Obama favours an unholy alliance between Marxism and Islam
By Ted Belman
In Obama’s Muslim Connection I wrote, that Obama’s foreign policy favours accommodation to Islam
-
1 He surrounded himself with advisers who believe that US foreign policy is controlled by Jews and this must end.
2. Obama plans to organize a Muslim summit
3. Obama Defends Columbia’s Ahmadinejad Invite
4. Obama; I Would Still Meet With Ahmadinejad
5. Obama: Don’t Stay in Iraq Over Genocide
6. Barack Obama Would Let Shoaib Choudhury Die
7. “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds change in an ugly direction”. BARACK OBAMA from The Audacity Of Hope which is titled in Indonesia “Assualt Hope: From Jakarta To The Whitehouse”?. It is arguable that “Assault Hope” means “Jihad”.
8. Obama’s Nation of Islam Staffers
9. Obama Served On Board That Funded Pro-Palestinian Group
10. Obama – Rezko – Auchi – Saddam Hussein?
11. Obama’s Church Gives Platform to Hamas Terrorists, Questions Israel’s Legitimacy
12. Obama absented himself from the Senate when Senate names Iran’s army “terrorist organization“ but later said he was opposed.
13. Obama’s Iraq War
14. “Bomb Pakistan”
Apparently he wants to get out of the war in Iraq and increase the war in Afghanistan. Maybe I missed the point. He wants to kill al Qaeda in Pakistan but leave them to take over in Iraq? Maybe I still don’t get it. Maybe he wants to bomb with much “collateral damage” rather than invade and occupy. He did say last summer, something to the effect that the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
What have we to make of his overall foreign policy goals. To understand where he wants to lead the US and with what principles, we must look to his chief foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Prof. Paul Eidelberg, Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, asks in Brzesinsky/Obama Axis
-
I . Who is Zbigniew Brzezinski?
It was reported in the New York Sun on February 15 that Barack Hussain Obama has chosen Zbigniew Brzezinski to advise him on Middle East policy .
One does not have to read Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to know that Carter is an anti-Semite . Brzezinski has earned the same reputation .
Not only has Brzezinski publicly defended the anti-Semitic canard that the relationship between America and Israel is the result of Jewish pressure, but he also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel ’s destruction. It behooves us to understand the mentality of Obama’s Middle East adviser—and more deeply than our so-called experts .
[..] Not only did Brzezinski reject the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet forms of government, he rejects the very notion of good and bad regimes! If you are shocked by Brzezinski’s moral relativism, ponder Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s confession in an interview with Ha’aretz in 2002 that his son Omri taught him “not to think in terms of black and white”—a statement uttered while suicide bombers were reducing Jews to body parts .
The influence of political scientists like Brzezinski is wide and deep . His moral relativism or neutrality prompts politicians to negotiate with and appease terrorist regimes. Mr. Obama may not be a moral relativist, but with Brzezinski as his adviser, he will be more disposed than other presidential candidates to appease Iran. Nor is this all.
With Brzezinski advising him, Obama’s chant about CHANGE may be more serious and insidious than Hillary’s silly utterances. He may have in mind changing the fundamental character of the American regime . That would fit well with the designs of one of his backers, billionaire George Soros, a globalist committed to the termination of the nation-state and the ascendancy of world government .
Since Brzezinski is a moral or historical relativism, he denies the existence of objective or trans-historical standards for determining whether the way of life of one nation, group, or individual is morally superior to that of another.
Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam . Both Communism and Islam are universalistic ideologies that reject the idea of the nation-state . Both do not regard adherence to treaties between nations as obligatory . Both Communism and Islam are militaristic and expansionist creeds that do not recognize international borders . Brzezinski’s globalism has become evident in Jimmy Carter . Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union . We can expect an Obama White House to pursue a very soft line toward Islam .
II . Iran’s Vision: A World Without Israel and the United States
With Zbigniew Brzezinski as his national security adviser, it was Jimmy Carter who facilitated the return of Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran . The Carter-Brzezinski axis is very much responsible for the Islamic revolution—the most dangerous revolution that has occurred in human history, a revolution that threatens the existence of every nation-state .
As a crypto-Marxist, Brzezinski deplores the nation-state . His book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, declares that “With the splitting and eclipse of Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation . The nation became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty . The nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented humanity . It could not provide a rational framework within which the relations between nations could develop . ” Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only partly increased man’s social consciousness and only partially alleviated the human condition .
“That is why Marxism,” he contends, “represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing and man’s universal vision . ” Marxism, he says, “was the most powerful doctrine for generating a universal and secular human consciousness . ” Embodied in the Soviet Union , however, Communism became the dogma of a party and, under Stalin, “was wedded to Russian nationalism . ”
Although Brzezinski poses as a humanist, he makes a most inhumane statement by saying that: “although Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was … a blessing in disguise . ” Ponder this shocking statement about Islam or of Islamic imperialism . Yes, it slaughtered more than 200 million people, but Islam brought hundreds of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist communities under a single universal vision, that of the Quran .
Brzezinski, a self-professed secularist, is an internationalist whose moral relativism contradicts the moral law or natural rights doctrine of America ’s Declaration of Independence . His relativism and internationalism contradict the teachings of the America ’s Founding Fathers, who endowed the United States with a national identity and character, the same that animated Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt . To put it more bluntly: Brzezinski’s mode of thought or political mentality — like that of countless other American academics — is anti-American . An Obama-Brzezinski axis has revolutionary significance . It might accelerate the de-Americanization and decline of the United States .
This development has its parallel in the de-Judaizing of Israel ’s Third Commonwealth . Israel’s ruling elites, beginning with President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini, Education Minister Yuli Tamir—and let’s not forget Israel’s erstwhile and still influential Supreme Court president Aaron Barak—have the same basic mentality as Brzezinski . The mere fact that they are multiculturalists committed to transforming Israel into “a state of its citizens” means that they are only nominal Jews, that just as Brzezinski is, in principle, anti-American, so they are, in principle, anti-Israel or anti-Jewish!
But let us not be misled by the term “multiculturalism. ” Multiculturalism means nothing less then the end of the nation-state system that has prevailed for almost four centuries . The nation-state obtained a monopoly of political power. Power abhors a vacuum . Terminate the nation-state and you are heading for world government . But a world government must also have a monopoly of power. Its agents must be everywhere, to make sure that no opposition group in any country secretly develops weapons of mass destruction . A world government must have the equivalent of the KGB in every country . A world government would be the greatest tyranny in human history .
Israel is the target of all those who oppose the nation-state if only because the Bible of Israel not only prescribes a multiplicity of nations, but a moral code that contradicts the moral relativism of the Brzezinskis and of Israel’s ruling elites .
Will Israel be the target of CHANGE — the mantra of the Democratic Party chanted most ominously by Barack Hussain Obama?
It is important to note that when Carter had Brzezinski as his foreign policy adviser, he undermined the Shah paved the way for the Islamic Revolution in Iran, al Qaeda was created to fight the Soviets and Islamist terrorists were supported to destroy Yugoslavia which was a Russian ally. These plans involved Britain, Saudia Arabia and Germany.
Sultan Knish offers us a taste of things to come in his article Zbignew Brezezinksi, Barack Obama and America as the Headless Chicken,
-
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s plan was to counter the rise of pro-Soviet left wing regimes with a string of Islamic regimes, countering Marxism with Islamism finally culminating in an Islamic overthrow of the USSR (replacing one monstrous regime with another monstrous regime). His dabbling in Afghanistan would eventually give birth to Taliban rule and Osama Bin Laden and September 11th, something he blames Israel and Neo-Cons for. In Iran, Zbigniew Brzezinski backed a policy that would support the Ayatollah Khomeni as America’s new ally.
To show its affinity for the Mullahs, the Carter Administration had lifted a 1978 ban on arms sales to Tehran. The exiled Shah was barred from entering the United States to seek medical treatment. The United States even promised to defend Iran against the Soviet Union. Zbigniew Brzezinski met with the Ayatollah Khomeni’s Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan and offered the new regime a strategic relationship with the United States. It took five months before a rescue attempt was made and when Zbigniew Brzezinski planned out the disastrous Operation Eagle Claw it was sabotaged from the start by the chains placed on the operation from the Carter White House.
This is an indication of the change Obama wants.
This is the unity he hopes to achieve.
See also Brzezinski/Obama and foreign policy
Ted Belman is by far the best Obama researcher online yet. I just soak up everything he writes about, talks about and posts. I would have to respect Ted Belman like I respect Fox News, the Weekly Standard, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and other heroes of the written word. Ted Belman impresses me like the Lekarev report impresses me – like all FAITHFUL Jews and Christians impress me.
Ted Belman is a man who cares about Israel and sees the bigger picture of the importance of continuing the war against Islamic fascism, which plagues the Israeli people and making an important distinction with anyone who is connected with Islamic fascism and hatred of the Jewish State and American Republic.
Ted has my respect as the writer of the year – covering Obama unlike any other reporter in the most intelligent, insightful, and factual way.
I know I have a dark sense of humor and tend to be harsh at times, as my style of writing is meant to inspire and make people laugh and OFFEND those who are offensive to Biblical Faith, Wisdom, and Freedom – turning their mockery right back on them and taking the mockery they throw at us and throw it right back at them.
Ted gets my applause for the Obama coverage and I plan to reference his site to everyone I know!
G-d bless Ted Belman, respectfully…………
Barack Obama is a jihadist sympathizer, if not a jihadist himself. This is what the Republican party and George W. Bush have left us with. The last seven years, Israel has been dealing with a Christian anti-Semite in the White House who once indicated all Jews are going to hell. Perhaps the next four or eight years, Israel will deal with a jihadist in the White House. Jews seem to lust after American presidents no matter how anti-Semitic.
Steve, Bush is not a “Christian anti-Semite” as he has been caught outright denying the gospel, belief in which is the nonessential of what is required to be a Christian. (Had Bush never denied it, we would be left to speculate if he were or were not a Christian. But since he did deny it, then on the authority of the New Testament, not personal opinion, Bush is not a Christian.)
Sunstar
You have me blushing. Please stick around.
But keep in mind that this post is really the writings of Eidelberg and Sultan Knish, and not mine
Commentary Magazine published Obama’s War by Peter Wehner in April 2008.
It goes into great detail tracking Obama’s changing position on the war.
Email received
Hi Ted,
I love your articles – you precisely hit things on the nail head…
But here’s one thing that puzzles me. Brezinzski supposedly favored a very tough line – in fact, some back in ’76 said he would be tougher towards the Soviets than Kissinger was, and that is what brought many of the skeptical Scoop Jackson supporters back into the Democratic, i.e., Carter camp. He also fought the turf battles with Vance (who despite being very much a “dove” was at least a gentleman and NO anti-Semite ala his boss and Brezinzski) until Afghanistan, when his worldview was accepted by the Peanut Farmer.
And…Brezinzski being Polish was extremely harsh towards Communism, or so it seemed, as his beloved homeland was under the hobnail boots of the Soviets. BUT…towards Islam, and his vicious anti-Semitism (again, probably because of his Polish background, though his father was said to have been a “mensch”, i.e., providing Jews with safe passages out of Germany before Hitler’s Invasion of Poland)you are 100% correct.
I too have written extensively on the Obama menace, adding the tack that this guy is a steppin’ fetchit, a coward and racial hypocrite who knows absolutely zilch about the Democratic Party attitude towards Slavery before the Civil War, how secession evolved out of the Democratic Party, and how the same party ended Reconstruction in the South. Besides his obvious anti-Israel attitudes (read: anti-Semitism – despite the self loathers and apologists in his camp), Obama is also a hypocrite in his denunciations of Abraham Lincoln and his friendship ala Jerry Wright’s – with one Robert C. Byrd, Democrat-KKK\West Virginia.
The guy is a nothing but what is scary is how naive and supposedly intelligent people are falling for his
“charisma” – reminiscent of the Germans in 1932.
Jerry writes
I don’t know who Prof Paul Eidelberg is. But I do know who Zbig is. And, to call him a Marxist is beyond anything having to do with academic veracity. I’ve read Zbig. Obviously, you haven’t or you wouldn’t use the quote you did. Find me a sentence in anything Brezinski wrote that in any way approximates the description given by Prof. Eidelberg. You can’t.
Let’s examine the word “universalistic” as used in your quote by Eidelberg. If that’s what makes Zbig Marxist then you and I are in trouble. That’s the word/implication used by anti-semites in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to describe the Jews and their globalis, the plot to take over the world. And, with the same lack of appreciation to treaties, oblitations and verities of the nation state.
Have you lost all ability to distinguish logic from unprincipled, “volkist, populist” rant?
Jerry
Yours is the rant. Eidelberg provides this quote
He also calls him a “crypto Marxist”. Marxism means many things. It may well be that Eidelberg focuses on one aspect and you focus on another. Eidelberg’s essay tells us what he means and in what way he considers ZB a “crypto Marxist”.
Sultan Knish takes another view that ZB was “countering Marxism”. He obviously has a different view of what Marxism stands for.
But for me this is all semantics. What is true is that he is a globalist and a relativist. Never mind disputing the name of his ideology, why not focus on the policies and the goals.
email received
It is nice that you write on these subjects. Hope that someone is Listening!
Eidelburg’s claim, courtesy of Belman, that “Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union,” is beyond insane. (Perhaps in another dimension?) Back on planet earth, under Carter, Brzezinski was the architect of the use of Islamic extremism to destroy the Soviet Union. Hey, destroy, help, what’s the difference? Just semantic, right?
The supposed Brzezinski quote that Eidelberg offers – “That is why Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing and man’s universal vision” – includes the incoherent phrase “creative stage in the maturing and man’s universal vision” and therefore must be a misquote, indicating that Eidelberg badly copied it from one of the nuts one can find on the Internet who claim Brzezinski and Carter (!) and Kissinger were commie agents. Such nuts also usually claim “the Jews” are the secret pullers of the strings on these supposed commie ‘puppets,’ but of course, a Jew can’t say that…which just shows how unfair it is for Jewish fascists; they don’t get to say any of the really FUN stuff (i.e., about Jews.)
What will Belman post next? The “Protocols of Zion,” in Yiddish?
Ted,let us face facts, Eidelberg is one big whacko. During the Camp David negotiations Begin developed a particularly close relationship with Brzezinski, both sharing a strong anti -marxist world view. For Eidelberg to describe Brzezinski as some sort of crypto-marxist is tantamount to accusing the Pope of being an atheist.
Furthermore during the Iran hostage crises Brzezinski was vehement in calling for a strong American response detailing his wish for an armed attack.
Quoting Eidelberg is courting a total loss of credibility. Please don’t go there.
I am with Peskin here zbigi was virulenlty anti Russsian and I assume the Marxism along with , but I could be wrong?
I have asked Eidelberg to comment. I don’t claim to know much about these matters but feel that you are all too quick to conclude things here that aren’t here.
Jared Israel makes the following statement
These two things aren’t necessarily contradictory if you believe that under Carter the US did not directly confront Russia and lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line while at the same time supported Islamic extremism to defeat Russia. We’ll see what Eidelberg has to say on this.
Bzezinski tried to defeat The USSR indirectly. What he did say was that Bzezinski is a globalist and wants to defeat nationalism. He sees Marxism and Islam in the same light. Marxism is a class struggle and not a nationalist struggle. Islam also transcends nations.
In this quote
Eidelberg distinguishes between Marxism and the USSR. He embraces Marxist universalism and rejects Russian nationalism. Is that not clear?
HP
I have great respect for Eidelberg and am chagrined that you would call him a “wacko”. Name calling is no substitute for intellectual debate.
I did some googling and can safely say that Begin rejected Maxism and Brzezinsky praised it.
Francisco Gil-White has written on the subject of the Iranian revolution. He advises how Carter designated Arafat to negotiate the release of the US hostages in 1979.
He writes
This is when Brzezinski was training al Qaeda to fight Russia. Carter undermined the Shah in favour of Khomeini. Carter loved Arafat and got him to address the UN. The Palestinians are still supported by Carter. Iran also embraced the PLO and their cause of destroying Israel.
Think about it.
Ted, Brzezinski was a strong opponent of the Soviet Union-Associated himself with anti- marxism,and vehemently opposed Kissenger in his detente policy. He did not have a leftist bone in his body.If you have any shred of evidence to the contrary, kindly provide it
Eidelberg sees leftists, liberals under his bed, has on numerous occasions attacked Ben Gurion and other Labour leaders. He remains a divisive and inflammatory figure with delusions of some day becoming Israel’s ideological savior. He claims to be a strong democrat, but his political philosophy is any thing but democratic.
I refer all who commented above to Brezezinslis lates article on how he views the World today!
Go to Original
The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
The Washington Post
Sunday 30 March 2008
Both Democratic presidential candidates agree that the United States should end its combat mission in Iraq within 12 to 16 months of their possible inauguration. The Republican candidate has spoken of continuing the war, even for a hundred years, until “victory.” The core issue of this campaign is thus a basic disagreement over the merits of the war and the benefits and costs of continuing it.
The case for U.S. disengagement from combat is compelling in its own right. But it must be matched by a comprehensive political and diplomatic effort to mitigate the destabilizing regional consequences of a war that the outgoing Bush administration started deliberately, justified demagogically and waged badly. (I write, of course, as a Democrat; while I prefer Sen. Barack Obama, I speak here for myself.)
The contrast between the Democratic argument for ending the war and the Republican argument for continuing is sharp and dramatic. The case for terminating the war is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for “staying the course” draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies on worst-case scenarios. President Bush’s and Sen. John McCain’s forecasts of regional catastrophe are quite reminiscent of the predictions of “falling dominoes” that were used to justify continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Neither has provided any real evidence that ending the war would mean disaster, but their fear-mongering makes prolonging it easier.
Nonetheless, if the American people had been asked more than five years ago whether Bush’s obsession with the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth 4,000 American lives, almost 30,000 wounded Americans and several trillion dollars – not to mention the less precisely measurable damage to the United States’ world-wide credibility, legitimacy and moral standing – the answer almost certainly would have been an unequivocal “no.”
Nor do the costs of this fiasco end there. The war has inflamed anti-American passions in the Middle East and South Asia while fragmenting Iraqi society and increasing the influence of Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to Baghdad offers ample testimony that even the U.S.-installed government in Iraq is becoming susceptible to Iranian blandishments.
In brief, the war has become a national tragedy, an economic catastrophe, a regional disaster and a global boomerang for the United States. Ending it is thus in the highest national interest.
Terminating U.S. combat operations will take more than a military decision. It will require arrangements with Iraqi leaders for a continued, residual U.S. capacity to provide emergency assistance in the event of an external threat (e.g., from Iran); it will also mean finding ways to provide continued U.S. support for the Iraqi armed forces as they cope with the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
The decision to militarily disengage will also have to be accompanied by political and regional initiatives designed to guard against potential risks. We should fully discuss our decisions with Iraqi leaders, including those not residing in Baghdad’s Green Zone, and we should hold talks on regional stability with all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran.
Contrary to Republican claims that our departure will mean calamity, a sensibly conducted disengagement will actually make Iraq more stable over the long term. The impasse in Shiite-Sunni relations is in large part the sour byproduct of the destructive U.S. occupation, which breeds Iraqi dependency even as it shatters Iraqi society. In this context, so highly reminiscent of the British colonial era, the longer we stay in Iraq, the less incentive various contending groups will have to compromise and the more reason simply to sit back. A serious dialogue with the Iraqi leaders about the forthcoming U.S. disengagement would shake them out of their stupor.
Ending the U.S. war effort entails some risks, of course, but they are inescapable at this late date. Parts of Iraq are already self-governing, including Kurdistan, part of the Shiite south and some tribal areas in the Sunni center. U.S. military disengagement will accelerate Iraqi competition to more effectively control their territory, which may produce a phase of intensified inter-Iraqi conflicts. But that hazard is the unavoidable consequence of the prolonged U.S. occupation. The longer it lasts, the more difficult it will be for a viable Iraqi state ever to reemerge.
It is also important to recognize that most of the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq has not been inspired by al-Qaeda. Locally based jihadist groups have gained strength only insofar as they have been able to identify themselves with the fight against a hated foreign occupier. As the occupation winds down and Iraqis take responsibility for internal security, al-Qaeda in Iraq will be left more isolated and less able to sustain itself. The end of the occupation will thus be a boon for the war on al-Qaeda, bringing to an end a misguided adventure that not only precipitated the appearance of al-Qaeda in Iraq but also diverted the United States from Afghanistan, where the original al-Qaeda threat grew and still persists.
Bringing the U.S. military effort to a close would also smooth the way for a broad U.S. initiative addressed to all of Iraq’s neighbors. Some will remain reluctant to engage in any discussion as long as Washington appears determined to maintain its occupation of Iraq indefinitely. Therefore, at some stage next year, after the decision to disengage has been announced, a regional conference should be convened to promote regional stability, border control and other security arrangements, as well as regional economic development – all of which would help mitigate the unavoidable risks connected with U.S. disengagement.
Since Iraq’s neighbors are vulnerable to intensified ethnic and religious conflicts spilling over from Iraq, all of them – albeit for different reasons – are likely to be interested. More distant Arab states such as Egypt, Morocco or Algeria might also take part, and some of them might be willing to provide peacekeeping forces to Iraq once it is free of foreign occupation. In addition, we should consider a regional rehabilitation program designed to help Iraq recover and to relieve the burdens that Jordan and Syria, in particular, have shouldered by hosting more than 2 million Iraqi refugees.
The overall goal of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to undo the errors of recent years should be cooling down the Middle East, instead of heating it up. The “unipolar moment” that the Bush administration’s zealots touted after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been squandered to generate a policy based on the unilateral use of force, military threats and occupation masquerading as democratization – all of which has pointlessly heated up tensions, fueled anti-colonial resentments and bred religious fanaticism. The long-range stability of the Middle East has been placed in increasing jeopardy.
Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming the Middle East, but other measures will be needed. It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations – on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses. But such negotiations are unlikely as long as Washington’s price of participation is unreciprocated concessions from Tehran. Threats to use force on Iran are also counterproductive because they tend to fuse Iranian nationalism with religious fanaticism.
We started this war rashly, but we must end our involvement responsibly. And end it we must. The alternative is a fear-driven policy paralysis that perpetuates the war – to America’s historic detriment.
Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. His most recent book is “Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower.”
Thanks for the Brzezinski article. He is right on many things. The war accomplished no good. I am not in favour of humanitarian intervention except in very extreme circumstances. So what if Hussein was a brutal dictator. Under Hussein, Iraq was stable. The whole idea of spreading democracy is an impossible task.
One might even question why the US stayed after the first Gulf war. Whatever threat a resurgent Iraq might have been, it is nothing compared to the one posed by Iran now.
ZB was the father of 9/11 given how he stirred up the Islamists to fight Russia and others in the far east. In effect he opened up a pandora’s box. Talk about disastrous policy decision.
What drove him to do it and what drove Bush to invade Iraq is the desire to advance American interests throughout the world. If terrorism helps, so be it. If the war on terrorism helps, so be it.
ZB makes the case for American interests being better served by getting out than by staying. The GoP stands for the opposite. But they are not so opposite. Except to me, ZB seems to back Iran whereas the US backs S. Arabia.
Isn’t that what Bush wants to do? The rest of his arguments for faster or slower troop withdrawals have to do with tactics. Bush thinks more can be accomplished by hanging around a bit longer and ZB thinks the opposite. Have I got that right?
Even in this they both want the same thing or say they do. Bush wants to get there by more management of the process and the protection and advancement of US economic interests in Iraq. BZ seems to prefer the law of the Jungle. Let the factions duke it out, so to speak. But of coarse managed by regional agreements in which everyones interests are balanced. But how long will the balance be maintained. It assumes a desire for stability. Shouldn’t ZB be factoring in Iran’s appetite for more. ZB isn’t worried about that. He can work with Iran just as he worked with al Qaeda or other Islamists. For him, they are just a tool to advance US interests just as “humanitarian intervention” is a tool for others.
This reminds me of the US attempts in Vietnam to negotiate terms of withdrawal. As soon as it left, the deal was meaningless. It was unenforceable.
Yet he understands that the result will be more fighting in Iraq, the opposite of “calming”.
Even if a balance is worked out now, it will merely be a Hudna. Iran will continue to advance its interests throughout the ME. The US will be powerless to stop it. Which brings us to Israel.
Once again there is an assumption that the “region’s religious and nationalist passions” are assuageable.
While he calls for forced “mutual concessions” his starting point is what each side wants, not what each side has a right to. i.e. The Palestinians want it all and Israel wants it all so let’s agree on the armistice line. Regional stability would follow and everybody including Israel would benefit.
Even if a deal is force fed, why will it not be a stepping stone to Israel’s further isolation and destruction. He doesn’t care. America will still be there to protect its own interests. As for Israel, well, it was a nice experiment.
It has always been American policy to shrink Israel. We must understand why this is so. What’s America’s grand design?
WHY McCAIN WILL NOT BE ELECTED PRESIDENT.
Age: At 72 McCain would be the oldest elected President in U. S. History.
Health: McCain has had 4 bouts with Melanoma, a particularly deadly form of skin cancer. Additionally, He has suffered permanent neurological damage resulting from being shot down over Korea.
THE QUESTION ONE MIGHT ASK IS, IF HE IS UNINSURABLE, IS HE ELECTABLE?
Policies and qualifications: By his own admission, he has little understanding of fiscal or financial matters.At this time of American economic meltdown and crises, this deficiency represents a very large negative.
McCain, by virtue of merely being a Republican has a slight odour of being associated with a failed Iraq policy and mismanagement. His language , we must stay the course, we must win in Iraq turns off more Americans than attracts. He represents OLD POLITICS and his potential opponent, be it Hillary or Obama suggests a historical shift in Gov’t.-a totally new reality in American politics, either a black or woman President.
McCain is not popular with old line Conservatives nor with old line Evangelicals. This very large constituency was mainly responsible in electing Bush to two terms.
The majority of Americans recently polled indicated dissatisfaction with where America is presently heading. This strongly suggest that the U.S. electorate most probably will vote for a real change in Administration.
My analysies might be wrong, but I rather doubt it.
I hear ya Pesky and you may be right.
Ted Belman claims that Eidelberg wrote that Brzezinski urged Carter to go easy on the USSR in certain ways, while at the same time using the Islamists against the USSR.
Not true. First, Brzezinski was not soft on Russia, period. Second, in the text Belman quoted from Eidelberg, Eidelberg wrote nothing about using Islamists against the USSR.
Indeed, in the email Ted Belman sent his email list, he quoted Eidelberg precisely to support the argument that since Brzezinski, who was a Marxist (sic!), was soft on Russia (sic!), and since Islam is just like Marxism (sic!), therefore Brzezinski (and his pupil, Obama) would be soft on Islam.
All that stuff about Brzezinski and Marxism is fantasy of the type put forward by antisemitic right wing cranks.
By slightly editing the quote that Eidelberg screwed up, I was able to find a possible source, a book that Brzezinski wrote in 1970. But note that a) Eidelberg does not provide the context (the text before and after what he quotes, so one can see what Brzezinski was getting at) and b) it is not even clear how much Eidelberg has left out. (In general, Eidelberg likes to paraphrase and use ellipses, which are markers for writers who want to distort what they are quoting.) I do not have the book, but my guess is that Brzezinski was saying what most right wingers on college campuses (teachers and students) said in 1960-1970: that, as a student campaigning for Goldwater at Harvard argued, “Of course, Socialism is a great human ideal, and Marx was brilliant. But Communism is a horrible disaster.” Such a statement does not show that the speaker is a Marxist. It’s called using Marx to whip Moscow.
If Brzezinski was and is close to anyone, it’s the Vatican. Just as Brzezinski initiated the horrific US policy of mobilizing Islamic fanaticism to defeat the Soviets, while at the same time getting Israel to accept the catastrophic US demand of giving up Sinai; similarly, in 1982, John Paul II rescued Arafat from the Lebanon disaster by asking Arafat to meet with him and embracing Arafat publicly as the great hero of an oppressed people – thus in effect telling Europe to follow the policy of Brzezinski – that is, to embrace Islamic fanaticism.
So yes – Brzezinski IS a disaster, and that makes Obama very bad. NOT because his preacher said things that offend some people. NOT because Obama is trying not to commit political suicide by attacking every black leader. (It has been suggested that Farrakhan ‘endorsed’ Obama precisely because he hates Obama and knew it would cause him trouble.) No, Obama is very bad because his foreign policy adviser – Brzezinski – is the worst enemy of Israel, and is the architect of using Islamism as a weapon of policy – which the US is still doing (as is the Vatican). And that is the policy we must change.
Unfortunately, Brzezinski’s policy was basically the policy of Clinton, and it is basically the policy of Bush – so we have a big problem. But surely, we do not need Brzezinski himself in the White House. That would not help!
Jared is giving me a hard time. I must respect him and Eidelberg because they are far more knowledgeable than I.
I do not wish to take a stand on Eidelberg’s comment “Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union,” Jared thinks it beyond insane. Its not for me to reconcile conflicting ideas in Eidelberg’s essay though I attempted to do it. Besides that is a collateral point.
More important is the issue of whether Maxism has anything in common with Islam. The second point is whether Brzeszski saw someting in Marxism that he liked regardless of his dislike for Communist Russia.
Jared writes
Firstly I just quoted Eidelberg
I didn’t select this point to support any argument but to set out Eidelberg’s argument. I agree that Eidelberg confuses me when he moves from Marxism to Communism. I think I know what Eidelberg means, namely that Marxism and Communism both stressed the class struggle not limited to a nation state. They saw a competition between one class and another. Islam sees the competition between Muslims and infidels. This conflict also crosses the nation state.
In the context of that quote, I think he is saying that Obama will follow Brzezinski in this. Brzezinskis record is to work with Islamist more than fighting them. Obama will follow Brz because he too is soft on Islam.
I totally accept that Brzeszinski is the enemy of Russia. His actions and words both say so. So I fully agree with the rest of Jared’s comment and suspect Eidelberg does too.
But totally aside from Marxism as an ideal is there not something in Marxizm that is akin to Islam as Eidelberg suggests.. That’s the question.
Interesting, since some Muslims would argue there’s something in Marxism that’s akin to capitalism! Sayyid Qutb does just that and ends up concluding that since Marxism and capitalism lead to the same failed ends, what Islam offers the world is an alternative and solution to those doomed ideologies.
Pingback: Spanish Pundit
Pingback: Israpundit » Blog Archive » Obama’s Communist Connection