Monday 1st of March 2021

the poisoners of the american spirit...

nasty monkeys...   We have already mentioned these two dangerous loonies, Robert Kagan and Bill Kristoll, on this site. They are the two guys who founded the PNAC… The Project for a New American Century which has been designed to implement/maintain/enlarge the US empire, including the domination of the world with“capitalism”. 

It started on the footsteps of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Weinberger — and allied with Cheney and the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski doctrine, the militarists — both influential voices in America and this seems like a telling moment on its way back.

The PNAC was the hotbed of conservative ideas/actions for Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and the Bush administration. Robert Kagan and Bill Kristoll have formed a new “think tank” since, the Foreign Policy Initiative, designed to implement war in the mind of the Democrats/Republicans alike. Now that the Democrats control the US government, these bad monkeys are pushing to pollute (if there was a need for it) the new administration… It looks more that these horrible monsters are joining the Democrats because of the “America is back” kicking butts policy of the Biden team, through the new Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, himself a neocon.


This is one of the sad state of affairs in US politics. Voters have substantially been offered in the lattest Presidential elections, two options; a) a capitalist “unfair” social system with no wars, but tough international business deals (sanctions) and b) the illusion of an internal fairer social system with neo-capitalistic invasions/wars abroad. Work it out.


War is not the only option on the gamut of interntional games. Support of dissent by whatever means is a cheaper option, including threatening a president of Ukraine with not giving him cash if he does not remove a prosecutor getting too close to the affairs of the son of an American Vice-President.

What happened in Ukraine, the funding of neo-nazis by the USA with the help of Nuland, Kagan’s wife, is happening in Belarus with the undercurrent of helping “women” fight the government. It’s matter of supporting from abroad, through CIA agents and Western media any possible colour revolution that can upset a continuum of stability in regimes that “we” don’t like. This is why there is also full “Western” support for Navalny, who at best is a small crook and has no idea on how to manage a country, or even a small country fair. But illusions prevails and this is why ASSANGE IS STILL IN PRISON. His outfit, Wikileaks, could reveal all the trickery of the USA.



Robert Kagan Sticks To His Guns

Nearly two decades after getting Iraq wrong, the foreign policy scholar wonders why Americans have lost their mettle.


by Andrew J. Bacevich


Urging his countrymen to support the then-forthcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq, Robert Kagan insisted in 2002 that “No step would contribute more toward shaping a world order in which our people and our liberal civilization can survive and flourish.” Please note: not could possibly or might, but would. Kagan was certain.

In March 2003, George W. Bush took that step. Opinions may differ, but as far as I can tell, neither our people nor our liberal civilization have flourished in the nearly two decades since. Now, however, Kagan is back. And he’s not giving an inch

The latest issue of Foreign Affairs features a new rendering of what we have come to expect from Kagan. The title, “A Superpower, Like It or Not,” is less important than the straightforwardly didactic subtitle: “Why Americans Must Accept Their Global Role.” Not should or ought to, mind you, but must. “The only hope for preserving liberalism at home and abroad,” he insists, “is the maintenance of a world order conducive to liberalism, and the only power capable of upholding such an order is the United States.” There is no alternative. Of that, Kagan remains certain.

The piece consists primarily of a tendentious reading of history since the turn of the 20th century, designed to show that the American people are always on the verge of abandoning “their proper place and role in the world” and thereby allowing the forces of darkness to run wild.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of Kagan’s narrative relates to the Iraq war that he once promoted as essential to preserving liberal civilization. As it turns out, according to Kagan, the war in Iraq and its counterpart in Afghanistan rank as minor episodes of minimal relevance to his overall thesis. Indeed, he chides those who refer to “the relatively low-cost military involvements in Afghanistan and Iraq as ‘forever wars’.” In both instances, he writes, “Americans had one foot out the door the moment they entered, which hampered their ability to gain control of difficult situations.”

Kagan offers no figures on dollars expended, ordnance dropped, or casualties inflicted or absorbed to illustrate what he means by “relatively low cost.” Nor does he explain how having one foot out the door meshes with the fact that Afghanistan and Iraq rank as the two longest wars in U.S. history. Instead, he cites popular unhappiness with these two wars as “just the latest example of [the American people’s] intolerance for the messy and unending business of preserving a general peace and acting to forestall threats.”

In other words, the problem was not the Bush administration’s rashness in framing its response to 9/11 as an open-ended global war. Nor was it the non-existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction cited to justify the Iraq war, the incompetence of senior U.S. military leaders who flubbed the occupation of countries the United States invaded, or subsequent horrors such as Abu Ghraib that made a mockery of Bush’s Freedom Agenda. Rather, the problem was that the American people lacked Robert Kagan’s commitment to preserving peace and forestalling threats.

For Kagan, the key to preserving and forestalling is to amass and employ military power. So he laments the fact that U.S. military spending as a percentage of GDP is less today than it was during the Cold War. That the United States also stations fewer troops abroad than it did during the “long twilight struggle” is another source of concern. Why these comparisons are relevant to the present moment he does not say. Nor does he note that at present the United States easily leads the planet in military expenditures and in the number of foreign bases it maintains. His bottom line is that the Pentagon needs more money and more warriors.

“The time has come,” he concludes, “to tell Americans that there is no escape from global responsibility.” Americans “need to be told honestly that the task of maintaining a world order is unending and fraught with costs but preferable to the alternative.” Kagan laments the fact that “A failure to be square with the American people has led the country to its current predicament.”

Let me suggest a different interpretation: It is time to be square with the American people about the consequences that stem from the reckless use of military power and the abuse of U.S. troops. Our actual predicament derives from the less than honest claim that history obliges the United States to pursue a policy of militarized hegemony until the end of time. Alternatives do exist.

The wonder is that the editors of Foreign Affairs have not yet caught on.

Andrew Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

The Neocons: Exit Stage Left?Bill Kristol suggests they should leave the GOP and join up with Joe Biden. Far be it from us to stand in their way.

Before the current realignment but after the one Karl Rove tried to engineer, there was yet another attempt to realign American politics. A small crew of antiwar Republicans wanted to push the neoconservatives out of the party and maybe even over to the Democrats. It made sense in a way. The neocons had always been peripatetics, having migrated away from the left during the 1960s, and with Tea Partiers like Rand Paul questioning the Bush administration foreign policy, a shift in the political tectonics seemed like a real possibility.


Now, perhaps a decade later, have we finally reached that point? Here’s Bill Kristol writing at The Bulwark:


In discussions of the Never Trump future, President Biden is the invisible man.


But why? I suppose that if you’re committed to staying in the Republican party and fighting the forces of Trump for control, Joe Biden is kind of irrelevant to your challenges. And if you’re committed to founding a third party or some kind of trans-party alliance, Biden might not matter much.

But isn’t there another pretty obvious alternative? Mightn’t one consider allying oneself with the Biden wing of the Democratic party?


Donald Trump’s ascendance saw many neocons blanch and join up with the Never Trump movement. Yet most also didn’t go so far afield as to pledge themselves to the Democrats, flirting instead with noted improv comedian Evan McMullin or a possible David French presidential run. Now Kristol is suggesting he might abandon the GOP for good. In fairness, Kristol isn’t the entirety of the Never Trump movement, but he is an influential voice therein and this seems like a telling moment.


Kristol continues:

So why not Biden? Why not Bidenism? That may not turn out to be the end solution. But surely it’s too real a possibility to be ignored. Why shouldn’t anti-Trump Republicans at least consider becoming a kind-of-Old-Republican wing of Joe Biden’s Democratic party?


Why not indeed? Just a few reasons off the top of my head: Biden is pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-climate action, pro-government-run health care, pro-government-mandated birth control, pro-amnesty, pro-tax hikes, pro-deficit, pro-debt. And fair enough: take your apostasies where you will. But for an ostensible Republican to flirt with long-term Biden support only makes sense if all of that pales in comparison to something else: Biden is an internationalist, while much of the GOP is tilting in a more nationalist direction. If internationalism is your only song, if that’s what gets you up in the morning, then maybe these days you are a Democrat.


As for the rest of us, there can be only one reaction:


they did not need 9/11...



Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President

By Neil Mackay

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). 

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' 

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'. 

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'. 

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'. 

The PNAC report also: 

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership'; 

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations'; 

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA; 

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has'; 

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China'; 

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US; 

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool'; 

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'. 

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. 

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'


Read more:



See also:

This article in the NYT IGNORES the intent of war and regime change in the middle east before 9/11... as stated above.