FRich, NYT: "Afghanistan is Kissinger's staged 'Abyss'"
Mort Zuckerman
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, 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...@po.state.ct.us, 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...@po.state.ct.us, 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...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@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,
bob.d...@latimes.com
Subject: FRich, NYT: "Afghanistan is Kissinger's staged 'Abyss'"
Date: Sep 27, 2009 5:16 AM
Answering Frank Rich, below.
==========================
Afghanistan is a NWO war:
Drug money out, US illegally acquired arms and terrorists in.
Drugs out, Terrorists in:
http://www.actionlyme.org/090925.htm
http://dissentradio.com/radio/09_09_22_giraldi_lauria.mp3
"Doug Feith and Richard Perle had access to the Pentagon to obtain
security files on people and they were passing this information thru
Marc Grossman onto the Turks and the Israelis to pass them onboard to
work for Israel and Turkey. ***There was a very definition flow of
information out of defense labs and military installations that was
going back to Turkey and Israel.
"Larry Franklin was giving information to AIPAC, which is the
grandfather of the American Turkish Council. This is all one
story.*** The US Government has the resources to investigate."
And:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/
EDMONDS:.... There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or
Saudis, under our management. ***Marc Grossman was leading it, 100
percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from
Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being
channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia.
From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes.
People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.***
GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?
EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with
NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the
U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and
Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched
were coming with suitcases of heroin.
- - - - -
Drugs Out, Terrorists and illegally acquired US weapons In.
This creates the turmoil which, according to Henry Kissinger,
will have the result of everyone begging for a New World Order,
and that New World Order will have it that "saving the earth"
comes first, above saving people. Humans.
Westerners, Americans at least, will buy into this baloney because
intellectually ungrounded flower-people (the deep-breathers and the
moon-gazers and the New Agers), New Age Flower People Deep
Breathers have a self-flattering purpose. People are always
looking for a new way to be Cool. People are always looking
for whatever is the New Cool:
"Relaaaax. Submit. Find the 'God-head' in You!
"Don't worry about what's going on in the world...
"Aaaah, Ooommmm"
----
Play the following Heiney video, and if you have to, advance
the dial to 5:00 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bKwH3kJew4
KISSINGER: "People will have to conclude that at some point, ordered
expectations must return under some Order.... You cannot wake
up every morning wondering what horror is going to befall you."
Get the Gig?
"Create the chaos so that people end up begging for a New
World Order."
But:
1) We know for sure that AIPAC is supplying the terrorists.
2) We know that Marc Grossman started the operation in
Turkey years before he went to the State Department.
3) We know that Israel is supplying the terrorists and Israel is
stealing US weapons data and selling it to the highest bidder,
and 4) that NATO and the CIA are helping.
NATO and the CIA would, of course, be representatives
of the US Armaments industry, like Boeing, Lockheed Martin...
So, what is Aghanistan?
A playground for this destruction, whereby, the other countries
will buy into the New World Order, give up sovereignty and their
native isms like religions, and accept a New Secular Order, where
sacrificing populations will be seen as a necessity.
Afghanistan is not a VietNam. It has a much more sinister
purpose: It is the least objectionable place on earth for
such destruction to be carried out. We, the Western World
and even the Muslim world care the least for cave people
and druggie poppy farmers who abuse their women,...
right?
CONCLUSION:
We Americans like things simple and jingoistic to create
the mnemonic: Afghanistan "The Abyss" created by Heiney,
the NWO backing Defense Bigs, and the Israelis. It's meant to
be a picture of the disorder that awaits anyone who fails to accept
the New Age. The New World Order. Population Reduction and
Control of the world's resources by the self-selected unintellectual
elite.
Therefore, to take a clue from Michael Moore and Wolf Blitzer:
What do we do about it?
What's our proposal for a solution to these phony wars?
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/26-5
PROSECUTE IT AS CRIME.
Get the Justice Department after em.
(I know. Well, it's Halloween time and we all like
to pretend. We all had Superman costumes at one
time or another....)
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
===========================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27rich.html?pagewanted=print
September 27, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Obama at the Precipice
By FRANK RICH
THE most intriguing, and possibly most fateful, news of last week
could not be found in the health care horse-trading in Congress, or in
the international zoo at the United Nations, or in the Iran slapdown
in Pittsburgh. It was an item tucked into a blog at ABCNews.com.
