There does indeed some backing up of rhetoric with action between the neocons and the White House. RawStory recently ran an article that said the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was okayed by Rumsfeld. Al-Jazeera also just ran a story saying that Cheney okayed an invasion several days before the invasion occurred. ...
First, for me at least, these stories, if proved, raise some disturbing questions. That is, the idea that the US is coordinating with another country to implement US foreign policy interests seems illegal. Are there any precedents for this?
Second, there's indisputable evidence in Neocon writings that they wish to invade Iran. James Risen's article in Rolling Stone reports that a plan with these same objectives was discussed and outlined in the Pentagon.
Third, Steve Clemons--a reporter with high-up contacts inside Israeli and US government--has speculated that the Israeli invasion was ana attempt to force the hand of the US to invade Iran.
Given these rather disparate facts, I think we begin to see that there's a coordinated action afoot by the Neocons/Bush admin. to carry out the long-term goal of invading Iran and perhaps Syria.
I'm open to corrections here. Perhaps this seems obvious--yet, if so, it needs to get out into the press. I believe that what we are seeing--as some pundits have noted--is a slow-motion repetition of the Iraq invasion.
All the groundwork is there: the religious right is primed with news stories about the Rapture. This has now become a common-place theme on CNN. Paula Zahn is pushing it nightly and Anderson Cooper is set to do a spot tonight.
With the religious right lined up behind "final war" scenarios, the Neocons have at least one part of their media strategy in place.
The stories about Iran and Syria backing Hisbullah is another part of this strategy. As numerous reports show, there is little hard evidence to these stories, beyond the fact that Iran provides financial and military assistance--but at levels far below those that would lead you to think that Iran wants war with Israel/US. Syria's backing for any such strategy is even less certain.
One point to note about the supposed Iranian support is that Iran's own propaganda machine carries very little on the Israeli invasion, as reported in several western news sources. There's little Iranian media support for Hisbullah's actions at the least and use of the invasion for generating some form of public support for action against Israel is non-existent.
Yet, the reigning media talk--its assumed background premises--is that Iran and Syria are indeed backing Hisbullah in nefariously clandestine ways.
One more theme that forms part of the Neocon media strategy is the attempt to paint everyone--family members, Arabs/Moslem--as Hisbullah supporters. This tactic goes so far as to make killing unarmed civilians in the vicinity of Hisbullah fair game. They have, after all, been exposed to the jihadist disease haven't they?
It's been former AF Colonel and Pentagon inhabitant Karen Kwiatkowski's contention all along that "the" US plan in Iraq all along has been to create chaos in the ME.
Let the wogs kill each other, I guess, and then the US can move in when they're all either dead or dying. William S. Burroughs had some choice takes on how the intelligence services promote anarchy and chaos to attain political objectives.
Related Links
Monday, July 31, 2006
Neocon White House Rhetoric and Action Plan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment