Obama’s Top Adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski!!?? WTF!!??

AMY GOODMAN: Barack Obama?

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, Obama’s top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, “Well, don’t you think this might have had some bad consequences?” And Brzezinski replied, “Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets.” Another top Obama person—

AMY GOODMAN: I think his comment actually was, “What’s a few riled-up Muslims?” And this, that whole idea of blowback, the idea of arming, financing, training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, including Osama bin Laden, and then when they’re done with the Soviets, they set their sights, well, on the United States.

ALLAN NAIRN:

Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.

Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, who not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in ’91 that you and I survived, he was—I happened to see on Indonesian TV shortly after that—there was General McPeak overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of US fighter planes.

...

Another Obama adviser, Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official, she wrote the introduction to General Petraeus’s Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations. That’s the Obama team.

...
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us

Zbigniew Brzezinski, born in Warsaw, Poland, in 1928, the son of a diplomat posted to Canada in 1938, serves as Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and is Professor of American Foreign Policy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C. Brzezinski is said to be a protege' of both Nelson A. Rockefeller and Paul H. Nitze (see Nitze School), his CSIS profile states. <1>
In the private sector, Brzezinski serves as an "international advisor of several major US/global corporations." He is a "frequent participant in annual business/trade conventions" and is President of Z.B. Inc. "(an advisory firm on international issues to corporations and financial institutions). Also a frequent public speaker and commentator on major domestic and foreign TV programs, and contributor to domestic and foreign newspapers and journals."<2>

...

Director, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (1972 to 1977)
Trustee, Freedom House
Director, Jamestown Foundation
Director, Polish-American Enterprise Fund, reputed CIA front
Director, Polish-American Freedom Foundation, reputed CIA front
Former Director, National Endowment for Democracy (Congressionally-funded organization)

...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Zbigniew_Brzezinski

And look into Anthony Lake.

that would educate you as to why there is legitimate concern about such a connection to one of our candidates.

these are well done researched statistics.

obama is scary.

perhaps more scary in his fake smile than the repukes.

i'm so glad that this is only iowa and the race is still up for grabs.

As Amy Goodman revealed to us today...
BHN

Perhaps? No. None of the dems are scarier than any of the pukes. Don't lose your head there, sport.

The Empire strikes back?

Damn scary!
Brzezinski is not someone I would chose for an adviser if I really wanted better relations with the world instead of war. Not good!

MR. CHECKERS

:hide:

The left will find something negative to say about anybody in the military or anyone's foreign policy advisers. How many times is the left going to be bamboozled with this Naderesque attack strategy. Can you guys ever think for your damn selves instead of being led around by the nose.

I sure as frickin hell think so!

That more than makes up for Zbiggy and the others! She's the greatest!

Samantha Power is the Anna Lindh Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy, based at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, where she was the founding executive director <1998-2002>. Her book "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide was awarded the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction, the 2003 National Book Critics Circle Award for general nonfiction, and the Council on Foreign Relations' Arthur Ross Prize for the best book in U.S. foreign policy. Power's New Yorker article on the horrors in Darfur, Sudan, won the 2005 National Magazine Award for best reporting. In 2007, Power became a foreign policy columnist at Time magazine. From 1993 to 1996 she covered the wars in the former Yugoslavia as a reporter for the U.S. News and World Report, the Boston Globe, and The Economist. She remains a working journalist, reporting from such places as Burundi, East Timor, Kosovo, Rwanda, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, and contributing to the Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker and The New York Review of Books. Power is the editor, with Graham Allison, of Realizing Human Rights: Moving from Inspiration to Impact. A graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School, she moved to the United States from Ireland at the age of nine. She spent 2005 to 2006 working in the office of Senator Barack Obama. Her most recent work, a political biography of UN's Sergio Vieira de Mello, will be published by Penguin Press in February 2008.

interview of her with Charlie Rose. To be honest it creeped me out. She's got all the right words that we hear when humanitarianism is used as a pretext for foreign intervention. We've seen how this operates repeatedly.

Take the time to watch the Dem Now video. We need fresh outlooks and what we are getting is recycled policy wonks who have a long record of aggression.

Powers is an emotional ideologue of humanitarian imperialism.

Well-meaning liberals like her think up noble reasons for the U.S. and Western powers to invade distant countries so as to "save lives." They are very good at condemning the atrocities of some backwater government, and completely blind to the atrocities of the West. The main effect of U.S. interventions since 1945 has been to end lives.

This fits perfectly with Brzezinski: he'll give Obama (or whoever) sound Machiavellian advice on whom to invade next, and then people like Powers can be recruited to provide the bogus humanitarian excuses.

A Kinder Gentler Boot in the Face.

just on Young Turks talking about how the media loves Obama, they love his personability and the fact he is "new". The media doesn't like John Edwards because they his speeches aren't "fun" -- you sometimes have to listen to things you don't want to hear. They did to Edwards what they did to Gore - "stiff" "boring" - his speeches were too long and he was overwhelming voters with policy information.

Does the media, other than DemocracyNow! cover the truth about Obama? Nope.

Lord, looking behind the doors of power
is certainly depressing.

BHN

Anyone know of any other reference to this fact other than Nairn's claim?

And they have no loyalty to us.

and seem to attach themselves to both Republican & Dem. administrations. Because they've got these great resumes from the U of Chicago & positions in big-shot think tanks & lots of foreign policy expertise. I worry a little that Obama, who is weak in foreign policy, might be sucked into relying on the advice of these neocons the same way that Bush was.

and has introduced him on the campaign trail. But, I have found no substantiating evidence that Brzezinski is in fact an Obama advisor. Most of the info on line links back to unfounded blog entries. In fact, the woman who was interviewed by Amy Goodman in the OP, (and who's story has been noted, I think, in the OP or at the Dem Now link) never indicated Brzezinski was an Obama advisor. On the contrary, she merely notes that Brzezinski endorsed Obama.

Can inference be made then, that since Brzezinski has publicly endorsed Obama that he therefore is an Obama advisor? I think someone from the Obama campaign or Brzezinski himself would be the most reliable source to substantiate this rumor, and I have found nothing from either.

....

"We also created America's first National Export Strategy, helping our firms walk through the doors we opened with trade agreements. With our support, American firms have won more than $57 billion in foreign business contracts since November 1993.

To sustain this performance and strengthen prosperity into the 21st century, our nation must enforce existing trade agreements, including the more than 180 agreements concluded by the Clinton Administration. We must transform our vision for free trade in the Americas into concrete results, including by expansion of NAFTA to Chile. And we must build on our blueprint for free trade in the Asia-Pacific region -- the fastest-growing market in the world."

- Anthony Lake

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/tl240596.htm

Much less NAFTA.

know much- cut and pasters gernerally don't. what a fasile little hit job. Anthony Lake is terrific.

First let me say your ad hominen attack is noted and is certainly not the fashion for any healthy discussion. If that is your style you will get nowhere.

Secondly let me assure you if you think Anthony Lake is terrific you may wany to expand your knowledge at how things operate in the corridors of power.

Lake is the consummate "free trade" uber alles insider. Here's a bit of realpolitik:

That is why we are leading the effort to secure a successful GATT agreement by year's end. And it is why enactment of NAFTA is one of the President's top priorities. But while these specific agreements are of enormous importance, this need for economic renewal goes even further. We are in the early stages of as great a change in the global economy as we faced at the end of World War II. And with hard times in all our nations, we face the possibility of creating vicious rather than virtuous circles of international economic action. Unless the major market democracies act together -- updating international economic institutions, coordinating macroeconomic policies and striking hard but fair bargains on the ground rules of open trade -- the fierce competition of the new global economy, coupled with the end of our common purpose from the Cold War, could drive us into prolonged stagnation or even economic disaster.

The military problem involves NATO. For half a century NATO has proved itself the most effective military alliance in human history. If NATO is to remain an anchor for European and Atlantic stability, as the President believes it must, its members must commit themselves to updating NATO's role in this new era. Unless NATO is willing over time to assume a broader role, then it will lose public support, and all our nations will lose a vital bond of transatlantic and European security. That is why, at the NATO summit that the President has called for this January, we will seek to update NATO so that there continues behind the enlargement of market democracies an essential collective security.

