Rice to Secretary of State, Stephan Hadley to take her position as National Security Advisor . . .The present war with Iraq is the ambition of the corporate wing of the conservative establishment who views Iraq as a potential wedge against the domination of Mideast oil-producing nations which, in many respects, are openly hostile to American economic interests in the region. Having failed to turn the first war to their corporate advantage, the exiled power brokers brooded and plotted to revive a public campaign against Saddam Hussein which would unseat the dictator and allow the U.S. to install an authority there compliant to American business concerns.
Ominously, in the fall of 2002 the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (Chairman of the Board, Bruce Jackson), was established in the Washington offices of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute. The CLI engaged in educational and advocacy efforts to mobilize U.S. and international support for policies aimed at ending the regime of Saddam Hussein.
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo1119.htmlhttp://www.aei.org/This advocacy came at the same time that Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley were engaged in a series of briefings with foreign policy groups, Iraq specialists and other opinion makers that was termed as a "new phase," by a White House spokesman, who described the goal as building fresh public support for Bush administration policy vs. Iraq.
Members of the CLI met in November of 2002 with President Bush's national security adviser, Condi Rice, in an effort to mount "education and advocacy efforts to mobilize U.S. and international support freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny."
Condi Rice would be an unremarkable figure in this Bush administration, if she were judged solely on her work experience outside of government, in which she perfected the role of corporate promoter and apologist.
From her position at the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors, to the board rooms of the Transamerica Corporation, and Hewlett Packard, Rice forged the corporate relationships which propelled her into the White House executive club. Rice, is a former longtime member of the board of directors of Chevron Oil, which merged with Texaco. Rice has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
Rice's contribution to the Bush dynasty began when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Bush I administration needed an experienced Sovietologist. She was basically bullish on the Soviets and she was appointed Director of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council.
She was undoubtably brought on board to teach George I and his clan the difference between Perestroika and Glasnost. She has assumed the traditional role of an international affairs Svengali to George II - a role that has distinguished such past notables as, Colin Powell, John Poindexter and Robert Iran-Contra McFarland - and she dutifully adjusted our experience-deficient commander-in-chief to the doctrine of her conservative think-tank benefactors.
Her deputy sidekick, Stephen Hadley, has been advocating policies for many years which have, to no one's surprise, found their way into the ideological bulldozer which forms the doctrine of the Bush league's foreign policy.
Stephen Hadley served as assistant secretary of defense for international security policy from 1989 to 1993 and was responsible for defense policy on NATO and Western Europe, nuclear weapons and ballistic missile defense, and arms control. He was active in the negotiations that resulted in the START I and START II treaties.
Hadley was also a member of the National Security Council staff during the earlier Bush administration. Former Lockheed president, Bruce Jackson and former Lockheed counsel, Hadley have worked closely together on the Committee to Expand NATO. Jackson was president of this entity, based in the Washington offices of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute; Hadley was its secretary.
http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/petrassept97.htm (Nato Expansion, James Petras)
As reported by Karl Grossman of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, Stephen Hadley told an Air Force Association Convention in a speech September 11, 2000, "Space is going to be important. It has a great feature in the military,"
http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/feb01grossman.htm (Aerospace Executives On Bush Star Wars Team, Karl Grossman)
Hadley worked closely with the Bush-Cheney campaign as a foreign policy advisor specializing in European and Russian affairs. He was a partner in Shea & Gardner, the Washington law firm representing Lockheed Martin. He was a member of the Vulcans, an eight-person foreign policy team formed during the Bush campaign that included Condoleezza Rice and Richard Perle.
Hadley is the fluky bungler who took the blame for the insertion of the phony Iraq/Niger uranium charges in the president's State of the Union address, claiming that he ‘forgot' to relay CIA objections.
As reported by the World Policy Institute, the National Institute for Public Policy's, January 2001 report on the "rationale and requirements" for U.S. nuclear forces, was used as the model for the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which advocated an expansion of the U.S. nuclear "hit list" and the development of a new generation of "usable," lower-yield nuclear weapons.
http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/execsummaryaboutface.html Most observers do not believe that the new weapons can be developed without abandoning the non-proliferation treaty and sparking a new and frightening worldwide nuclear arms race.
Three members of the study group that produced the NIPP report - National Security Council members
Stephen Hadley (assistant to Condi Rice), Robert Joseph, and Stephen Cambone, a deputy undersecretary of defense for policy - are now directly involved in implementing the Bush nuclear policy.
Stephen Hadley co-wrote a National institute for Public Policy paper portraying a nuclear bunker-buster bomb as an ideal weapon against the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons stockpiles of rouge nations such as Iraq. "Under certain circumstances," the report said, "very severe nuclear threats may be needed to deter any of these potential adversaries."
http://www.acts2.com/thebibletruth/Nukes_Considered-IHT.htmIn an article for the Washington Monthly in the summer of 2000, Stephen Hadley cited a 1999 National Intelligence Estimate, which claimed that "Iraq could test a North Korean-type ICBM that could deliver a several hundred-kilogram payload to the United States in the last half of the next decade (calendar year 2000) depending on the level of foreign assistance."
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999_09-10/nieso99.asp It has been noted by some that only North Korea possesses missiles that could reach any part of the U.S., and that missile (the Taepo-Dong 2) is currently untested.
But Hadley concluded that, " Only against ballistic missiles does the United States remain vulnerable through continued adherence to the ABM Treaty.
Also that , interim "quick fixes" offering even the most limited capability against the ballistic missile threat would provide a deterrent to countries now seeking these weapons; the so-called "scarecrow defense." In this way, Hadley argued, the United States would have an "emergency deployment option" in case of crisis. The way around amending the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty would be to declare the system "temporary".
http://usinfo.org/wf/2001/010502/epf306.htm Anything to get the industry in the Pentagon chow line. Its clear that no matter what the obstacles or objections, Hadley would insist that the constructs of a new missile defense regime were essential to the nation's defense.
Stephen Hadley wrote in a byliner that, "The international tribunal is a threat to the United States. The U.S. has a number of serious objections to the International Criminal Court," he wrote. "Among them are the lack of adequate checks and balances on the powers of the ICC prosecutor and judges, and the lack of any effective mechanism to prevent the politicized prosecution of U.S. citizens."
The ICC has received more than 100 complaints so far concerning the U.S.-led war in Iraq. However, the administration successfully lobbied the Court to delay consideration of the charges for at least a year.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0728-03.htmThe Future of Iraq Project, a program developed in part by Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, established a development fund that is to be used to meet ‘humanitarian needs’, for reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure, and other purposes. Colin Powell wrote that the Future of Iraq Project, "embodies our government's long-standing desire to help Iraqis in their effort to free their country from tyranny."
Before the war, Stephen Hadley spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations in February 2003 about the Future of Iraq project. "If war comes," Hadley said, "it will be a war of liberation, not occupation. The United States needs the support of Iraq's people and it will work to win that support."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030212-15.html "A critical part of the Iraq reconstruction effort will be ensuring that Iraq's oil sector is protected from acts of sabotage by Saddam Hussein's regime," Hadley continued, "and that its proceeds are applied for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
"Iraq's oil and other natural resources belong to all the Iraqi people, and the United States will respect this fact," Hadley
said.
However, White House Executive Order, 13303, is a bald contradiction of that assertion by this administration that the Iraqi people are to benefit from our seizure of their resources.
Executive Order, 13303 decrees that 'any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void', with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein." (The Development Fund, derived from actual and expected Iraqi oil and gas sales, apparently will be used to leverage U.S. government-backed loans, credit, and direct financing for U.S. corporate reconstruction operations in Iraq.)
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-13412.pdf In other words, all of the oil, resources and industry are the property of the U.S.; to trade, sell, and disperse at its discretion. The only ones who will benefit from the robbery of the Iraqi oil are the companies that we will allow to exploit it. The oil mongers will incestuously share the stolen profits at the expense of American lives.
The oil was supposed to fund the war, as obscene as that sounds. But the money from big oil never, never reaches the indigenous cultures. No Iraqi should expect to wrest control over their own wells from the U.S. or its allies. It's likely that the only contact Iraqis will have with their own oil will be at the foreign-owned gas stations.
With these corporatists in charge of our foreign policy I would expect more of the same industry-driven imperialism that we have experienced in the past four years under Bushco. More war, killing and conquest, all at the expense of more American lives.
These are excerpts from my book Power Of Mischief
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