George Stephanopoulos reported that the new “must-read book” for
President Obama’s war team is “Lessons in Disaster” by Gordon M.
Goldstein, a foreign-policy scholar who had collaborated with McGeorge
Bundy, the Kennedy-Johnson national security adviser, on writing a
Robert McNamara-style mea culpa about his role as an architect of the
Vietnam War.
Bundy left his memoir unfinished at his death in 1996. Goldstein’s
book, drawn from Bundy’s ruminations and deep new research, is full of
fresh information on how the best and the brightest led America into
the fiasco. “Lessons in Disaster” caused only a modest stir when
published in November, but The Times Book Review cheered it as “an
extraordinary cautionary tale for all Americans.” The reviewer was, of
all people, the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, whose career began in
Vietnam and who would later be charged with the Afghanistan-Pakistan
crisis by the new Obama administration.
Holbrooke’s verdict on “Lessons in Disaster” was not only correct but
more prescient than even he could have imagined. This book’s intimate
account of White House decision-making is almost literally being
replayed in Washington (with Holbrooke himself as a principal actor)
as the new president sets a course for the war in Afghanistan. The
time for all Americans to catch up with this extraordinary cautionary
tale is now.
Analogies between Vietnam and Afghanistan are the rage these days.
Some are wrong, inexact or speculative. We don’t know whether
Afghanistan would be a quagmire, let alone that it could remotely bulk
up to the war in Vietnam, which, at its peak, involved 535,000
American troops. But what happened after L.B.J. Americanized the war
in 1965 is Vietnam’s apocalyptic climax. What’s most relevant to our
moment is the war’s and Goldstein’s first chapter, set in 1961. That’s
where we see the hawkish young President Kennedy wrestling with
Vietnam during his first months in office.
The remarkable parallels to 2009 became clear last week, when the
Obama administration’s internal conflicts about Afghanistan spilled
onto the front page. On Monday The Washington Post published Bob
Woodward’s account of a confidential assessment by the top United
States and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal,
warning that there could be “mission failure” if more troops aren’t
added in the next 12 months. In Wednesday’s Times White House
officials implicitly pushed back against the leak of McChrystal’s
report by saying that the president is “exploring alternatives to a
major troop increase in Afghanistan.”
As Goldstein said to me last week, it’s “eerie” how closely even these
political maneuvers track those of a half-century ago, when J.F.K. was
weighing whether to send combat troops to Vietnam. Military leaders
lobbied for their new mission by planting leaks in the press. Kennedy
fired back by authorizing his own leaks, which, like Obama’s,
indicated his reservations about whether American combat forces could
turn a counterinsurgency strategy into a winnable war.
Within Kennedy’s administration, most supported the Joint Chiefs’
repeated call for combat troops, including the secretaries of defense
(McNamara) and state (Dean Rusk) and Gen. Maxwell Taylor, the
president’s special military adviser. The highest-ranking dissenter
was George Ball, the undersecretary of state. Mindful of the French
folly in Vietnam, he predicted that “within five years we’ll have
300,000 men in the paddies and jungles and never find them again.” In
the current administration’s internal Afghanistan debate, Goldstein
observes, Joe Biden uncannily echoes Ball’s dissenting role.
Though Kennedy was outnumbered in his own White House — and though he
had once called Vietnam “the cornerstone of the free world in
Southeast Asia” — he ultimately refused to authorize combat troops. He
instead limited America’s military role to advisory missions. That
policy, set in November 1961, would only be reversed, to tragic ends,
after his death. As Bundy wrote in a memo that year, the new president
had learned the hard way, from the Bay of Pigs disaster in April, that
he “must second-guess even military plans.” Or, as Goldstein
crystallizes the overall lesson of J.F.K.’s lonely call on Vietnam
strategy: “Counselors advise but presidents decide.”
