Homework on Obama--Zbigniew Brzezinski

[anamandujano]

OBAMA A PUPPET OF BRZEZINSKI

If Senator Obama possessed truly exceptional
qualities of leadership or morality, it would not
be necessary to make this argument against him.
But he possesses no such superiority. Quite the
contrary. He has called very explicitly for the
bombing of Pakistan, a country 2 1/2 times larger
than Iran. Obama spoke against the Iraq war in
2003 when he was not required to vote on the
issue, but he has also voted for every Iraq
military appropriations bill in the Congress,
until this year. Most important, he is a
Manchurian candidate, reminiscent in many ways of
the disastrous Jimmy Carter of 1976. Jimmy Carter
had been chosen and groomed for the presidency by
David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the
leaders of the Trilateral Commission. When Carter
reached the White House, he turned US foreign
policy over to Brzezinski. The results were the
seizure of power by Ayatollah Khomeini, the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the founding
of Al Qaeda by the CIA as an Arab Legion to fight
the Soviets in that country. Carter turned
economic and financial affairs over to Paul Adolf
Volcker of the Federal Reserve, who raised
interest rates to 22%, thereby destroying the
industrial potential of the United States, and
contributing to a disastrous fall in the standard
of living. The chilling image of Carter as a
failed puppet president who set the stage for two
decades of reaction, labor rout, and national
decline should remind us that a candidate like
Obama must be carefully scrutinized.

The overall image consultant for Obama is none
other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, now joined by his
son Mark Brzezinski -- a veteran of the Clinton
National Security Council -- plus Mika
Brzezinski, who is leading the charge for Obama
at MS NBC. Zbig is also Obama’s foreign policy
controller. Zbigniew Brzezinski's entire life has
been dominated by his consuming, fanatical hatred
for Russia. As he approaches 80 years of age,
Brzezinski feels that he has one last chance to
dismember the Russian Federation and to partition
European Russia. This will be the great foreign
policy project of a future Obama administration.
It is certain that Zbigniew Brzezinski will join
Napoleon and Hitler in failure, but what will
become of our country? The Bush neocons have been
addicted to aggressive war, but they were at
least cunning enough to pick countries which had
no ability to strike against the continental
United States. Brzezinski lacks this cunning. He
proposes to court confrontation with Russia, the
one country, which maintains the capacity to
incinerate the United States several times over.
The Brzezinski project to be carried out under an
Obama regime is a project of incalculable folly,
tailored to the obsessions of a clique of old
central European revanchists left over from the
1930s, not to the needs of the United States in the twenty-first century.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarOnFreedom/message/4184

[silverweb]

1. Oh, what bullshit.

"He has called very explicitly for the bombing of Pakistan...."

"Zbig is also Obama’s foreign policy controller."

Long on assertions, zero evidence.

Document it.

[jillan]

4. Here ya go -

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/496909,CST-NWS-obama04.stng


Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)

[cloud75]

6. slam dunk

:spank:

[sandnsea]

12. You can thank Hillary for that

She's the one that lied and said he was going to launch military strikes and invade Pakistan. He said he would go after high value terrorist targets, which is a very different thing. Did anybody die in the riots because Hillary put her own ambitions over diplomatic relations?

[BlackVelvet04]

13. Is that some of that uniting he talks about? n/t

[anamandujano]

15. Uniting the whole world against us.

[madrchsod]

2. from a yahoo group.....

nothing more needs to be said about this post

[anamandujano]

10. Except that the person has read and thought and followed the

politics of the huge mess we are in, and is a lot smarter than you.

[anigbrowl]

23. 'A lot smarter than you'? I think you should speak for yourself.

It starts with the deeply flawed statement 'He has called for the bombing of Pakistan' and gets dumber and less and less credible from there. I've known who Zbigniew Brzezinksi is since the 70s, and while he certainly has faults worth considering the post you quote in the OP is just wildly over the top, with its daft comparisons of him to Napoleon and Hitler.

[anamandujano]

25. Read post #7. It has quotes from Brzezinski's book.

Or, you can read the whole book.

Edit to add--also read post #14 which has excerpts from a speech by Obama. It is now at his website, the man's own words.

[anigbrowl]

28. None of this is news to me.

I have had a subscription to Foreign Affairs for nearly a decade now. I don't dispute your right to criticize Brzezinski, but I don't share your view of him and think that the conclusions you are drawing are based on very superficial readings. Acknowledging that the US has interests overseas and pursues both power and political influence in energy-rich areas like the Caspian is not a dark conspiracy, it's reality.

As a parallel, I could take a whole load of quotes from Madelaine Albright (on of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy heavyweights) and cast it in such a way as to make it look like there's nothing Hillary enjoys more than a breakfast of toasted Iraqi babies. Seriously - delve into the background of her foreign policy advisers and you'll find just as much 'oh my god, that's so imperialist' material. Foreign policy, when you get down to it, is a really rough game. It's important to pursue a more ethical foreign policy (and I think Obama has a greater commitment to diplomacy than Clinton does), but it's also important to know what your winning strategy is in case your diplomatic initiatives fizzle or you are outmanoeuvered by a competitor like China (or for that matter, Russia).

It would be nice, superficially, if we could go the Dennis Kucinich route, have a department of peace, and not compete for global resources. But it would also be nice to go down the Huckabee route and abolish the IRS. Who among us wouldn't be better off if we didn't have to pay taxes or could just scrap the military and pocket the savings? These are lovely ideas, but hopelessly unrealistic.

[anamandujano]

31. It's a Defense Department, not a War Department.

Destabilizing sovereign countries so that we can steal their resources is not a good thing. It would be cheaper in the long run to just pay for it with money, instead of bombs and blood.

I'll be watching and listening to what Hillary says about foreign policy. Maybe she has something at her website. I'd like to know the details on her plans if she's elected.

At his point though, Brzezinski is a known quantity, and not a good one. If you can't see that following through on these plans is bad, and seek to rationalize Obama's stated policy, I give up but, please don't keep portraying him as some noble peace loving person.

McCain is at least honest when he says 100 years. I don't see how Obama's wars will end any sooner.

[Johnny__Motown]

3. I got to the bombing pakistan part and stopped,. that is a lie, he says he will go after Bin Laden

if there is intelligence that he is in pakistan.

He isn't talking about bombing pakistan


CLearly if they can't get through 2 sentences without a distortion like that then the rest is not worth reading.

[anamandujano]

14. He sounds just like Guliani and McCain.

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

snip

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

snip

We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim -- nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

[respublicus]

32. with his Obama bin Laden Ayer Force

[ProSense]

5. He is a long-time advocate of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq:

“Precipitous” Withdrawal Defined

This is a benefit for Obama.

[anamandujano]

7. "For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia...

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. 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 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

snip

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)

"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

From his book The Grand Chessboard

another snip

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard

I'm using this link because the person read the book (I didn't) and chose some plum quotes. You may quibble all you want about some of the other information there but these are direct quotes from his book.

[arewenotdemo]

24. I'm supporting Obama but totally agree with you about Brzezinksi.

And I've got NO fucking idea why he has that sick fuck advising him.

"The Grand Chessboard" says it all.

[anamandujano]

27. It's scary.

It appears that Obama is already taking advise from him. Read the speech at his website.

Obama is going to escalate war. He may get out of Iraq, but we are going to have other wars. It is a looming disaster, as if we don't have enough problems already.

I think we need to start showing the world that we are going to stop this aggressive shit. There is much we can do to make our country safer but turning over a new leaf with our foreign policy is crucial. We have to stop goading and provoking other countries. If we want their natural resources then we can pay for them. It can't cost as much as war, even just considering the bombs and guns. When we add in all the dead and maimed, broken families and broken spirits, it's not worth it. Pay for the oil. Pay for it.

It doesn't mean we're weak. Our defense department is supposed to be for defense.

[arewenotdemo]

30. I absolutely agree with your main contention.

I do, however, believe that we must eliminate Bin Laden and Zawahiri, wherever they are.

And I trust that Obama will pursue that mission wisely. I just completely disagree with him taking any direction from the lunatic who takes credit for suckering the Soviets into Afghanistan, and who has written the textbook for the maintenance of American "global primacy".

[ErnestoG]

8. You Hillarites still peddling this bullshit?

You really need new material. SERIOUSLY.

[boppers]

9. The 90's called.

They want their long winded conspiracy theories back.

[anamandujano]

11. It's easy to see why everyone hates us now. Do we really

want to be forced to live out Brzezinski's insane fantasies?

[Little Star]

34. I can't even stand his daughter Mika, never mind him.

[Blue State Bandit]

16. It is my understanding that it was Brzezinski who predicted the problems

we see today in "The Great Game". It was also his ideas that were utilized by the Reagan administration to bring an end to the Soviet Union, and the misuse of the same info by the Bush family that has caused the current geo-political catastrophe including the resurgence of a New Cold Warin which we have found ourselves the disadvantaged party this time.

And you might want to keep you accusations to yourself.

(edit; or at least distance yourself from it if you feel it necessary to keep decorum)

Brzezinski is his foreign policy ADVISER, not controller.

And missing of the Iranian Revolution and Invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR was due to DCI Stanfield Turner's need to rely in signal intel after purging the GHW Bush CIA.

[anamandujano]

18. Brzezinski created most of this mess running Carter's foreign policy.

Carter didn't know which end was up and needed someone to set policy. Obama also talks about getting people around him who know what's going on (because he's new and hopeful and likes to talk a lot to large groups of people).

There was no misuse of information by Bush. Bush is doing just what Brzezinski wants to do (create chaos in the middle east and steal all their natural resources), except Bush is so clumsy about it, everybody is on to them now.

If you read Obama's speech that I linked to from his website, you will see that he is following the plan set out.

Brzezinski will be in control. The quagmire will continue and spread. Any troops that come home will be sent back again soon, to the new battlefield.

[AntiFascist]

26. Please note my post on this from Feb. 9th...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2833666#2840389

I notice that the (Clintons') Progressive Policy Institute is starting to come more in line with Brzezinski's plan for the Middle East. Maybe because they were receiving too much grief for being PNAC-lite?

Brzezinski in 2006 on "The Middle East Challenge":

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001559.php

5. "The solution can only come if there is a serious international involvement that supports the moderates from both sides, however numerous or non-numerous they are, but also creates the situation in which it becomes of greater interest to both parties to accommodate than to resist because both of the incentives and the capacity of the external intervention to impose costs. That means a deliberate peace effort led by the United States, which then doubtless would be supported by the international community, which defines openly in a semi-binding fashion how the United States and the international community envisages the outlines of the accommodation."


Will Marshall in PPIOnline 2007 on The Battle of Ideas:

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=124&subsecID=307&contentID=254435

the United States should not rule out the possibility of finding allies for political reform in mainstream Islamist parties, like Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, that have renounced violence. While such parties are rarely paragons of liberalism, they are challenging regimes widely seen as corrupt and unjust. They are also anathema to Al Qaeda, which considers democracy a form of idolatry punishable by death. Backing the Islamic parties' right to compete for power could align America with popular aspirations and open space for genuine political competition and pluralism.

...

Finally, given America's diminished moral stature in the Muslim world, we should work with Europe and other great powers to marshal the legitimating force of international agreements and institutions to stigmatize terrorism.

[anamandujano]

29. I bookmarked the thread and read some. I'll try to finish it in the

next day or so. I'm a psycho bookmarker and am always on to the next thread, never to return. I'll try though.

The last post I read was you saying that Obama doesn't have any history with the mess now going on. Well, he is about to make his own history, his own mess. I do believe though, that he is another puppet like Bush.

Also the links you posted accusing Hillary of serious crime. How could all the investigations have missed those? Seriously.

One of the attractive things about the Clintons while in office is that they were among the poorest elites on record. Of course they are richer now since leaving the White House but if you compare their wealth with other politicians, it is quite humorous to think they committed such crimes for very low pay.

[AntiFascist]

33. Regarding the Clintons and their corruption...

The links I pointed to are evidence that they were involved directly in one of the principle domestic Iran-Contra operations involving the importation of cocaine and export of arms. The reason this operation was never "uncovered" was simply because it got covered up. The Iran-Contra operation occured under the Reagan-Bush administration, so, of course, Republicans are not motivated to uncover this aspect of the Clinton's history, and the CIA may never admit to drug-running operations.

On top of that, I also link to further evidence that they were involved (Hillary and her law firm specifically) in developing an enhancement to certain banking software based on PROMIS which provided for the laundering of money surrounding the Arkansas operation. Again, Republicans are deeply ingrained in this corruption, together with no less than the Justice Department itself, so of course there would be no investigation. Only independent or foreign investigators have been able to report on this. See this thread for more info on INSLAW and Promis:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2836046

Promis software, or its successors, is nothing less than the root of all evil when it comes to drug money laundering and the financing of terrorism. It is also involved in the illegal selling of nuclear technology which ends up in the hands of our enemies or potential enemies. If there is any justice in the world then this will come out in the Sibel Edmonds case. The only plausible reasons that this is not being investigated by Congress are: 1.) They are being intimidated, 2.) There is not enough public knowledge of this, or 3.) Too many are participating in the corruption themselves.

[still_one]

17. How many people did those that voted for the IWR kill because of that vote?

and who voted for the Kyle/Lieberman amendment?

The hypocrisy is so obvious, and it seems the only thing Hillary supporters can do is distort what Barrack said

[anamandujano]

19. Why don't you read Obama's own words.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4624938&mesg_id=4625715

[still_one]

20. I am asking about those who voted for the IWR, and the JUDGEMENT THEY USED /nt

[anamandujano]

21. Past vs. future.

You don't see the hypocrisy in Obama's claim to be anti war (okay, anti "a dumb war") and then talking about escalating the whole mess to world class proportions?

All wars are dumb wars, started by corporate f*cks to steal a country's natural resources, to destroy a country and then get lucrative contracts to rebuild.

We created the terrorists. We created Bin Laden. There were no terrorists in Iraq until we created them with the unjust war.

My answer about Hillary's IWR is that a senator would not expect a president to commit treason, which is what Bush did by fabricating intelligence and not letting the inspectors to finish the job.

I prefer that she had not voted for it but why not pull your head out of the sand and take a good look at what Obama has planned for the country. It's a continuation of the fiasco and more in line with McCain's plans. If you truly sanction this, fine, but don't preach to us about Bush and his war or Hillary and her vote. We are in store for more of the same from Obama.

[blitzen]

22. like I believe Obama has some crazed maniacal Bush-like obsession with killing...

the foreign peoples.

Yeah...right! You've convinced me! I'm switching!