<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt" size=3>Thanks for engaging in this discussion! </FONT><BR>
<FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt" size=3></FONT> <BR>
<FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt" size=3>I am, by NO MEANS, an expert on Zbig. However, </FONT><FONT size=3>Mr. Founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbig, is NOT a 9/11 whistleblower, I can assure you of that. He has been confronted on several occassions by 9/11 Truth activists, and he has shunned them away in hate and rage. He IS a war-monger, to be sure. He, like the PNAC boys, needed 9/11 to further his agenda of imperialism with the U.S. in charge, and he got it. </FONT><BR>
<FONT size=3></FONT> <BR>
<FONT size=3>Yes, he has criticized Bush and serveral of his policies and decisions, which is good. However, his life-long pursuit of attacking Pakistan and keeping the Soviets and China in check is well documented in Grand Chessboard. I would be willing to bet that when Obama suggested bombing Pakistan last year, that was Zbig talking. And, sure enough, we started bombing Pakistan a few months ago - Zbig and Obama got their wishes.</FONT><BR>
<FONT size=3></FONT> <BR>
<FONT size=3>WMDs or not, NOTHING would have justified our illegal war of aggression in Iraq. </FONT><BR><BR><FONT size=3>"but assisting with stopping a form of extreme international 'domestic violence.' " </FONT><BR>
<FONT size=3></FONT> <BR>
<FONT size=3><EM>Again, I respectfully disagree, NOTHING can justify our illegal war of aggression in Afghanistan, period. It is/was under the guise of 'getting those shadowy terrorists' as Obama put, and fighting the 'good war' in Afghanistan because we needed to 'get Bin Laden' and 'stop al-Queda.' Eliminating the Taliban was not the idea, is was to ensure the pipelines were put down and secured. The U.S. was ready to go to war in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, the papers were allegedly on Bush's desk! In reality, they had no intention of 'getting Bin Laden' or stopping extreme international domestic violence. Even if they did, I don't think it's debatable that we had 'had the right' to invade their country and 'force democracy' among them, which isn't what happened or what is happening anyway.</EM></FONT><BR>
<EM><FONT size=3></FONT></EM> <BR>
<FONT size=3></FONT> <BR>
<FONT size=3>"I would hope that Obama believes we've made an unspeakable mess there, and we need to clean it up -- hence more troops, but with a different focus." </FONT><BR>
<FONT size=3></FONT> <BR>
<FONT size=3><EM>Well, I have a much, much better idea: TROOPS HOME NOW! Not more violence, lost lives, endless war, torture, and trillions spent on our Defense budget. No one has ever been able to 'win' in Afghanistan ever before anyway. Plus, there are no 'winners' in that kind of a war. War is wrong. </EM></FONT><BR>
<FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<DIV><FONT size=3>And what's wrong with his statement about "securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction." That IS going on, it needs monitoring, it was Valerie Plame's operation before Bush et al shut it down by leaking her name. I understand they were pissed that her effectiveness stopped the transporting and planting of WMD in Iraq, which WOULD HAVE "justified" our invasion. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT size=3>I respectfully disagree. What's wrong here is that he is saying that the Bush doctrine is OK - bringing wars of aggression (imperialism) to other countries to secure, stop, and destroy the spread of WMDs. All the while, the U.S. clearly has the most WMDs, and the U.S. military is the biggest terrorist organization on the planet. Terrorism is also said to be what he bigger army (US) calls the smaller army (everyone else). This, of course, is only justified through the fallacy that is the so-called 'War on Terror' (a Lie). Imperialism is the motivation. </FONT></EM></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>And I think it was masterful of Obama to state an idea like this of reassurance to the American sheeple: "we must never take the military option off the table. But our first line of offense here must be sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy." I think he's saying, "in other words, you believe in war -- and I have to take that into account as I run for the presidency -- but my intention is to devotedly pursue peace.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3><EM>I hope so..! Nuking Iran....uumm...NOT a good idea, NO MATTER WHAT. </EM> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>He goes on to propound "keeping the deadliest weapons out of the world's most dangerous hands" -- yes, please! is he implying he knows who the deadliest hands really are? -- "and to form alliances to change of message of hate to an agenda of hope." Looking at his background and his wife who knows him better than anybody, he means that, ya know. She would've split long ago -- or never gotten involved -- if he were phony in any way. Fallible, sure. But not phony. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>As for not pursuing criminal charges, even Henry Waxman who is the hound who has rounded up all the criminal details on Bush/Cheney, says we probably can't pursue them because of urgent priorities.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> <EM>Again, the message is that t<FONT color=#000000>orture is OK. Lying about going to war is OK. Warrant-less wiretapping on us is OK. Wars for Empire are OK. Knowingly murdering Americans in a false-flag operation (9/11) is OK. Scaring the American public to death to justify the Bush program is OK. Proven war criminals not being accountable is OK.</FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT color=#000000 size=3></FONT></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=3>-Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT color=#000000 size=3></FONT></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3><EM><FONT color=#000000></FONT></EM></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3><EM><FONT color=#000000></FONT></EM></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3><EM><FONT color=#000000> </FONT> </EM></FONT></DIV>
<FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> <BR>
<FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
<BR>
From: dimension04@sbcglobal.net<BR>To: richardfobes@hotmail.com; citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>Subject: Re: [CitizensTruth] More questionable characters-Zbigniew, Israel, etc.<BR>Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:13:25 -0600<BR><BR><BR>
<STYLE>
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-top:0px;}
.ExternalClass BODY.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
</STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>Thanks for doing all this work on these subjects. I'm sorry I can't spend that much time myself, so maybe I am inadequately informed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>However, Jay Leno's wife was particularly outspoken on the idea that perhaps U.S. forces could stop the Taliban's brutality. Note: <STRONG>not</STRONG> "bringing/forcing democracy down a country's throat" (that IS a despicable and ludicrous idea, like Bush in Iraq) -- but assisting with stopping a form of extreme international "domestic violence." It IS debatable whether any other country has the RIGHT to do that, but -- "since we had to go in there anyway to get bin Laden" -- yeah, yeah, yeah) -- I remember "eliminating the Taliban" as being the hope.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>It was never imagined that wedding parties and other innocent lives would be involved -- it was just "going after the bad guys." Too simplistic and idealistic and misguided, as it turned out. (And too sinister in what's really all behind it.) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>I would hope that Obama believes we've made an unspeakable mess there, and we need to clean it up -- hence more troops, but with a different focus. The skills of military organization CAN BE used to help humanity -- it just depends on who's giving the orders...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>...as from your Obama quote below:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>"the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>Wisdom is what I'm talking about. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>And what's wrong with his statement about "securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction." That IS going on, it needs monitoring, it was Valerie Plame's operation before Bush et al shut it down by leaking her name. I understand they were pissed that her effectiveness stopped the transporting and planting of WMD in Iraq, which WOULD HAVE "justified" our invasion. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>And I think it was masterful of Obama to state an idea like this of reassurance to the American sheeple: "we must never take the military option off the table. But our first line of offense here must be sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy." I think he's saying, "in other words, you believe in war -- and I have to take that into account as I run for the presidency -- but my intention is to devotedly pursue peace.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>He goes on to propound "keeping the deadliest weapons out of the world's most dangerous hands" -- yes, please! is he implying he knows who the deadliest hands really are? -- "and to form alliances to change of message of hate to an agenda of hope." Looking at his background and his wife who knows him better than anybody, he means that, ya know. She would've split long ago -- or never gotten involved -- if he were phony in any way. Fallible, sure. But not phony. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>As for not pursuing criminal charges, even Henry Waxman who is the hound who has rounded up all the criminal details on Bush/Cheney, says we probably can't pursue them because of urgent priorities.</FONT><FONT size=3> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>However, Obama's got somebody on board now just in case it becomes possible. From Frank Rich:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 7.5pt"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Georgia"><FONT size=4>One of the sharpest appointments yet made by the incoming president may support decisive action: Dawn Johnsen, </FONT><A href="http://info.law.indiana.edu/sb/page/normal/1419.html"><FONT color=#000066 size=4>a law professor and former Clinton administration official</FONT></A><FONT size=4> who last week was </FONT><A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/politics/08johnsen.html"><FONT color=#000066 size=4>chosen</FONT></A><FONT size=4> to run the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 7.5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 7.5pt"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Georgia"><FONT size=4>This is the same office where the Bush apparatchik John Yoo produced his infamous memos justifying torture. Johnsen is a fierce critic of such constitutional abuses. In articles for Slate last year, she </FONT><A href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/04/03/outrage-at-the-latest-olc-torture-memo.aspx"><FONT color=#000066 size=4>wondered</FONT></A><FONT size=4> “where is the outrage, the public outcry” over a government that has acted lawlessly and that “does not respect the legal and moral bounds of human decency.” She </FONT><A href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/arar/default.aspx"><FONT color=#000066 size=4>asked</FONT></A><FONT size=4>, “How do we save our country’s honor, and our own?”</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=EC_MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Georgia"><FONT size=3>As Johnsen wrote last March, we must also “resist Bush administration efforts to hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive immunity, assertions of state privilege, and implausible claims that openness will empower terrorists.”</FONT></SPAN></P><FONT size=3></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11rich.html?_r=1&th&emc=th">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11rich.html?_r=1&th&emc=th</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>As for Zbigniew -- "a Eurasia geostrategy is the purpose of this book" -- again, I can only say I was flabbergasted one time, maybe about 2 years ago, when he spoke about all that's wrong with this. He sounded like a whistleblower, not an advocate. I remain puzzled.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Perhaps Carter and Obama just practice the cliche' -- "keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" -- in order to pick their brains and defeat their agenda.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>No more time. Thanks for input.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Connie</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT><FONT size=3>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV></FONT><FONT size=3>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=richardfobes@hotmail.com href="mailto:richardfobes@hotmail.com">Richard Fobes</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net href="mailto:citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net">Citizen's.Truth</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 12, 2009 11:03 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CitizensTruth] More questionable characters-Zbigniew, Israel, etc.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>"I remember the women's movement (despite being anti-war) being relieved that the U.S. was going in there, which would put down the Taliban, and therefore put a stop to their brutality towards all females.....Does Obama have an anti-Taliban-brutality motive -- in other words, an authentic human rights motive -- for focusing on Afghanistan?"<BR><BR>Yes, that would be nice. But even an anti-Taliban-brutality motive does NOT justify what the U.S. has done in Afghanistan, nor does it justify what Obama has promised he is going to do by increasing the presence of our military by tens of thousands, which will ultimately result in the slaughter of thousands more innocents. I don't believe "bringing" (forcing) democracy down a country's throat with a gun and murdering thousands of innocent civilians (women and children mostly) justifies the war in Afghanistan. <BR><BR>I don't know of one women that I've worked with or come across in anti-war or 9/11 Truth activism that said they were happy that we brought a war to Afghanistan, but that's just been my experience. <BR><BR>According to Obama in his speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations last April, his motives are to continue the so-called 'War on Terror' and continue our expansion of imperialistic wars of aggression:<BR><BR>... "The second way America will lead again is by building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it."<BR><BR><BR>"...We must maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world in order to defeat and deter conventional threats. But while sustaining our technological edge will always be central to our national security, the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face."<BR>...<BR>"But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That’s why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines." <BR>...<BR>"The third way America must lead again is by marshalling a global effort to meet a threat that rises above all others in urgency – securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction."<BR>...<BR>"As starting points, the world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and work to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. If America does not lead, these two nations could trigger regional arms races that could accelerate nuclear proliferation on a global scale and create dangerous nuclear flashpoints. In pursuit of this goal, we must never take the military option off the table. But our first line of offense here must be sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy."<BR>...<BR>"These are the ways we will answer the challenge that arrived on our shores that September morning more than five years ago. A 21st century military to stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar. Global efforts to keep the world’s deadliest weapons out of the world’s most dangerous hands. Stronger alliances to share information, pool resources, and break up terrorist networks that operate in more than eighty countries. And a stronger push to defea<FONT face=Verdana>t the terrorists’ message of hate with an agenda for hope around the world."</FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><FONT id=EC_EC_EC_role_document style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt" face=Verdana color=#000000 size=2>Yesterday, </FONT><A href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17317.html"><FONT id=EC_EC_EC_role_document style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt" face=Verdana color=#000000 size=2><U>Barack Obama suggested he's not likely to actively pursue criminal charges against national security officials who were directly involved in unlawful interrogations or wire-tapping, and said it would be difficult to quickly close down Guantanamo Bay.</U></FONT></A> <BR><A href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17317.html"><U><FONT id=EC_EC_EC_role_document style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt" face=Verdana color=#000000 size=2>On the question of prosecuting crimes that may have been committed during the Bush presidency in the course of the war on terror, Obama continued the theme of "looking forward as opposed to backwards" he took on the campaign trail.</FONT></U></A><BR><A href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17317.html"><U><FONT id=EC_EC_EC_role_document style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt" face=Verdana color=#000000 size=2>Asked specifically about the idea of a "9/11 commission with Independence subpoena power" to look at torture and warrantless wiretapping during the Bush years, Obama said that "We have not made final decisions, but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation'<WBR>s going to be to move forward."</FONT></U></A><BR><FONT id=EC_EC_EC_role_document style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt" face=Verdana color=#000000 size=2>So, in other words, he is sending the message that high level officials can do whatever they want to do and never have to worry about being accountable. Torture is OK. Lying about going to war is OK. Warrant-less wiretapping on us is OK. Wars for Empire are OK. Knowingly murdering Americans in a false-flag operation is OK. Scaring the American public to death to justify the Bush program is OK. <BR></FONT><BR><BR><BR>Zbigniew Brzezinski - Some of his credentials include:<BR><BR>
<UL>
<LI>Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission
<LI>Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations
<LI>Attendee and presenter at several Bilderberg conferences<BR></LI></UL><BR>Some quotes from 'Grand Chessboard':<BR><BR>"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii)<BR><BR>"It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. <B>The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book</B>.” (p. xiv)<BR><BR>
<P style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">"<STRONG>How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical.</STRONG> A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)</P>
<P style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><STRONG>“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization."</STRONG> (p.35)</P>...And there are several other telling quotes <A href="http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard">here</A><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>> From: dimension04@sbcglobal.net<BR>> To: richardfobes@hotmail.com; rmigalla@earthlink.net; citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>> Subject: Re: [CitizensTruth] More questionable characters-Zbigniew, Israel, etc.<BR>> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:18:46 -0600<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I haven't adequately looked into it, but I have at times wondered if <BR>> Brzezinski is misperceived. I remember being flabbergasted one time in an <BR>> interview where he sounded like a 9/11 Truther, sounding the alarm -- <BR>> leaving the impression that his "Grand Chessboard" book was not "what we <BR>> must do" -- like the aggression of PNAC -- but instead, that is just what IS <BR>> going on -- and that is (what we also believe) exactly what's wrong! (???)<BR>> <BR>> Also, he was Jimmy Carter's adviser, and it's hard to find a more <BR>> authentically humanitarian activist than Carter -- who even dares to openly <BR>> and frequently DIS Israel.<BR>> <BR>> As for Afghanistan -- I remember the women's movement (despite being <BR>> anti-war) being relieved that the U.S. was going in there, which would put <BR>> down the Taliban, and therefore put a stop to their brutality towards all <BR>> females. But of course, the Taliban have thrived under Bush. Does Obama <BR>> have an anti-Taliban-brutality motive -- in other words, an authentic human <BR>> rights motive -- for focusing on Afghanistan?<BR>> <BR>> As for Obama and Israel<BR>> http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/29<BR>> <BR>> The link leads off with "Obama aligns with White House..." But what the <BR>> article CLEARLY states, unlike the headline, is this:<BR>> <BR>> "So far, Obama has given no hint on his policy on the Israeli-Palestinian <BR>> conflict, though he has said finding a peace plan would be an early priority <BR>> of his administration."<BR>> <BR>> "Further, on 12/28/08, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior Bush <BR>> administration official saying he thought the Israelis launched the attack <BR>> because of uncertainty over Obama's policy."<BR>> <BR>> I've seen one or two other comments like this. The Israelis apparently have <BR>> some reasons to doubt blind loyalty from Obama, which has always been US <BR>> policy. And I remember, pre-election, a number of articles about Jewish <BR>> Americans being nervous about voting for Obama -- they saw indications he <BR>> was NOT very pro-Israel.<BR>> <BR>> For one thing, there are periodically headlines like this one in the foreign <BR>> press: "Obama will bring the end of Jewish Domination"<BR>> http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/11/04/greek-newspaper-obama-win-will-bring-%e2%80%9cthe-end-of-jewish-domination%e2%80%9d/<BR>> <BR>> And mainly -- and I am kicking myself because I failed to copy the link -- <BR>> but here's the info that I DID copy from March, 2008:<BR>> <BR>> Barack Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman is Merrill <BR>> "Tony" McPeak. McPeak is a former chief of staff of the Air Force.<BR>> <BR>> McPeak has a long history of criticizing Israel for not going back to the <BR>> 1967 borders as part of any peace agreement with Arab states. In 1976 McPeak <BR>> wrote an article for Foreign Affairs magazine questioning Israel's <BR>> insistence on holding on to the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank.<BR>> <BR>> In recent years McPeak has echoed the Mearsheimer-Walt view that American <BR>> Middle East policy is being controlled by Jews (Zionists) at the expense of <BR>> America's interests in the region. In a 2003 interview with the Oregonian, <BR>> McPeak complained of that the "lack of playbook for getting Israelis and <BR>> Palestinians together ....We need to get it fixed and only we have the <BR>> authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that."<BR>> <BR>> The interviewer then asked McPeak: "So where's the problem? State Dept.? <BR>> White House?"<BR>> <BR>> McPeak replied: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote there in favor <BR>> of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."<BR>> <BR>> Translation (as if it's needed): Jews (Zionists) -- who put Israel over <BR>> every American interest -- control America's policy on the Middle East.<BR>> <BR>> McPeak also claims that a combination of Jews and Christian Zionists are <BR>> manipulating U.S. policy in Iraq in dangerous and radical ways... Guys like <BR>> McPeak are upset because they think Jews have too much influence.<BR>> <BR>> Instead of discussing Hamas and Hezbollah, McPeak returns to his primary <BR>> target: Christian and Jews who support Israel...In other words, American <BR>> policy is the product of "religious Jews and neocons" who in McPeak's mind <BR>> are just as much to blame for a lack of peace in the Middle East as are <BR>> Hamas and Hezbollah."<BR>> <BR>> Last I checked, Obama still has McPeak on board as military adviser. There <BR>> is ample evidence, I'd say, that Obama is not as pro-Israel as is often <BR>> conveyed.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Richard Fobes " <richardfobes@hotmail.com><BR>> To: "Connie Smith " <dimension04@sbcglobal.net>; "Robin Migalla " <BR>> <rmigalla@earthlink.net>; "Truth Group (E-mail) " <BR>> <citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net><BR>> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 12:48 PM<BR>> Subject: RE: [CitizensTruth] More questionable characters<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> What is most concerning to me is Obama's foreign policy. Zbig Brzenski is a <BR>> dangerous fellow, defining the term 'hawkish' and very war hungry. Obama <BR>> promises to enhance the 'good war' in Afghanistan by tens of thousands of <BR>> troops and re-depolying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. These promises are <BR>> not humanitarian. There is no 'good war', especially the illegal war of <BR>> agression that we engaged in Afghanistan. I don't want to engage in anger <BR>> and defensiveness either in talking about Obama, but these things shouldn't <BR>> be ignored.<BR>> <BR>> This justification is under the guise of the so-called War on Terror, which <BR>> we KNOW is based on a lie that is 9/11. A more accurate decription is the <BR>> War OF Terror, including ther biggest domestic spying program in history <BR>> that Obama, unfortunately, is inheriting, not to mention the policy of <BR>> torture and the Bush doctrine of 'taking the fight to the terrorists'.<BR>> <BR>> Obama's recent FISA vote is concerning.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The promise to estabish tens of thousands of domestic troops is concerning. <BR>> His past loyalties to Israel and AIPAC is concerning, though I read an <BR>> article yesterday in the Guardian saying the Obama's transition team is <BR>> saying that they will be ready to talk to Hamas on a low-level diplomacy <BR>> level.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> While I am grateful for the change from Bush, anything would have been <BR>> better.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Obama has his plate full (overly full!). I'm encouaged by some of his <BR>> words, but not most of his words about foreign policy. His actions will be <BR>> interesting.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -Rich<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: Connie Smith <dimension04@sbcglobal.net><BR>> Sent: 1/11/2009 5:51:28 PM<BR>> To: Robin Migalla <rmigalla@earthlink.net>, Truth Group (E-mail) <BR>> <citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net><BR>> Subject: Re: [CitizensTruth] More questionable characters<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I've lost track of it now -- I didn't archive it because I thought it was<BR>> common knowledge anyway -- it being a commentary by Obama about the need to<BR>> create jobs "from the bottom up, not from the top down" -- in other words,<BR>> priority given to local business-building, not global.<BR>> <BR>> I still think he's playing it safe with APPEARING to be no threat to the<BR>> powers-that-be, initially, easing his way into power until he can (almost<BR>> safely) be who he really is -- possibly one of the greatest humanitarians we<BR>> will ever know.<BR>> <BR>> Here's someone he's appointed that's being lauded as a "brilliant pick."<BR>> Being a constitutional law professor -- gosh, we finally have a politician<BR>> who actually KNOWS the Constitution and cares about it!! -- I think this<BR>> sort of appt. shows Obama's true colors.<BR>> <BR>> by Frank Rich: "One of the sharpest appointments yet made by the incoming<BR>> president may support decisive action: Dawn Johnsen, a law professor and<BR>> former Clinton administration official who last week was chosen to run the<BR>> Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice.<BR>> <BR>> "This is the same office where the Bush apparatchik John Yoo produced his<BR>> infamous memos justifying torture. Johnsen is a fierce critic of such<BR>> constitutional abuses. In articles for Slate last year, she wondered 'where<BR>> is the outrage, the public outcry' over a government that has acted<BR>> lawlessly and that 'does not respect the legal and moral bounds of human<BR>> decency.' She asked, 'How do we save our country's honor, and our own?'<BR>> <BR>> "As Johnsen wrote last March, we must also 'resist Bush administration<BR>> efforts to hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive<BR>> immunity, its assertions of state privilege -- and the implausible claims<BR>> that openness will empower terrorists.' "<BR>> <BR>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11rich.html?_r=1&th&emc=th<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Robin Migalla" <rmigalla@earthlink.net><BR>> To: "Truth Group (E-mail)" <citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net><BR>> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:52 AM<BR>> Subject: [CitizensTruth] More questionable characters<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > Happy Sunday Everyone,<BR>> ><BR>> > Here's a new site I've just been turned onto that seems like it might be<BR>> > another lightworker among us...<BR>> ><BR>> > http://www.small-mart.org/<BR>> ><BR>> > Michael Shuman's Blog<BR>> > Ideas for Obamanomics: Post-Meltdown Thoughts (Part II)<BR>> ><BR>> > Posted on November 25, 2008<BR>> ><BR>> > Many of you were probably dancing in the streets on election night. I<BR>> > was -<BR>> > even though I identify myself as an independent. That the country will<BR>> > finally enjoy a leader who actually cares about ideas, who speaks<BR>> > grammatical English, who believes in science more than ideology, who<BR>> > doesn't see ecological or women's rights as liberal conspiracies, who<BR>> > exudes discipline, confidence, and charisma, who sincerely cares about the<BR>> > have-nots in society, and who won't always resort to war as the answer to<BR>> > every national security problem is a huge relief.<BR>> ><BR>> > But beware. Or, more precisely, be wary. Two weeks before the election, a<BR>> > Sunday talk show featured a debate between representatives of each<BR>> > campaign: Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) representing Barack Obama versus<BR>> > Senator John Kyl (R-Arizona) representing John McCain. When the debate<BR>> > turned to which candidate would improve the nation's economic<BR>> > competitiveness, the two senators agreed that the goal was to attract more<BR>> > global corporations and spent the rest of their time quibbling over the<BR>> > best means of doing so. The role of small business was relegated to Joe<BR>> > the<BR>> > Plumber.<BR>> ><BR>> > Obama's Big Thinking<BR>> > President-elect Obama has surrounded himself with the visionary captains<BR>> > of<BR>> > global capitalism - those who believe that "kinder, gentler" free trade<BR>> > and<BR>> > free finance, qualified with corporate responsibility, will save our<BR>> > fast-sinking economy. Obama's chief economic advisor during the campaign,<BR>> > Jason Furman, is best known for a paper arguing that Wal-Mart, because it<BR>> > provides cheap goods for all, is one of the most progressive corporations<BR>> > in America. Robert Reich made his career in a series of arguments in early<BR>> > issues of The American Prospect suggesting (against Laura Tyson, another<BR>> > Obama advisor) that ownership of business generally - let alone local<BR>> > ownership - no longer mattered. And as John McCain fairly observed,<BR>> > candidate Obama has surrounded himself with experts who made awful calls<BR>> > over the past decade about relaxing standards for low-income housing loans<BR>> > and deregulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all of which contributed to<BR>> > the current financial mess.<BR>> ><BR>> > What's most worrisome is that no one on the Obama A-Team understands that<BR>> > the key to revitalizing the economy and to fixing the financial crisis is<BR>> > nurturing and expanding locally owned business. But at the B- and C-Team<BR>> > levels there is enormous sympathy for the views of us locavores. So what<BR>> > should they be doing? (Full article http://www.small-mart.org/obamanomics)<BR>> ><BR>> > Color me really grateful for the internet,<BR>> > Robin<BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > CitizensTruth mailing list<BR>> > CitizensTruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/citizenstruth<BR>> > website: http://citizenstruth.info<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> CitizensTruth mailing list<BR>> CitizensTruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/citizenstruth<BR>> website: http://citizenstruth.info <BR>> <BR><BR>
<HR>
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. <A href="http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009">Check it out.</A>
<HR>
<P><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>CitizensTruth mailing list<BR>CitizensTruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/citizenstruth<BR>website: http://citizenstruth.info<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><br /><hr />Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. <a href='http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009' target='_new'>See how it works.</a></body>
</html>