Brzezinski Lost His Marbles (NYT) on US-China Problems
Kathleen
ca...@drcarolgoodheart.com, lPick...@cdc.gov, Durlan...@yale.edu,
Aa...@columbia.edu, gary_w...@nymc.edu,
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, margaret...@hhs.fds.gov,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@ct.gov, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@ct.gov, kur...@washpost.com, georg...@washpost.com,
p...@allegorypress.com, commissi...@po.state.ct.us,
brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us,
freet...@charter.net, scott....@po.state.ct.us,
govern...@po.state.ct.us, attorney...@ct.gov,
randall...@usdoj.gov, Robert....@yale.edu, editor@greenwich-
post.com, harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, saint....@sbcglobal.net
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com,
rast...@aol.com, billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com,
rjmu...@aol.com, paulcrai...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: Brzezinski Lost His Marbles (NYT) on US-China Problems
Date: Jan 3, 2011 5:20 AM
ARTICLE BELOW
===========================================
The corporations stifled US innovation through
the torture of whistleblowers and especially
since the Mossad-CIA performed the 911 stunt
http://www.actionlyme.org/070426.htm
http://www.911missinglinks.com/2010/06/29/former-head-of-studies-for-army-war-college-israel-did-911/
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/e2dfa974ef75a8a1?hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7877765982288566190&hl=en#
(ISRAELI WEAPONS THEIVES:)
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/
and focused what was left of out national wealth
on the war machine in order to "secure" Middle
Eastern Oil - rendering the whole world a
"terror" suspect.
This, while all along the American/Western point
of view re the Chinese was that their lack of
grace and talent re their own innovation was blamed
on their torture of whistleblowers/would-be
innovators.
You can't have one without the other;
Free Speech/Thought is the source of innovation.
I am not just talking about "Lyme Disease"
and the missed opportunities in discovery re
mechanisms of nearly all diseases (fungal antigens
activate viruses and mutate immune cells in their
own right
http://www.actionlyme.org/101016.htm
I am talking about, also, how the Energy
companies bought up all the patents re energy
capture and transfer devices so that they
will not be developed and sold through
competing organizations.
As an aside, look how many articles are
out today quoting the FOOL Anthony Fauci
on a new kind of immune-incompetence:
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=chronic+granulomatous+
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-29/tiny-germ-fighting-molecules-mean-survival-from-rare-immunity-deficiency.html
Big News about a little disease that
affects 1200 Americans!? A new mechanism
of immune incompetence??
Jackass.
That's an obvious first step towards admitting
immunosuppression reality/mechanisms. 'No
doubt going to be a crooks' defense against the
lie of OspA/Dearborn as a concept supported
by INSURANCE COMPANIES MANAGING GLOBAL
http://www.actionlyme.org/CRYME_DISEASE.htm
MEDICINE and the dickless DOJ still refuses
to prosecute the fraud. Why? They're too
afraid of going up against insurance company
lawyers. Why? Because they're known to be
so vicious and CRIMINAL...
This Energy-Monopoly has been Rockefeller's
game for 130 years. Are we expected to
forget that the WTC was built by the
Rockefellers and that Rockefeller Center
housed the OSS - the strategic Brain
Center for WWII, and which developed
into the CIA,... and for whom Brzezinski
and Kissinger has always worked?
No. We did not vote for George Bush
and his oil wars. WE SAID NO!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/6940a8d9e0024621/8591b95e0ece47f7?q=Bush%2FGore+ENERGY+&rnum=1#8591b95e0ece47f7
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_frm/thread/e4359868117b8d81/e066f6566802741e?q=lehrer+bush+gore+bombs+bursting+in+air&rnum=1#e066f6566802741e
We did not vote for Queen Queer Napolitano
and the huge collections of fools who spy on
and grope Americans in order to squeeze the
intellectual life out of them.
This Israeli-like 21st Century American
Paranoia is similar to the Israeli-like
Doctrine of the Energy *FRAUD* and Monopolist
Rockefeller: "It's just business."
AND:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/chapt04.html#Kol_Nidre
"The Talmud Mishna states: "EVERY VOW WHICH I MAY MAKE IN THE
FUTURE SHALL BE NULL. HIS VOWS ARE THEN INVALID PROVIDING THAT HE
REMEMBERS THIS AT THE TIME OF THE VOW." The Kol Nidre is repeated on
the
following page. Discounting the irrelevant "filler" about a man eating
with his friend, we see in a footnote (Exhibit 172)"
Brzesinski is worried be cause he all
along was the cocoanut-clacker for
Mr. Rockefeller/Enron, et al, re the
Iraq, Afghanistan and the Pipelines Show.
And now that the whole thing FLOPPED due to
PURE ARROGANCE (long for "S T U P I D I T Y"),
this clown is worried we might offend China.
http://www.actionlyme.org/BIN_LADEN_BUSH_PART_I.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/BUSH_BIN_LADEN.htm
Grow a pair, Mister. And tell the story
straight. It's the only hope we have.
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
==============================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03brzezinski.html?_r=1&hp
Op-Ed Contributor
How to Stay Friends With China
By ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI
Published: January 2, 2011
Washington
THE visit by President Hu Jintao of China to Washington this month
will be the most important top-level United States-Chinese encounter
since Deng Xiaoping’s historic trip more than 30 years ago. It should
therefore yield more than the usual boilerplate professions of mutual
esteem. It should aim for a definition of the relationship between the
two countries that does justice to the global promise of constructive
cooperation between them.
I remember Deng’s visit well, as I was national security adviser at
the time. It took place in an era of Soviet expansionism, and
crystallized United States-Chinese efforts to oppose it. It also
marked the beginning of China’s three-decades-long economic
transformation — one facilitated by its new diplomatic ties to the
United States.
President Hu’s visit takes place in a different climate. There are
growing uncertainties regarding the state of the bilateral
relationship, as well as concerns in Asia over China’s longer-range
geopolitical aspirations. These uncertainties are casting a shadow
over the upcoming meeting.
In recent months there has been a steady increase in polemics in the
United States and China, with each side accusing the other of pursuing
economic policies that run contrary to accepted international rules.
Each has described the other as selfish. Longstanding differences
between the American and the Chinese notions of human rights were
accentuated by the awarding of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese
dissident.
Moreover, each side has unintentionally intensified the suspicions of
the other. Washington’s decisions to help India with nuclear energy
have stimulated China’s unease, prompting increased Chinese support
for Pakistan’s desire to expand its own nuclear energy potential.
China’s seeming lack of concern over North Korea’s violent skirmishes
with South Korea has given rise to apprehension about China’s policy
on the Korean peninsula. And just as America’s unilateralism has in
recent years needlessly antagonized some of its friends, so China
should note that some of its recent stands have worried its neighbors.
The worst outcome for Asia’s long-term stability as well as for the
American-Chinese relationship would be a drift into escalating
reciprocal demonization. What’s more, the temptations to follow such a
course are likely to grow as both countries face difficulties at home.
The pressures are real. The United States’ need for comprehensive
domestic renewal, for instance, is in many respects the price of
having shouldered the burdens of waging the 40-year cold war, and it
is in part the price of having neglected for the last 20 years
mounting evidence of its own domestic obsolescence. Our weakening
infrastructure is merely a symptom of the country’s slide backward
into the 20th century.
China, meanwhile, is struggling to manage an overheated economy within
an inflexible political system. Some pronouncements by Chinese
commentators smack of premature triumphalism regarding both China’s
domestic transformation and its global role. (Those Chinese leaders
who still take Marxist classics seriously might do well to re-read
Stalin’s message of 1930 to the party cadres titled “Dizzy With
Success,” which warned against “a spirit of vanity and conceit.”)
Thirty years after their collaborative relationship started, the
United States and China should not flinch from a forthright discussion
of their differences — but they should undertake it with the knowledge
that each needs the other. A failure to consolidate and widen their
cooperation would damage not just both nations but the world as a
whole. Neither side should delude itself that it can avoid the harm
caused by an increased mutual antagonism; both should understand that
a crisis in one country can hurt the other.
For the visit to be more than symbolic, Presidents Obama and Hu should
make a serious effort to codify in a joint declaration the historic
potential of productive American-Chinese cooperation. They should
outline the principles that should guide it. They should declare their
commitment to the concept that the American-Chinese partnership should
have a wider mission than national self-interest. That partnership
should be guided by the moral imperatives of the 21st century’s
unprecedented global interdependence.
The declaration should set in motion a process for defining common
political, economic and social goals. It should acknowledge frankly
the reality of some disagreements as well as register a shared
determination to seek ways of narrowing the ranges of such
disagreements. It should also take note of potential threats to
security in areas of mutual concern, and commit both sides to enhanced
consultations and collaboration in coping with them.
Such a joint charter should, in effect, provide the framework not only
for avoiding what under some circumstances could become a hostile
rivalry but also for expanding a realistic collaboration between the
United States and China. This would do justice to a vital relationship
between two great nations of strikingly different histories,
identities and cultures — yet both endowed with a historically
important global role.
Zbigniew Brzezinski was the national security adviser in the Carter
administration.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on January 3, 2011, on page
A21 of the New York edition.
KMDickson