stat counter

Monday, December 18, 2006

Poor Little Zionist Neocons

Neocon: U.S. expected Israel to attack Syria and is angry it didn't
By Yitzhak Benhorin December 18, 2006

Bookmark to del.icio.usDigg!Digg This Story

It hasn't been a good year for neocons, that group of conservative American intellectuals pulling some strings of US policy, particularly during the George W. Bush administration.

Having a bad hair year Bush and Co? Boo Hoo!,2933,229159,00.html

The strongest indictment against them is the war in Iraq, a quagmire in which the US is currently stuck up to its neck. And as Bush's days in the White House grow numbered, they are leaving one by one.

What? Jumping ship? Or have you been forced out or indicted?

Among the few remaining neocons is David Wurmser, an advisor for Vice President Dick Cheney on Middle Eastern affairs. Wurmser is a Middle East expert, just like his wife, Israeli Meyrav Wurmser, a researcher at the conservative Hudson Institute.

Wasn't that you Wurmser who was investigated for passing classified information to Chalibi the crook

Meyrav Wurmser was also one of the co-founders of MEMRI, which tracks Arab leaders and translating their political statements from Arabic to English.

Isn't that you MEMRI that Juan Cole exposed as an anti-Arab propaganda mill and then you threatened to sue him?

Despite the fact that many neocons are no longer part of the government, it turns out they're still one big happy family, who make sure to remain in touch.

Having a PNAC picnic anytime soon?

Many are Jews, who share a love for Israel. Some of the accusations against the government regarding the war in Iraq is that it was undertaken primarily for Israel's sake and that the attack on Iraq was actually an Israeli objective.

You wouldn't EVER lie to the American public about who the war in Iraq was for, WOULD you?

In an interview with Ynet, Dr. Meyrav Wurmser refutes the accusations and criticism.

While you're not baking cookies Meyrav, I've heard you're hiring ex-Mossad agents and comedians at your organization

"Since I'm an Israeli in the gang, you wouldn't believe what's been written about me," she said. "That I'm proof of the covert neoconservative connection with Israel and the Mossad."
What are you trying to achieve?

Wha, aa , what? Neocon Israelis spying? Huh?

"We believe in a strong and active American foreign policy. America is a good force in the world, a nation that believes in freedom. We believe in exporting American ideas of freedom and democracy, to promote greater stability."

Uh, did the guards at Abu Gharib learn their methods here in our wonderful democratic nation with the highes per capita percentage of it's population in prison in the "free world"?
"Torture Inc"

Did you, in practice, bring about the war in Iraq?

Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during your "pillow talk" about that paper you guys wrote, "A Clean Break"

"We expressed ideas, but the policy in Iraq was taken out of neocon hands very quickly. The idea was that America has a war on terror and that the only actual place for coping with it is in the Middle East and that a fundamental change would come through a change in leadership. We had to start somewhere.

Huh? I thought those plans were in place long before 9/11

"The objective was to change the face of the Middle East. But it was impossible to create a mini-democracy amidst a sea of dictatorships looking to destroy this poor democracy, and thus, where do insurgents in Iraq come from? From Iran and Syria."

I heard a pesky rumor that Israel and the US are arming insurgents. What say you?

Should they have been conquered?

"No. There was a need for massive political action, of threats and pressure on these governments, financial pressure, for example. The sanctions on Syria were nothing. There was a period of time when the Syrians were afraid that they were next. It would have been possible to use this momentum in a smarter way. There's no need to go in militarily."

I'm confused here, didn't your hubbie advocate attacking Syria militarily?

Everyone feels beaten after last 5 years
At their prime, the neocons held the reigns of American decision making. In the Pentagon, there were Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, and Harold Rhode, a senior Pentagon advisor on Islam.

Feith, isn't he the guy being investigated for manipulating pre-Iraq war inteligence?

In the vice president's office were Louis Libby and John Hannah. Richard Perle headed the committee advising to the Pentagon. In the White House were Deputy National Security Adviser for Global Democracy Strategy Elliott Abrams and Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, who later became the US ambassador to the UN.

Wait a minute, isn't that "Scooter" Libby guy the one caught up in Plamegate and that Richard Perle guy, didn't he have to quit over a little problem with Global Crossing? ( I was actually in the same room with that man once and he STUNK!) And that Elliot Abrams guy, I seem to remember he had something to do with the Iran-Contra Affair Oh, but I'm also bewildered, even after John Bolton helped Dubya block the recount in Florida, it seems the cowboy couldn't get his man to stay on

According to Wurmser's description, the group is comprised of academics, most of them lacking operational experience, who became part of the Bush administration but failed to get their ideas through bureaucracy.

"These are intellectuals who came with great ideas, in which I still believe, but did not find a way to promote their beliefs in the complexities of bureaucracy," she says.

Your people held senior positions in the Pentagon. Didn't Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith implement your theories?

I thought Wolfowitz had a plan of his own that got secretly leaked

"The final decisions were not in their hands. In the Pentagon, the decisions were in the hands of the military, and the political leadership had a lot of clashes with the military leadership."

Oh no, I'm getting confused again, I thought all the decisions were made by Rumsfeld in the defense department and that was where all the mix up was

Did the military leadership ask for more soldiers in Iraq?

"Rumsfeld prevented that. He was a failure. The State Department opposed the neocons' stances. Also John Bolton, who is also part of the family, and was no. 4 at the State Department under Colin Powell, was incapable of passing decisions....

Hold on, didn't you just say up above that all the decisions were made by the military?

"Powell curbed our ideas and they did not pass. There was a lot of frustration over the years in the administration because we didn't feel we were succeeding.

Powell just said something about this yesterday I think

"Now Bolton left (the UN -- Y.B.) and there are others who are about to leave. This administration is in its twilight days. Everyone is now looking for work, looking to make money.... We all feel beaten after the past five years.... We miss the peace and quiet and writing books....

How to write a resume

"When you enter the administration you have to keep your mouth shut. Now many will resume their writing.... Now, from the outside, they will be able to convey all the criticism they kept inside."

About keeping your mouths shut, might I suggest duct tape like John Ashcroft did should we experience a nuclear attack?

In the meantime you left the US inside Iraq?

"We did not bring the US into Iraq in such a way. Our biggest war which we lost was the idea that before entering Iraq we must train an exile Iraqi government and an Iraqi military force, and hand over the rule to them immediately after the occupation and leave Iraq. That was our idea and it was not accepted."

Here's the site for Samsonite Luggage
It seems we've over stayed our "welcome" (I don't recall an invitation)

Your man was Ahmed Chalabi, who was later suspected of spying for Iran?

"That is true, but we didn't want him as a dictator but as a person in a government that will act democratically? We must help the current democratic government. The borders with Iran and Syria should have been blocked immediately when we entered Iraq. Now it's already a disaster."

Oh gosh, not beating that dead horse again are you? Or should I say digging up the crook again?

Why didn't you attack Syria?

Many of Wurmser's friends believe the disaster is not only in Iraq, but in the entire region. They are also very frustrated over the way in which Israel embarked on the war against Hizbullah this summer, and on the way it returned from it.

"Hizbullah defeated Israel in the war. This is the first war Israel lost," Dr. Wurmser declares.

Is this a popular stance in the administration, that Israel lost the war?

"Yes, there is no doubt. It's not something one can argue about it. There is a lot of anger at Israel."

What caused the anger?

"I know this will annoy many of your readers.... But the anger is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians. Instead of Israel fighting against Hizbullah, many parts of the American administration believe that Israel should have fought against the real enemy, which is Syria and not Hizbullah."

Did the administration expect Israel to attack Syria?

"They hoped Israel would do it. You cannot come to another country and order it to launch a war, but there was hope, and more than hope, that Israel would do the right thing. It would have served both the American and Israeli interests.

What happened, you guys are usually on the same page aren't you?

"The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space.... They believed that Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the thought was that its strategic and important ally should be hit."

"It is difficult for Iran to export its Shiite revolution without joining Syria, which is the last nationalistic Arab country. If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran, that it would have weakened it and changes the strategic map in the Middle East.

"The final outcome is that Israel did not do it. It fought the wrong war and lost. Instead of a strategic war that would serve Israel's objectives, as well as the US objectives in Iraq. If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended."

Meyrav, I just found this article you wrote about how badly the IOF performed in it's tiff with Hezballah,
I'm sensing a CONTRADICTION here.

Wurmser says that what most frustrates her is hearing people close to decision makers in Israel asking her if the US would have let Israel attack Syria.

"No one would have stopped you. It was an American interest. They would have applauded you. Think why you received so much time and space to operate. Rice was in the region and Israel embarrassed her with Qana, and still Israel got more time. Why aren't they reading the map correctly in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem?"

Now WHICH is the tail and which is the dog? Poor little neocons. Tis the season to wish you BAH HUMBUG!!


Chet said...

Great Post Robin, Keep up the good work.

I love Munich said...

What a fantastic post Twinsie!!! You sure did put a LOOOT of effort in researching and composing it but the outcome is REAL GOOD! I had a lot of fun reading it and am patting you on your shoulder in appreciation - CONGRATS twinsie ...

I'm really impressed of how you started the blogging-thing ... but that's YOU, I KNEW you would do just GREAT! It's always fun visiting your blog ...

Robin said...

Hi Chet (my fairy god-father),
Thank you SO much for fixing my links that WEREN'T links. I got up this morning and saw that the "fairies" had visited!! Gotta get used to this "new fandangled thing" but with you and Karin right here to help it's getting easier by the second! Muchas Gracias!

Thank you TOO for helping me fix some more glitches this morning. You and CHET really have this thing mastered. I'm still washing off the "cooties" from being in the same room with Richard Perle many a moon ago (nineteen years). It was the height of the Iran-Contra affair and boy that creep REEKED!!

cv said...

I have bookmarked this article something in 2006 and suddenly got back to this today..this was simply superb!

Training CV