The SYRIA equation.

[Ocean Breeze]

Syria: The Next Iraq
Robert Dreyfuss
October 24, 2005


Robert Dreyfuss is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Va., who specializes in politics and national security issues. He is a contributing editor at The Nation, a contributing writer at Mother Jones, a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone. His book, Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, will be published by Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books in the fall .

The news from Syria shows that the neoconservative plan for the Middle East is still in play.

Three years ago, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was widely viewed as the first chapter of a region-wide strategy to remake the entire map of the Middle East. Following Iraq, Syria and Iran would be the next targets, after which the oil-rich states of the Arabian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, would follow. It was a policy driven by neoconservatives in and outside of the Bush administration, and they didn’t exactly make an effort to keep it secret. In April, 2003, in an article in The American Prospect titled “Just the Beginning ,” I wrote: “Those who think that U.S. armed forces can complete a tidy war in Iraq, without the battle spreading beyond Iraq's borders, are likely to be mistaken.” And the article quoted various neocon strategists to that effect:

"I think we're going to be obliged to fight a regional war, whether we want to or not," says Michael Ledeen, a former U.S. national security official and a key strategist among the ascendant flock of neoconservative hawks, many of whom have taken up perches inside the U.S. government. Asserting that the war against Iraq can't be contained, Ledeen says that the very logic of the global war on terrorism will drive the United States to confront an expanding network of enemies in the region. "As soon as we land in Iraq, we're going to face the whole terrorist network," he says, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and a collection of militant splinter groups backed by nations—Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia—that he calls "the terror masters."

"It may turn out to be a war to remake the world," says Ledeen.

In the Middle East, impending "regime change" in Iraq is just the first step in a wholesale reordering of the entire region.

As the war in Iraq bogged down, and as a public outcry developed in the United States against the neoconservatives over the apparently bungled war, another sort of conventional wisdom began to take flight. According to this theory, the United States no longer had the stomach—or the capability—to spread the war beyond Iraq, as originally intended. Our troops are stretched too thin, our allies are reining us in and cooler heads are prevailing in Washington—or so the theory goes.

But the news from Syria shows that the conventional wisdom is wrong. The United States is indeed pursuing a hard-edged regime change strategy for Syria. It’s happening right before your eyes. With the ever-complacent U.S. media itself bogged down in Iraq, and with the supine U.S. Congress unwilling to challenge our foreign policy apparatus, Syria is under the gun. As in Iraq, the United States is aggressively pursuing a regime change there without the slightest notion of what might come next or who might replace President Bashar Assad. Might it be the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood, by far the most powerful single force in largely Sunni Syria? Might the country fragment into pieces, as Iraq is now doing? The Bush administration doesn’t know, just as they didn’t know what might happen to Iraq in 2003. But they are going ahead anyway.

It isn’t just the repercussions of the U.N.-led investigation into the assassination of former Lebanon Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, whose murder may or may not have been arranged by Syria’s intelligence service. Since 2003, the United States has sought political and economic sanctions against Syria (long before Hariri was killed); sought to isolate Syria diplomatically; singled out Syria for its support for Sunni insurgents inside Iraq; issued a series of ominous threats against the Syrian regime (“our patience is running out with Syria,” warned Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. proconsul in Iraq); and, according to an October 15 New York Times article, begun threatening “hot-pursuit” and other cross-border military action against Syria. That Times piece noted, in part:

A series of clashes in the last year between American and Syrian troops, including a prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians, has raised the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war, according to current and former military and government officials.

There is even a Syrian version of Iraq’s charlatan Ahmad Chalabi, and there are rumors that Kurdish rebels in Syria northeast, along the Iraqi border, are getting support from Iraqi Kurds who are part of the current interim government in Baghdad.

Various U.S. Syria analysts who have not swallowed the neoconservative Kool-Aid argue that the United States is pursuing Regime Change II in Syria. Among them is Flynt Leverett, a former CIA analyst now at the Brookings Institution, who suggests that Assad is moving slowly in the direction of political and economic reform—and might want our help. Others, including several former U.S. ambassadors, tell me that Syria can be a key partner in quieting down the crisis in Iraq, but U.S. belligerence is driving Syria in the other direction. And Scott Ritter and Sy Hersh, speaking in New York last week, noted that Syria (and its spy services) has been an important behind-the-scenes partner in attacking Al Qaeda since 2001. But "So what?" argue the neoconservatives. It’s regime-change time, and they won’t let rational arguments get in their way.

The brilliant Syria weblog Syria Comment, written by Joshua Landis, had this to say on Sunday:

Here is a most extraordinary letter from Syria's Ambassador in Washington Imad Mustapha to Congresswoman Sue Kelly, which has come into my possession. It explains how the American Administration has been stonewalling Syrian cooperation on a host of issues. It explains how Syria is being set up to fail so that the US can isolate it and carry out a process of regime-change at the expense of Iraqi stability and the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. It explains how the U.S. administration's policy of forcing regime change in Syria is trumping the need to save lives in Iraq. …

For over a year Syria has been trying to cooperate with the West on the Iraq border, on the issue of terrorism finance, on the issue of stopping Jihadists from getting into Syria, on intelligence sharing, and on stabilizing Iraq.

Washington has consistently refused to take "Yes" as an answer. Why? The only credible reason is because Washington wants regime change in Syria.

Read the rest of Landis here, including the astonishing full text of Ambassador Mustapha’s letter.

So I ask: Is it possible, after everything we’ve learned about the Bush administration’s lies and deception over Iraq, after the staggering cost of that misguided war to the United States, is it possible that the American body politic is going to let Bush, Cheney and Co. get away with shattering another Middle East state?

It’s possible. Because it’s happening.

 

[Nascar_James]

Mark my words, Syria will be next. It's not a question of if, but when. Our global war on terrorism has no borders. The Syrian government is both supporting and harboring the terrorist insurgents that are entering Iraq from Syria.

We already know Syria was heavily involved with terrorism before the global war on terrorism started. Syria provides support to Hamas, a known terrorist organization and lets Hamas members roam freely to go about their operations without arresting the individuals involved. If the Syrian government was truly interested in fighting terrorism, it would tear down the operational headquarters Hamas has in Damascus.

At this stage I am predicting that it is more than likely that we will go after Syria. It's bad enough that we have Al Qaeda roaming about, but state sponsored terrorism is completey unacceptable. We need to continuously enforce a zero tolerance policy towards terrorism.

In addition, a United Nations report has recently accused a senior Syrian intelligence Officer of being behind the assasination of Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's former Prime Minister. Looks like Bashar al-Assad is a chip off the old block. Like father like son. It appears terrorism is deeply rooted within the Assad family.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Our global war on terrorism

:roll: :roll: :roll:


your "global war on "terror " is a SHAM. and an EXCUSE to keep invading and KILLING.

You have not yet comprehended the difference between WAR and terrorism and that WAR is not the solution to terrorism.

With that attitude ...........you can look forward to many many years of anti americanism....... as for all intents and purposes this defines how uninformed. and intellectually challenged ya all are.

...........LOVE your wars , don't cha?? Love all that KILLING.......while the terrorists sit back and laugh their heads off at your stupidity.-------knowing all along they are in control and also the REAL REASONS for all these shagging invasions. You ain't fooling no one anymore. Repeating (parroting) the party line is getting more comical every day.

seems that you (america) has elevated BLOOD "sports" to a whole new and vile level.

 

[Nascar_James]

Our global war on terrorism

:roll: :roll: :roll:


your "global war on "terror " is a SHAM. and an EXCUSE to keep invading and KILLING.

You have not yet comprehended the difference between WAR and terrorism and that WAR is not the solution to terrorism.

With that attitude ...........you can look forward to many many years of anti americanism....... as for all intents and purposes this defines how uninformed. and intellectually challenged ya all are.

...........LOVE your wars , don't cha?? Love all that KILLING.......while the terrorists sit back and laugh their heads off at your stupidity.-------knowing all along they are in control and also the REAL REASONS for all these shagging invasions. You ain't fooling no one anymore. Repeating (parroting) the party line is getting more comical every day.

So Ocean are you saying we should give in to the terrorists? Well, if you want them to dictate policy and take the pants off of your back, it's your call. As for me, I will keep supporting a zero tolerance approach as any civilized person would do.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

are you saying we should give in to the terrorists?

another party line parrotted for the masses. Sheesh..... Are you that unable to see beyond simplistic bush rhetoric ??? There are many more options in dealing with the terrorist issue .....than "WAR or give in to them"

Does not take a rocket scientist to list only a few that are much more constructive .

Furthermore..... IF you really want to put a stop to terrorism.......look at what YOU are doing to foster it . Cause and effect. You have been treating other nations like sh** for years now. Did you not expect some kind of retaliation at some form?? If you treated other nations.......fair , square and rational...... you might be taking the first step to addressing the issue.

for the record. Would not worry about giving in to terrorism.....as you already have. BIG TIME. You gave them exactly what they wanted.......unrest, WAR, destruction , chaos and turbulence.. And the more wars you start the more you will be playing into their hands.

Not too difficult to comprehend that process , now is it??

 

[Nascar_James]

are you saying we should give in to the terrorists?

for the record. Would not worry about giving in to terrorism.....as you already have. BIG TIME. You gave them exactly what they wanted.......unrest, WAR, destruction , chaos and turbulence.. And the more wars you start the more you will be playing into their hands.

Not too difficult to comprehend that process , now is it??

Excatly what they wanted, Ocean? On 9/11 we paid a heavy price when the terrorists started the war. Since that fateful day, many of the terrorists have paid a heavy price as well. The Al Qaeda organization is only a shell of it's former self. It's leader is in hiding. Many of it's leaders are either in jail or dead. Not to mention the thousands of terrorists that are currently in custody. The Taliban is out of power. Is this what the terrorists wanted? Is this how we're playing into their hands?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

are you saying we should give in to the terrorists?

for the record. Would not worry about giving in to terrorism.....as you already have. BIG TIME. You gave them exactly what they wanted.......unrest, WAR, destruction , chaos and turbulence.. And the more wars you start the more you will be playing into their hands.

Not too difficult to comprehend that process , now is it??

Excatly what they wanted, Ocean? On 9/11 we paid a heavy price when the terrorists started the war. Since that fateful day, many of the terrorists have paid a heavy price as well. The Al Qaeda organization is only a shell of it's former self. It's leader is in hiding. Many of it's leaders are either in jail or dead. Not to mention the thousands of terrorists that are currently in custody. The Taliban is out of power. Is this what the terrorists wanted? Is this how we're playing into their hands?

sorry james.........please do NOT bring up 9-11 as an arguement for ANYTHING now. You have got your revenge plenty fold. and furthermore YOUR WAR in Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11 and your criminal gov't will keep lying to you as to who is supporting terrorism so they can invade for their own malitious lies. Ask ho big a price the Iraqis have paid for YOUR GREED??? Another thousand troops and YOU will have KILLED as many of your own as the so called terrorists did on 9-11. (and this does not count the AFgans you killed ( btw: anyone keeping track of the US slaughter there?? // let alone the Iraqis that have been KILLED.

9-11 was a terrorist attack. NOT an military invasion that connotes WAR........... It is just that your whacky criminal in chief WANTED war and 9-11 gave him the opportunity for his own agenda. And he played the americans for suckers.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

The Anti-Syria Scam
by Paul Craig Roberts
by Paul Craig Roberts



Someone should tell Condi Rice that the gig is up. With the Bush administration dissolving in illegalities committed by key officials in their attempts to protect the lies that they used to justify the US invasion of Iraq, the secretary of state is trying to ramp up war against Syria.

Grasping a UN report that uses unreliable witnesses to implicate Syria in the assassination of a former Lebanese government official, Condi Rice told the BBC on October 23 that Syria’s crime cannot be "left lying on the table. This really has to be dealt with."

This is amazing for many reasons. Here is the person in charge of US diplomacy acting as if she is the secretary of war unsheathing military force. Whoever heard of an American diplomat wanting to start a war because a former Middle Eastern government official was assassinated?

The UN investigator, Detlev Mehlis, has no more idea who assassinated the former official than the US knows who is responsible for assassinating the many Iraqi officials under its protection. After more than two and one-half years of war in Iraq, the US still doesn’t know exactly who the enemy is that it is fighting. Yet Mehlis blames Syria for an assassination on the strength of an informer described by the German news magazine, Der Spiegal, as a convicted felon and swindler.

On the basis of the word of a convicted felon and swindler, Condi Rice wants a high level UN Security Council meeting to condemn Syria so the Bush administration can bring about "regime change" in Syria.

With the US department of state doing everything it can to demonize and destabilize Syria, Condi Rice’s mouthpiece, Adam Ereli, declared that Syria must end attempts to destabilize its neighbors. This is the type of propaganda we were fed about Iraq. Syria is not destabilizing any country. It is all Syria can do to maintain its own stability. The US is the great Middle Eastern destabilizer.

Isn’t the secretary of state aware that the government of which she is a part is in dire difficulties because it went to war based on highly unreliable "intelligence" supplied by highly unreliable people?

Does the secretary of state read the CIA reports? Doesn’t she know that the US has created extraordinary instability in Iraq? A country that formerly had no terrorists now serves as a training ground for al Qaeda, according to the CIA.

Is this the time to repeat the Iraq blunder in Syria?

The American people should be terrified by the warmongering ideologues that President Bush has put in charge of his government. The greatest danger that the US faces are the fools in the Bush administration.

Why is Syria being demonized? Syrian troops were part of the US coalition organized by President George Herbert Walker Bush that liberated Kuwait in 1991 from Saddam Hussein. The current head of government in Syria is a mild mannered ophthalmologist who inherited the post five years ago when his older brother was killed in a car crash.

Syria has done nothing to the US and poses no threat to the US. The Syrian government is concerned about Syria becoming unhinged by schisms like the Sunni-Shi’ite schism set loose in Iraq by the incompetent Bush administration.

Why does Condi Rice think the Bush administration has the right to decide who heads the Syrian government? According to news reports, the Bush administration has asked the Israeli and Italian governments to nominate a replacement for the current president of Syria.

A country incapable of choosing a better president than George W. Bush has no business choosing a president for any other country. In place of aggressive interference in the internal affairs of other countries, the US needs to find a competent president for itself.

Maybe we should ask the Italians who they would recommend.

October 25, 20

yes, Condi .....the jig (scam ) is up. Furthermore......you keep losing any credibility you may have had.

 

[connie]

Everybody has an opinion about 9/11 and its consequences, the word terrorism is often used to hide another word that is in fact war. I feel sorry to see that a country can attack another one without being help by the rest of the world. All over the world we are blaming the USA but the fact is that they are not the only country existing on earth. The only thought i have today is that i would't like to be in Irak, Afghanistan or Syria. I feel useless because the only thing i can do is to watch people suffering on TV. I think man will never understand lessons of his history and keep doing the same errors again and again.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

All over the world we are blaming the USA but the fact is that they are not the only country existing on earth

yes, the world is dissed off with the US. But there is a reason for it.......and the reason(s) have been building up for some time. Terrorism against US interests is not new......, it just culminated on 9-11. As long as the US interests were being hit outside the US..........the US was aware but indifferent. The minute they hit the US "homeland"...... it mattered. Then it became "personal". The US is the author of its own terrorism too. Cause and effect.

and you're right..........it is not the only nation on this planet.....BUT it is the only WARRING nation. And indeed, lessons from history go unheeded. ...........which is a puzzlement....as the US is supposed to be a progressive, evolved and educated nation. Something very wrong with this picture.

 

[no1important]

Bush increases pressure on Syria

US President George Bush has said using force against Syria would be a "last resort" in the dispute over its alleged role in the death of Rafik Hariri.

He said he hoped Syria would co-operate with the UN inquiry into the killing.

A UN interim report on the killing of the former Lebanese prime minister implicated Syria and Lebanon - a charge both countries deny.

The UN Security Council is to discuss the report on Tuesday, and is expected to hear calls for action against Syria.

 

[PoisonPete2]

is it not bizzarro that Israel has assassinated dozens of Palastinian leaders and there is little reaction, yet Syria is implicated in one political assassination in Lebanon and it is taken as grounds for war. Don't forget, Syria served as protector of Lebanon through both American and Isreali occupation of that war-torn country.

 

[Reverend Blair]

is it not bizzarro that Israel has assassinated dozens of Palastinian leaders and there is little reaction,

There's no oil in Palestine.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: The SYRIA equation.

is it not bizzarro that Israel has assassinated dozens of Palastinian leaders and there is little reaction, yet Syria is implicated in one political assassination in Lebanon and it is taken as grounds for war. Don't forget, Syria served as protector of Lebanon through both American and Isreali occupation of that war-torn country.

bizzarro?? Sure. ..and worse . But Israel can do no wrong in the US eyes. They are made of the same "fabric"......

looks like bush is itching to start another war. There is no rationality left in that (psychotic???) monster. Things getting too hot in washington ???? Invade another nation and divert the attention from the REAL CULPRITS. ...or try to.

the caveman in the oval office has three yrs left for at least one more war. .......

there will be no peace until every partical of the current regime is washed out of the US Regime.

The US is a warmoner...... and NOT A peaceful, or peace engendering nation. (not sure ANYONE or ANY nation is totally safe from the psychotics in washington.)

the US "war on terrorism" can be translated into "War on the world........or any nation that the US decides to invade." .......and the US is currently the BIGGEST threat , terrorist on this planet.


(an aside..........but it would not be a surprise to find out in the future............that OBL and his group worked together with the bush cabal....to orchestrate 9-11 so that the US could then start warring as they pleased to change the entire face of the ME. OBL and his ilk know a terrorist nation when they see one. the US knows an opportunist when it sees one. :evil: Both entities can be described as "evil" pesonified.)

..........are the drums of another war starting to beat??

 

[no1important]

are the drums of another war starting to beat??

Well war is one way to keep people's mind off the piss poor job "W" is doing on the homefront.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: The SYRIA equation.

are the drums of another war starting to beat??

Well war is one way to keep people's mind off the piss poor job "W" is doing on the homefront.

well, he ain't doing that great a job in foreign relations either. War is hype too. And americans love their action dolls, movies........so when this takes form in REALITY......they lose all their critical /analytical thinking.......and jump on the bandwagon for WAR. What a bunch of shagging WAR MONGERS.... must be addictive. MIght just get too boring for the likes of them if there were no wars or dissention............so they would incite same. ( immature society??? indeed)

 

[Hard-Luck Henry]

Re: RE: The SYRIA equation.

are the drums of another war starting to beat??

Well war is one way to keep people's mind off the piss poor job "W" is doing on the homefront.

I don't believe they've got the capacity, either physically or politically, to engage in another war; as it is, it currently looks like the major beneficiary of the Iraq debacle will be Iran. Not what they had planned, at all.

As far as Syria is concerned, they'll hope to force the UN and sanctions to do the job for them.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: The SYRIA equation.

are the drums of another war starting to beat??

Well war is one way to keep people's mind off the piss poor job "W" is doing on the homefront.

I don't believe they've got the capacity, either physically or politically, to engage in another war; as it is, it currently looks like the major beneficiary of the Iraq debacle will be Iran. Not what they had planned, at all.

As far as Syria is concerned, they'll hope to force the UN and sanctions to do the job for them.

Logically speaking......would agree with this. They might continue to make a lot of noise.......but not be able to back it up. Too many other problems in the US regime now too. (and even CNN is keeping a close eye on these. and reporting more about this. Mind you a "nervous" white house is not a good thing either.....as behavior can then go "unpredicatable." Plus logic is not the WH strong suit.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

October 26, 2005

No one knows who killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. We do know, however, that the main witness cited in the UN report, Zuhir Mohamed Said Saddik, "has been convicted of embezzlement and fraud among other crimes" (Der )which casts grave doubt on the credibility of his testimony.

No problem; the Bush administration has used convicted fraudsters to make their case for war before, particularly in the case of Iraq where the specious claims of Ahmed Chalabi appeared consistently on the front page of the New York Times creating the rationale for the invasion. But, Sadik’s trustworthiness is even more uncertain than Chalabi’s. "Sources in the UN say that Sadik had undeniably lied" and had received money for his testimony. "According to a statement by his brother, Sadik had called him from Paris in late summer and said, "I’ve become a millionaire!" (Der Spiegel)

Indeed; lying can be a profitable choice when it serves the greater objectives of American-Israeli foreign policy.

None of this suggests that Syrian intelligence wasn’t involved in the assassination. It very well may have been. It simply proves that the report of German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis is inconclusive and may have been the result of American coercion. At the very least, the report fits rather nicely with the Bush administration’s stated goals for regime change in Damascus and redrawing the map of the Middle East.

If Mehlis was truly serious about finding out who the assassins really are, rather than carrying out a political vendetta for the United States, he would be devoting more energy to uncovering the details related to the white Mitsubishi Canter Van that carried the explosives. The history and origins of this van, which was stolen in Japan on Oct. 12, 2004, are critical to the investigation as journalist Robert Parry points out in his recent article "The Dangerously incomplete Hariri Report". But, then, few who have been following the Hariri assassination have any misgivings about the real motives behind the Mehlis Report. The Hariri investigation is just the pretext for the forthcoming military action against Syria.

Already the western press has swung into high-gear reiterating the blistering rhetoric emerging from the White House and its acolytes’ at the State Dept. Ambassador John Bolton, the Bush administration’s mad-hatter at the UN, has repeatedly threatened Syria with swift action although the facts are still uncertain.

"This is true confessions time now for the government of Syria", Bolton warned. "No more obstruction. No more half measures. We want substantive cooperation and we want it immediately."

As many have suspected, the volatile Bolton was dispatched to the UN to pave the way for war with Syria and Iran. His baseless attacks on Damascus have done nothing to disprove that conclusion.

Fans of the much-maligned "paper of record" will be glad to see that Judith Miller’s chair at the Times has been filled by her equally-competent protégé, Warren Hoge. Hoge has already produced 4 front-page articles on the Hariri case invoking the same demagoguery, unsubstantiated allegations and damning insinuations as his mentor Miller. In essence, the Times has already condemned poor Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by framing the uncorroborated evidence in a way that excludes every other suspect and by repeating the constant refrain "sanctions" 7 times in one article alone. Judy Miller’s early retirement has not dulled the Time’s appetite for reiterating fictions on its front page. Predictably, no mention of the witness Sadik’s shaky testimony has appeared in any of America’s leading newspapers.

Sound familiar?

So, what’s the game-plan? Can the Washington warlords really be considering another invasion just to depose what Paul Craig Robert’s calls a "mild mannered ophthalmologist"?

The real reasons for regime change in Syria have less to do with Hariri’s assassin and more to do with oil and Israel. An April 20, 2003 article in the UK Observer, "Israel seeks Pipeline for Iraqi Oil", clarifies this point.

The Observer notes that Washington and Tel Aviv are hammering out the details for a pipeline that will run through Syria and "create an endless and easily accessible source of cheap Iraqi oil for the US guaranteed by reliable allies other than Saudi Arabia". The pipeline "would transform economic power in the region, bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria and solving Israel's energy crisis at a stroke."

