobody in the mainstream supports it.
[END QUOTE]



Let me guess, you volunteered right? Well of course you did. Me too. My volunteer service took place when a draft did exist however, and I thought very highly of the draftees I served with and under. I found the average draftee to be of a very high quality, but that perception could be colored by the relative lack of quality of the Vietnam era volunteer when compared to the superior specimens that constitute todays all volunteer army. Remember the more thing change the more they remain the same.

The brass dislikes the draft, and has said so often. This is well documented.

[chris v]

"My Fellow Americans, members of Congress and the Senate. Will you stand by me today in the War on Terrorism and do what's right for freedom and American values, and vote to reinstate the draft so that we can fight the scourge that seeks to destroy our way of life? Or will you side with the Terrorists, and vote against the draft?"

Also, this Pentagon, which you speak of as being opposed to the draft, has a number of PNAC signatories amongst its top brass these days, does it not?

Simey, how else do you propose to staff their agenda with the soldiers it will take to carry it out?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by chris v:
"My Fellow Americans, members of Congress and the Senate. Will you stand by me today in the War on Terrorism and do what's right for freedom and American values, and vote to reinstate the draft so that we can fight the scourge that seeks to destroy our way of life? Or will you side with the Terrorists, and vote against the draft?"

Also, this Pentagon, which you speak of as being opposed to the draft, has a number of PNAC signatories amongst its top brass these days, does it not?

Simey, how else do you propose to staff their agenda with the soldiers it will take to carry it out?

I haven't read the book, so I don't know what "their agenda" is, or what it might demand from the military. Nor is it anything more than a book. I doubt, however, that there is any chance of military conquest of large regions of the world. It's just not on the cards, and I doubt very much that Perle is advocating anything so crude.

There isn't going to be another draft. Don't worry about that. As I said, the military doesn't want it, or need it, and Congress doesn't want it either. More importantly, nor does the public, and ultimately, the Congress isn't going to do anything without public support.

I do predict that the Army will be expanded by about two divisions. It's going to have to be, not to create an invasion force, but to take pressure of the reserves. There just aren't enough troops to meet current obligations. But that won't require a draft. The Army was 8 divisions larger at the end of the Cold War (when I first volunteered). We were able to maintain an Army of that size with all volunteers then, we could do it now. You only need the draft to fight a war like WW-II. Nobody is going to do that.

BTW, "the brass" means the top military leadership in uniform. It does not mean civilian leaders. I am not aware of any military uniformed "PNAC signatories."

[thunderous_funker]

Perle advocating attacks on Iran, Syria and North Korea, eh?

I guess he's got some deals lined up or something. Hollinger International looking to acquire media outlets in the middle east perhaps? Far east?

Does Trireme Partners have an inside position on some hot new military hardware that will "eliminate evil" if the Pentagon is willing to buy it?

Like so many "idealists" in the current regime, Perle has very nasty habit of getting quite rich from the wars he ceaselessly champions.

And considering just how pathetically wrong nearly all of his predictions about Iraq have turned out to be, why is anyone listening to him any more anyway?

[haunebu]

Gross. It has more to do with defending Israel (again). Take out all their enemies (or in the far out case of France, critics) and maybe the legitimate concern (N. Korea) in the process, just to show a bit of objectivity.

Jews like Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. holding dual citizenship (and dual loyalties) between the US and Israel, should be tried for treason.

[WinsOBoogi]

Originally posted by haunebu:
Jews like Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. holding dual citizenship (and dual loyalties) between the US and Israel, should be tried for treason.

Israel wouldn't want them.

And I hope that was against Perle and Wolfowitz, and not jews...

If yes, I'll be back in a tad.

[theolein]

::Wonder if it all that clever to posts here:: I don't know what they hope to achieve with an agenda like this. The invasion of Iraq has been quite a costly venture and invading Syria and Iran would probably be more than the US could handle at the moment. On the other hand, the agenda calls for regime change, not invasion, so probably it means increased hostility and outright provocation with respect to Syria and Iran, and preperations for a war with North Korea.

The US is in a good strategic position to make attacks on Syria and Iran from its bases in Iraq, and would probably be able to handle an attack by North Korea.

The political consequences would probably be quite bad though. I suppose it would make terrorism increase a bit but it would probably also not enjoy any sympathy amongst the other Arab Moslem nations, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Egypt. In any case I think the US should have done more against Pakistan, as it seems that Pakistan is the one that has been supplying NK, Iran and Libya with nuclear materials and know how all these years. (There was an NYTimes article on this 2 days ago)

The bit about being either for Paris or Washington is a bit strange, but that is already on the cards I think, as the US has recently blocked plans for a Fusion research centre being built in France in favour of Japan, openly stating that this was because France opposed the US in Iraq. (I still fail to see why the Americans are so upset about this, but still). Forcing Europeans to choose between France and the US could set off some particularly nasty incidents in Europe. The US basically bribing the Poles to buy US F-16 fighters instead of Swedish Gripens or French Mirage 2000 is probably also part of this strategy.

That this can also backfire can be seen in the Czech example where the American ambassador threatened the Czechs with worse relations between the US and them if the Czechs bought Swedish planes instead of US ones. The Czechs were quite upset, as the story got out into the media, and they bought Swedish ones in the end.

We'll see. I think that the US should concentrate on finishing what it started in Afghanistan and Iraq before it starts off on new ventures.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by haunebu:
Gross. It has more to do with defending Israel (again). Take out all their enemies (or in the far out case of France, critics) and maybe the legitimate concern (N. Korea) in the process, just to show a bit of objectivity.

Jews like Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. holding dual citizenship (and dual loyalties) between the US and Israel, should be tried for treason.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Perle advocating attacks on Iran, Syria and North Korea, eh?

I guess he's got some deals lined up or something. Hollinger International looking to acquire media outlets in the middle east perhaps? Far east?

Does Trireme Partners have an inside position on some hot new military hardware that will "eliminate evil" if the Pentagon is willing to buy it?

That's it. I've had enough. I'm selling my Star Wars action figures and light sabers to the military. I better start donating to politicians first.

[haunebu]

Originally posted by Joshua:

[vmpaul]

FYI: Perle's on Fresh Air tomorrow (1/7)

Fresh Air
with Terry Gross
Terry talks about the war on terrorism with two self-described "hardliners" within the Bush administration. David Frum is former special assistant to President Bush... and Richard Perle is former chair of the Defense Policy Board. Their new book is "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror."