BUSH DROPS ZIONIST IRAQI LEADER, US MEDIA RETALIATES
Posted By: Rosalinda <Send E-Mail>
Date: Wednesday, 26 May 2004, 8:23 a.m.
Bush drops Zionist Iraqi leader, Chalabi; US media retaliates
by Salvador Astucia, May 26, 2004
The more sophisticated observers of American politics
have noticed a dramatic shift in the American news
media's treatment of President George W. Bush. Many
have postulated theories as to why the media suddenly
chose to release incriminating photographs of American
soldiers mistreating prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in
Iraq. The end result of these photos is President
Bush's approval ratings have plummeted. Emerging
events are beginning to answer the intriguing
question: Why has the media turned on Bush?
President Bush has apparently abandoned plans to
install a Zionist to head the transitional Iraqi
government when the US transfers sovereignty to the
Iraqis on June 30. Zionist puppet Ammad Chalabi was
the backed by the neo-Conservatives in Washington
(aka, the right-wing Jews) to lead a puppet regime in
America's military footprint in what was once the most
dominate country in the Middle East: Iraq. Since the
bloody confrontations in Fallujah and Najaf, President
Bush has apparently shifted the strategy of America's
Iraqi occupation away from Zionist rule. He is now
backing anti-Israel leader Lakhdar Brahimi to head the
transistional government, a move that has angered
every facet of Zionist occupation within the American
government from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve,
Alan Greenspan, who is slowly raising interest rates,
to the Jewish and FBI controlled news media which are
filling the airwaves and newspapers with negative
coverage of the Iraq war and mistreatment of Iraqi
prisoners, an effort to unseat Bush and replace him
with Democratic Zionist Presidential candidate John
Kerry (aka, Bush-Lite). A prominent critic of the Bush
administration is non-Jewish Zionist Republican
Senator from Arizon, John McCain, the darling of
America's pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC (The American
Israeli Public Affairs Committee
http://www.aipac.org/).
The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was obviously a
blackmail operation staged by Zionists within the
military. American military personnel were
systematically photographed torturing Iraqi prisoners,
something that is highly irregular. The photos were
apparently held by Zionist as an insurance policy to
guarantee President Bush would continue to do their
bidding. When he decided to abandon the notion of
Zionist occupation in Iraq because of a failing war
policy, the Zionists began leaking the photos to the
news media who in turn broadcast them to the American
public. It should be noted that the first American
journalist to show the controversial photos was Dan
Rather, a man who rose to national prominence forty
years ago after reporting false information regarding
the assassination of President Kennedy. Rather
released the photos of tortured prisoners held at Abu
Ghraib in a military exposé on the CBS program, 60
Minutes II. Rather's blowing the whistle on the Bush
Administration for mistreatment of prisoners may seem
acceptable to anti-war advocates, since Bush et al
started the Iraq War, but destroying his presidency
because he stopped backing Zionist rule of the
conquered Arab nation is not exactly heroic.
The following article, written by Patrick Seal of the
Daily Star, describes the struggle between Brahimi and
Chalabi:
====
====
It's Brahimi vs. Chalabi for the future of Iraq
By Patrick Seale
Special to The Daily Star
Monday, May 03, 2004
Of all the vicious battles being fought in Iraq, that
between UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and Ahmad Chalabi,
could be decisive for the future of the country. The
two are deadly enemies, but theirs is not only a trial
of strength between individuals. Powerful forces are
ranged behind them, and it would be rash in today's
highly fluid military and political situation to
hazard a guess as to who will emerge the victor.
Chalabi wants to rule Iraq after the transfer of
sovereignty at the end of June. Brahimi is determined
to prevent him from doing so.
A former Algerian foreign minister and UN
trouble-shooter in Afghanistan, Brahimi is the man of
the hour. The US and Britain are relying on him to
find a way out of the catastrophic mess in which they
find themselves in Iraq. He has been given the task of
proposing how and by whom Iraq will be governed in the
transition period between June 30, when the US is due
to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqis, and nationwide
elections scheduled for January 2005.
Chalabi has had a very different career. A former
banker and convicted fraudster, he is the leader of
the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a body of exiles
that lobbied vigorously in Washington for the
overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Chalabi and the INC are
believed to have fed the American intelligence
community with fabricated information on Iraq's
alleged weapons of mass destruction. They are said to
be on the Pentagon payroll to the tune of $340,000 a
month.
Today, Chalabi is a prominent member of the Iraq
Governing Council in Baghdad. He has placed several of
his relatives and friends in the Defense Ministry, the
Commerce Ministry, the Central Bank and other key
posts. He also pressed for the dissolution of the
Iraqi Army and is directing Iraq's "de-Baathification"
program - the purging of party members from government
jobs and public life.
The battle between them is therefore a struggle
between two coalitions.
On one side are those, like Brahimi, who want the UN
to oversee a genuine transfer of sovereignty to a
representative Iraqi government, and who want the
final outcome to be acceptable to Iraqi national
aspirations, as well as to Arab nationalist sentiment.
On the other side, are American neoconservative hawks
and "friends of Israel," who backed Chalabi long
before the war. Their dream is to turn Iraq into a US
client state, the catalyst for "democratic"- in other
words pro-Western and pro-Israeli - change throughout
the Middle East.
The Chalabi camp is spoiling for a fight, but its
weakness lies in the fact that, in Washington, opinion
is beginning to turn against the neocons, who are held
responsible for the manipulation of intelligence and
the geo-political fantasies that drew the US into the
Iraqi quagmire.
Chalabi has also lost the confidence of Paul Bremer,
the US civilian administrator in Baghdad, who is said
to believe Chalabi misled him over the need to
dissolve the Iraqi Army and sack all Baathists from
government posts. These decisions have proved to be
disastrous: They crippled state institutions, threw
hundreds of thousands out of work, and swelled the
ranks of the resistance.
Bremer has partially reversed this policy in recent
weeks by recruiting former Iraqi officers into the
"New Iraqi Army," and calling back low-level Baathists
into government service, including some 10,000 school
teachers. Perhaps seeing it as a threat to his own
prospects, Chalabi has strongly criticized this
retreat from de-Baathification. "This is like allowing
Nazis into the German government immediately after
World War II," he said.
Bremer will be gone by July 1, but Chalabi will still
have his hands on several levers of power - that is,
if Brahimi does not manage to exclude him from the
next phase of the political process. Chalabi has
mounted a campaign against Brahimi, accusing him of
being a Sunni Muslim with no contacts or support in
the all-important Shiite community. In turn, Israel
and its American supporters have attacked Brahimi for
remarks this week on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In a radio interview in Paris, Brahimi said: "There is
no doubt that the great poison in the region is this
Israeli policy of domination and the suffering imposed
on the Palestinians, as well as the perception of the
body of the population in the region, and beyond, of
the injustice of this policy and the equally unjust
support of the United States for this policy." When a
journalist asked him whether he really believed
Israeli policy was "the great poison in the region,"
Brahimi replied: "It is not an opinion. It's a fact!"
William Safire, the pro-Israeli New York Times
columnist, accused Brahimi of seeking to "gain quick
local support by denouncing Israel." He was guilty of
"anti-Western Arab demagoguery," Safire declared. His
UN mission in Iraq had got off to "a troubling start."
The paradox is that the US needs Brahimi and supports
his mission, but it is by no means ready to give up
its supreme authority in Iraq. US forces are likely to
remain in Iraq, and in ultimate charge of security,
for the foreseeable future. US Central Command
commander General John Abizaid has even said that he
might request an increase beyond the 135,000 troops
now in Iraq. The American press has speculated that
50,000 more troops may be needed to stabilize the
situation, and perhaps more.
John Negroponte, the future US ambassador to Iraq,
told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at his
confirmation hearing this week that a UN role in Iraq
would "not come at the expense of the United States'
influence or interests." The State Department's Mark
Grossman explained that Iraq would enjoy only "limited
sovereignty" after 30 June.
Brahimi is well aware of these constraints: The US is
not going to allow itself to be driven out of Iraq. In
spite of all the bloody setbacks, it has not given up
hope of winning. That is why Brahimi is seeking only a
short-term, targeted mandate of which the principal
tasks will be to replace the Governing Council with a
caretaker government of "honest, technically qualified
and respected people;" and to summon a national
conference, modeled on Afghanistan's loya jirga, of at
least 1,000 members representing all Iraqi political
forces, including the resistance. Emerging from this
body, a consultative assembly would oversee the
caretaker government's preparations for the January
2005 general elections.
Brahimi briefed the Security Council on his proposals
last Tuesday but warned the US that bloody
confrontations at Fallujah and Najaf, including the
use of tank fire against mosque minarets, could derail
the plan and have "dramatic and long-term
consequences."
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has yet to approve
Brahimi's proposals. It is an extremely difficult
decision. Annan wants to preserve the UN's role as the
prime instrument of the will of the international
community. He clearly welcomes the fact that the US is
now seeking UN help after having derided it. But he
must also protect the UN's credibility and has no wish
to be seen as a US puppet.
Meanwhile Chalabi and Brahimi are locked in battle.
Chalabi must surely be hoping that Brahimi will
stumble and that his own time will come.
==== ====
this commentary for THE DAILY STAR]
The article shown above can also be viewed at:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=3168
Also see Astucia's homepage:
http://www.jfkmontreal.co
For all of the article go to:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=49451
God help us all.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