This is the driving force behind the confrontation with Syria. At present, Bashar al Assad refuses to normalize relations with Israel until Israel surrenders the land it seized in the Golan Heights during the 1967 war. Israeli hawks have no intention of returning the land and are planning to remove al Assad instead.

It’s widely known that Israeli Intelligence (Mossad) is already operating in Mosul where the pipeline will originate and have developed good relations with the Kurds in the area. The only remaining obstacle is the current Syrian regime which has already entered the US-Israeli crosshairs.

Originally, the pipeline was the dream of the Israeli Minister for National Infrastructures, Joseph Paritzky, who said that it would "cut Israel's energy bill drastically - probably by more than 25 per cent - since the country is currently largely dependent on expensive imports from Russia."

The Observer quotes a CIA official who said: 'It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States. The Haifa pipeline was something that existed, was resurrected as a dream, and is now a viable project - albeit with a lot of building to do."

James Akins, a former US ambassador to the region and critic of the pipeline plan said, "This is a new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the United States and its ally.'"

"Wipe out Syria"? That’s pretty blunt talk from a diplomat.

Akins is not kidding. Washington and Tel Aviv are fully committed to toppling the Assad government. Many of the same people who are connected to the ongoing Fitzgerald investigation, (Wurmser, Libby, Perle, Feith, Hannah, Wolfowitz) authored a report outlining the neocon agenda in the Middle East for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. The report, "A Clean Break; A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", campaigned for the very policies that are currently being executed by the Bush administration. The strategy calls for a "roll-back" of regional threats to Israel, help to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and striking "Syrian military targets in Lebanon". To deny that America is now fighting Israel’s war is shortsighted to the point of blindness.

The title of the Wurmser-Feith’s-Pearl document tells the whole story. "A Clean Break" conveys the message that Israel should abandon giving back land in exchange for peace with the Palestinians. (as per Oslo) "Securing the Realm", however, is equally attention-grabbing in that it articulates the real objectives of its authors; to reestablish the ancient kingdom of Israel; a kingdom that will undoubtedly mean West Bank-type apartheid and Guantanamo-type justice for 1 billion Muslims in the region. Regime change in Syria is a crucial step to realizing that goal.

Syria poses no threat to America’s national security. We have no dog in this fight. The real threat is those who now operate freely within the foreign policy establishment, using the US military to further their own self-serving objectives of controlling Middle East oil and securing an imaginary Israeli empire. Neither of these is in the national interest, and both have put America’s future greatly in doubt.

( Note: "James Akins was ambassador to Saudi Arabia before he was fired after a series of conflicts with then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, father of the vision to pipe oil west from Iraq. In 1975, Kissinger signed what forms the basis for the Haifa project: a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the US would guarantee Israel's oil reserves and energy supply in times of crisis. The plan was promoted by the now Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was to be built by the Bechtel company… The memorandum has been quietly renewed every five years, with special legislation attached whereby the US stocks a strategic oil reserve for Israel EVEN IF IT ENTAILED DOMESTIC SHORTAGES - at a cost of $3 billion (Ł1.9bn) in 2002 to US taxpayers. " UK Observer)

washington WAR LORDS......indeed.


Don't think americans give a damn as to how many nations are invaded, destroyed, ,raped , tortured or mutilated. .......as they feel "safe" being the INVADING nation and under the cloak of their military "prowess." What they fail to realize is that military "prowess" has serious limitations..... but does inflate the arrogance and "confidence" of same.

 

[no1important]

Hariri son rejects Syria action

The son of slain former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has said he opposes possible sanctions against Syria in connection with the killing.

Saad Hariri's comments come as the UN Security Council is considering a plan, drafted by France, the US and the UK, to threaten Damascus with sanctions.

Mr Hariri also said he favoured setting up an international tribunal to try his father's killers once they are found.