Obama finds himself at that same lonely decision point now. Though he
came to the presidency declaring Afghanistan a “war of necessity,”
circumstances have since changed. While the Taliban thrives there, Al
Qaeda’s ground zero is next-door in nuclear-armed Pakistan. Last
month’s blatantly corrupt, and arguably stolen, Afghanistan election
ended any pretense that Hamid Karzai is a credible counter to the
Taliban or a legitimate partner for America in a counterinsurgency
project of enormous risk and cost. Indeed, Karzai, whose brother is a
reputed narcotics trafficker, is a double for Ngo Dinh Diem, the
corrupt South Vietnamese president whose brother also presided over a
vast, government-sanctioned criminal enterprise in the early 1960s.
And unlike Kennedy, whose C.I.A. helped take out the Diem brothers,
Obama doesn’t have a coup in his toolbox.
Goldstein points out there are other indisputable then-and-now
analogies as well. Much as Vietnam could not be secured over the
centuries by China, France, Japan or the United States, so Afghanistan
has been a notorious graveyard for the ambitions of Alexander the
Great, the British and the Soviets. “Some states in world politics are
simply not susceptible to intervention by the great powers,” Goldstein
told me. He also notes that the insurgencies in Afghanistan and
Vietnam share the same geographical advantage. As the porous border of
neighboring North Vietnam provided sanctuary and facilitated support
to our enemy then, so Pakistan serves our enemy today.
Most worrisome, in Goldstein’s view, is the notion that a recycling of
America’s failed “clear and hold” strategy in Vietnam could work in
Afghanistan. How can American forces protect the population, let alone
help build a functioning nation, in a tribal narco-state consisting of
some 40,000 mostly rural villages over an area larger than California
and New York combined?
Even if we routed the Taliban in another decade or two, after
countless casualties and billions of dollars, how would that stop Al
Qaeda from coalescing in Somalia or some other criminal host state?
How would a Taliban-free Afghanistan stop a jihadist trained in
Pakistan’s Qaeda camps from mounting a terrorist plot in Denver and
Queens?
Already hawks are arguing that any deviation from McChrystal’s combat-
troop requests is tantamount to surrender and “immediate withdrawal.”
But that all-in or all-out argument, a fixture of the Iraq debate, is
just as false a choice here. Obama is not contemplating either
surrender to terrorists or withdrawal from Afghanistan. One prime
alternative is the counterterrorism plan championed by Biden. As The
Times reported, it would scale back American forces in Afghanistan to
“focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan.”
Obama’s decision, whichever it is, will demand all the wisdom and
political courage he can muster. If he adds combat troops, he’ll be
extending a deteriorating eight-year-long war without a majority of
his country or his own party behind him. He’ll have to explain why
more American lives should be yoked to the Karzai “government.” He’ll
have to be honest in estimating the cost. (The Iraq war, which the
Bush administration priced at $50 to $60 billion, is at roughly $1
trillion and counting.) He will have to finally ask recession-battered
Americans what his predecessor never did: How much — and what — are
you willing to sacrifice in blood and treasure for the mission?
If Obama instead decides to embrace some variation on the Biden
option, he’ll have a different challenge. He’ll face even more violent
attacks than he did this summer. When George Will wrote a recent
column titled “Time to Get Out of Afghanistan,” he was accused of
“urging retreat and accepting defeat” (by William Kristol) and of
“waving the bloody shirt” (by Fred Kagan, an official adviser to
McChrystal who, incredibly enough, freelances as a blogger at National
Review). The editorial page at Will’s home paper, The Washington Post,
declared that deviating from McChrystal’s demand for more troops
“would both dishonor and endanger this country.” If a conservative
columnist can provoke neocon invective this hysterical, just imagine
what will be hurled at Obama.
But the author of “Lessons in Disaster” does not believe that a change
in course in Afghanistan would be a disaster for Obama’s young
presidency. “His greatest qualities as president,” Goldstein says,
“are his quality of mind and his quality of judgment — his
dispassionate ability to analyze a situation. If he was able to do
that here, he might more than survive a short-term hit from the
military and right-wing pundits. He would establish his credibility as
a president who will override his advisers when a strategy doesn’t
make sense.”
Either way, it’s up to the president to decide what he thinks is right
for the country’s security, the politics be damned. That he has
temporarily pressed the pause button to think it through while others,
including some of his own generals, try to lock him in is not a sign
of indecisiveness but of confidence and strength. It is, perhaps,
Obama’s most significant down payment yet on being, in the most
patriotic sense, Kennedyesque.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci