Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search


US Policy Stays the Course Despite Dem. Victory

US Policy Stays the Course Despite Democrat Victory and Rumsfeld's Fall

By Genevieve Cora Fraser

Election night was a wild ride for Democrats across the country. Finally, victory was theirs in the House and the Senate after a dozen years in exile. Congress is about to have its first Muslim representative, a Democrat from Minnesota; and a Black, also a Democrat, was elected governor of Massachusetts for the 1st time in the state’s history and for the 2nd time in the history of the United States. For the most part, inclusiveness was the watchword though there was a stunning defeat for the talented and handsome Democrat Harold Ford of Tennessee, vying to become the first Black Senator since the Reconstruction, following the American Civil War. There the race card was played in a suggestive, Republican ad featuring a scantily clad blond inviting Ford to – whatever.

The Neo-Conservative instigated Iraq war as well as Bush’s overall unpopularity, coupled with Republican indictments and scandals played their part in the victory. But what will change – if anything? Has Bush’s Pre-emption Policy as the world’s only Super Power seen its final days? Is the Democratic victory a harbinger of the demise of the Israel-First, Neo-Conservative agenda? Or has the coin flipped and we will see a different face but the same old world domination and control policy.

My hunch is that any major policy shifts will be confined to the domestic front. On the whole, Democrats tend to uphold the ideal of leveling the playing field at home and building an economy from the ground up – rather than trickle-down economics where the middle and bottom rungs have been shafted or excluded outright. And Bush’s immigration policy stands a shot with a Democrat controlled Congress. Bush proposed a new temporary worker program “to match willing foreign workers with willing U.S. employers when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs. The program would be open to new foreign workers, and to the undocumented men and women currently employed in the U.S.” and would allow workers who currently hold jobs to come out of hiding and participate legally, according to the White House webpage. Such a policy would go a long way to counter the extremist hype of the so-called War on Terrorism which has created a climate of fear for non-citizens. It also serves the interests of the industrial and service sector economy that depends on cheap labor. If the Bush immigration policy passes not only would “illegals” become legal, so too would the businesses that employ them and currently operate outside the law.

But what changes, if any, will there be in US foreign policy? Bush was quick to steal the thunder from the Democrat’s victory by serving his cherished Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to the lions of public opinion. Cheney and his side-kick Rumsfeld are veterans of Papa Bush’s reign which was, in turn, an extension of the Ronald Reagan dynasty. But to proffer former CIA Director Robert Gates as the new Secretary of Defense may signal the apparent demise of the Neo-Conservative primacy, while continuing to forward the agenda of the New World Order as initiated by the Reagan-Bush era of the 1980s. As for the Neo-Cons, though less visible, their role will continue in the halls of power – as well as in the World Bank (Wolfowitz) and the United Nations (Bolton).

As the Number Two Man at the CIA under William Casey, Gates was a master in the politics of Divide and Conquer during the Reagan years. There are serious allegations tying him to the Iran-Contra scandal. He is also accused of aiding and abetting Saddam Hussein - along with Rumsfeld – in acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction for Iraq. Of course, no one would suggest that Rumsfeld and Gates should hang along with Saddam for the dastardly deeds which ensued.

Former AP and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry investigates Secretary of Defense designate Robert Gates in his article, The Secret World of Robert Gates. “The Russian government sent an intelligence report to a House investigative task force in early 1993 stating that Gates participated in secret contacts with Iranian officials in 1980 to delay release of 52 U.S. hostages then held in Iran, a move to benefit the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.”

“Once in office, the Reagan administration did permit weapons to flow to Iran via Israel. One of the planes carrying an arms shipment was shot down over the Soviet Union on July 18, 1981, after straying off course, but the incident drew little attention at the time. The arms flow continued, on and off, until 1986 when the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal broke,” Parry reports.

“Gates also was implicated in a secret operation to funnel military assistance to Iraq in the 1980s, as the Reagan administration played off the two countries battling each other in the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq War,” according to Parry.

”Middle Eastern witnesses alleged that Gates worked on the secret Iraqi initiative, which included Saddam Hussein’s procurement of cluster bombs and chemicals used to produce chemical weapons for the war against Iran,” Parry continued. “Gates denied those Iran-Iraq accusations in 1991 and the Senate Intelligence Committee – then headed by Gates’ personal friend, Sen. David Boren, D-Oklahoma – failed to fully check out the claims before recommending Gates for confirmation.”

Will the Robert Gates confirmation hearings for Secretary of Defense pass the smell test? Will he be confirmed? Who’s to stop him – the Democrats?

In the last decades, Zionist, Neo-Con, Israel-First organizations and think tanks have dominated the political climate and made solid inroads in both parties. But to be fair – they have willing partners in the military-industrial complex and those intent on control of oil and other resources of the world. Pro-Israeli hawks, such as Joe Lieberman (I-CT) won big in the recent election, aided by money and manpower largely supplied by Jewish organizations. Zionist protégé Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is the heir-apparent to the Democratic nod for president, now that Israeli-wannnabe John Kerry has stuck a silver foot in his mouth - claiming poorly performing students will be used as cannon fodder in Iraq. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), another Pro-Israeli hawk will be the new Speaker of the House and 3rd in line for President should something unforeseen happen to Bush and Cheney. Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee works hand in glove with AIPAC, the American Israeli lobby – and the list goes on.

According to exit polls, the Jewish turn-out for Democrats was the highest in fourteen years. And though they may be critics of America’s policies in Iraq, no matter how egregious the crimes against humanity committed by Israel, it is the rarest of Democrats who dares to speak above a whisper in criticism. Many owe their souls to pro-Israeli power brokers. Even the ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts pays allegiance to Israel and recently sent out a letter to constituents affirming his support – apparently poor Israel was the victim as they slaughtered and maimed tens of thousands of Lebanese citizens over the summer, making parts of the country nearly uninhabitable. And Ted Kennedy’s wife is Lebanese!!!!

But the world-renown, peace-maker, and star Democrat, former President Jimmy Carter has bucked the tide and subsequently brought a maelstrom of criticism upon himself. In his new book, “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid,” Carter states, “Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement.” At face value, that statement is a no-brainer. How many Palestinians has Israel killed in the last few months alone – 300-400? And I’m not counting the cancer patients who have died as a direct result of the Israeli blockade of food and medicine. Nor am I counting the wounded who have succumbed in hospitals that are left without electricity and running water and basic medical supplies due to Israeli incursions.

The New York Post opined about Carter’s “Bonehead Book” which you might expect, considering its Zionist leanings, but the Democrat’s response was the kicker. Democrats trembled with fear at the mere title of the tome. The word “Apartheid” in reference to Israel sent shock waves through this so-called liberal community. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi were quick to distance themselves from the Carter analysis. “President Carter speaks for himself, the opinions in his book are his own, they are not the views or position of the Democratic Party,” Dean announced. “With all due respect to former President Carter, he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel,” Pelosi stated unequivocally.

If the Democrats can’t open their eyes to the horrors in Palestine committed daily by the occupying forces of Israel, how can they possibly stand up to the Divide and Conquer policy at play in Iraq? The Democrats are as elitist as the Republicans. The idea that Iraqis should be empowered to decide Iraq’s future looks great on paper but its support is paper thin in the American-Israeli military and industrial complex and among the politicians who serve their interests.


© Scoop Media

Top Scoops Headlines


Dunne Speaks: Robertson's Budget Gamble On Treasury
The popular test of the success or failure of Grant Robertson’s fifth Budget will be its impact on the soaring cost of living. In today’s climate little else matters. Because governments come and governments go – about every six to seven years on average since 1945 – getting too focused on their long-term fiscal aspirations is often pointless... More>>

Keith Rankin: Liberal Democracy In The New Neonationalist Era: The Three 'O's
The proposed ‘New Zealand Income Insurance Scheme’ (‘the scheme’) has attracted strong debate among the more left-wing and liberal groupings, within New Zealand-Aotearoa. This debate should be seen as a positive rather than negative tension because of the opportunity to consider and learn from the implications and sharpen advocacy... More>>

Dunne Speaks: Words Matter, Prime Minister
Words matter, especially when uttered by politicians. History is littered with examples of careless or injudicious words uttered by politicians coming back to haunt them, often at the most awkward of times. During the 1987 election campaign, when electoral reform was a hot issue, Prime Minister David Lange promised to have a referendum on the electoral system... More>>

Digitl: Infrastructure Commission wants digital strategy
Earlier this month Te Waihanga, New Zealand’s infrastructure commission, tabled its first Infrastructure Strategy: Rautaki Hanganga o Aotearoa. Te Waihanga describes its document as a road map for a thriving New Zealand... More>>

Binoy Kampmark: Leaking For Roe V Wade
The US Supreme Court Chief Justice was furious. For the first time in history, the raw judicial process of one of the most powerful, and opaque arms of government, had been exposed via media – at least in preliminary form. It resembled, in no negligible way, the publication by WikiLeaks of various drafts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership... More>>

The Conversation: Cheaper food comes with other costs – why cutting GST isn't the answer

As New Zealand considers the removal of the goods and services tax (GST) from food to reduce costs for low income households, advocates need to consider the impact cheap food has on the environment and whether there are better options to help struggling families... More>>