Most stunning and disturbing was his description of a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran.” It would, he suggested, involve “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.” [Emphasis added].
This was an unmistakable warning to the US Congress, replete with quotation marks to discount the “defensive” nature of such military action, that the Bush administration is seeking a pretext for an attack on Iran. Although he did not explicitly say so, Brzezinski came close to suggesting that the White House was capable of manufacturing a provocation—including a possible terrorist attack within the US—to provide the casus belli for war.
That a man such as Brzezinski, with decades of experience in the top echelons of the US foreign policy establishment, a man who has the closest links to the military and to intelligence agencies, should issue such a warning at an open hearing of the US Senate has immense and grave significance. (1)
This is nothing a non binding resolution can't fix.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
pardon the crudity, but a non-binding resolution ain't going to fix shit...
I agree. It is insane.
But if it did happen, here's how it would go:
The language of the NON BINDING resolution politely asks the President not to manufacture a provocation to start another war.
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): How dare the Democrat party restrict our leader's powers of provocation. Though it saddens me, I must question their patriotism.
This article on the Socialist's website included this claim,
"None of the senators in attendance addressed themselves to the stark warning from Brzezinski. The Democrats in particular, flaccid, complacent and complicit in the war conspiracies of the Bush administration, said nothing about the danger of a provocation spelled out by the witness..."
The author Barry Grey complained that the Senators on this committee did not question Brzezinski, but also, he found the Press did not report on it.
He ran another article asking why the press didn't make anything of what Brzezinski said, but didn't have much to say.
I ask myself this question.
Brzezezinski wrote about what American policy should be in Central Asia. It's his book on the Chessgame where some saw the idea that you had to create a "Pearl Harbor" kind of event to justify a military takeover of the oil countries by the U.S. Otherwise, he said, the American people would not go along with it.
Now, I think his book was a cautionary tale.
Bzezinski is in a position to say that not only is his warning true of Iran, but it would be similarly true of the murders of 9-11. That, of course, would be the "Pearl Harbor" event that critics thought he was predicting.
Maybe the Senators understand they don't want to raise this question. So, they cannot acknowledge that there is this possibility with Iran...
I cannot believe that the Democratic Senators were surprised by what Brzezinski said. He was the Nat. Sec. advisor to Carter.
My thought is that the election changed a few superficial things. The names have been changed. The same moral dilemma remains. They are prevented from considering ideas that challenge their drive for self preservation. They believe, like the President, if you don't agree with them, you are one of the terrorists.
I wonder if they will ever pursue a skeptical question about the drive for war against Iran?
We have Bush administration mistakes (well intentioned motives no less) and intelligence failures.
Any other explanations should be considered the disturbed feverish delusions of a thorazine addled tin foil wearing conspiracy theorist.
Bush and Cheney are more than bad. They have lost their minds. I don't know how much more proof it takes. For people in their position to have no more expedient means of removal from office than impeachment is, in their case, as frightening as the knowledge removal from office is a hard sell in Congress. The straightaway maniacs like Sen. McConnell ice this cake. Can you imagine the stacks of hate mail the guy gets? Don't think he doesn't. It's the same with all of them, and they never consider their apocalyptic vision is misguided. Amazing. Only people who have ignored everything they've learned in life could be this turned around: when McConnell says a president's powers of provocation must be unlimited, he shows a stunning contempt for knowledge, not to mention compassion.
To clarify:
Brzezinski was basically telling Congress that a false flag attack was in the realm of possibility.
Too surreal to reply in a straightforward manner so I chose to be satirical.
Although he did not explicitly say so, Brzezinski came close to suggesting that the White House was capable of manufacturing a provocation—including a possible terrorist attack within the US—to provide the casus belli for war.
No shit. That is SOP.
Post a Comment