Fostering New Democracies and Market Economies

Beyond seeing to our base, the second imperative for our strategy must be to help democracy and markets expand and survive in other places where we have the strongest security concerns and where we can make the greatest difference. This is not a democratic crusade; it is a pragmatic commitment to see freedom take hold where that will help us most. Thus, we must target our effort to assist states that affect our strategic interests, such as those with large economies, critical locations, nuclear weapons or the potential to generate refugee flows into our own nation or into key friends and allies. We must focus our efforts where we have the most leverage. And our efforts must be demand-driven -- they must focus on nations whose people are pushing for reform or have already secured it.

...

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/lakedoc.html

Gangsta Rap Made Me Do It







Blame me
You niggas know my pyrocalstic flow
You niggas know my pyrocalstic flow flow
You niggas know my pyrocalstic flow it's R.A.W R.A.W

You lookin at the ground wizzy war lord vocal chord so vicious
And I don't have to show riches to pull up pull off with some bad bitches
And it ain't about shivelry
It's about dope lyrics and delivery
It's about my persona ain't nothing like a man that can do wha he wanna
Ain't nothing like man on that you knew on the cornna
See em come up and fuck up the owna
See em throw up westside california
Nigga I'm hot as pheonix arizona
I'm utah I got multiple bitches
It's a new law keep a hold of yo riches
Dumb nigga don't spend it as soon as you get it and recognize I'm a captian you a lieutenant

I can say what I want to say ain't nohin to it gangsta rap made me do it
If I call you a nigger ain't nohin to it gangsta rap made me do it
I can act like an animal ain't nohin to it gangsta rap made me do it
If I eat you like a cannibal ain't nohin to it gangsta rap made me do it

I'm raw as a dirty needle
Choke an eagle
Just to feed all my people
Lyrically I'm so lethal
Plant thoughts in they mind just to defeat you
Ice Cube is a saga ya spit saliva
And I spit lava
I got the fearless flow
Don't get near this ho
If you sacred to go
I keep it gangsta and why should change that fuck all you muthafukas tryin to change rap
But arent you the same cat that sat back when they brought cocaine back
I'm tryin to get me a may back how you muthafukas gonna tell me don't say that you the ones where we learned it from I heard nigga back in 1971

So if I act like a pimp ain't nohin to it gangsta rap made me do it
If I call you a nappy headed ho ain't nohin to it gangsta rap made me do it
If I shoot up your college ain't nohin to it gangsta rap made me do it
If I rob you of knowledge ain't nohin to it gangsta rap made me do it

Thank God when I bless the mic
You finally get to hear the shit that you like
A nigga talkin bout real life so you can try to get this shit right
Use your brain not your back use your brain not a gat
It's a party not a jack(for real)
Don't be scared of them people
Walk up in there and show them that you equal(fuck them fuck them)
Don't be material a nigga grew up on milk and cereal
I never for got vaness and impearial
Look at my life Ice Cube is a miracle
It could be you if you was this lyrical
It could be her if she was this spritual
Becuz me and allah go back like cronies
I don't got to be fake becuz he is my homie

If I sell a liitle crack ain't nohin to it gangsta rap made me do it
If I die and I rap ain't nohin to it gangsta rap made me do it
If I take you for granted ain't nohin to it gangsta rap made me do it
If I fuck up the planet ain't nohin to it gangsta rap made me do it

You niggas know my pyrocalstic flow
You niggas know my pyrocalstic flow flow flow
You niggas know my pyrocalstic flow It's R.A.W R.A.W

Oh yeah and anotha thing for all ya niggas that don't do gangsta rap don't get on tv talkin about gangsta rap cause 9 at of 10 times you don't know the fuck don niggas don't know the fuck talk about that bullshit rap you do

Stay the fuck out of mine

the less I like what I see.

Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense, is also working with Obama. He is one of many from the Center for American Progress—headed by former Clinton deputy chief of staff and Hillary supporter John Podesta—working with the top tier.

Or that at least it would seem to be at least of a LITTLE concern to at least some supporters.

link. :hi:

on edit: And a related link

:hi:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

read the statement

"One has to hand it to the Council on Foreign Relations. Just as Iran has spent the last several months reconfirming why it was a charter member of the "axis of evil," a CFR taskforce, led by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and former DCI Robert Gates, has concluded that the time is now ripe for a policy of "engagement" with Iran."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040720.htm

Have you no fucking shame?

They don't really know their PNAC despite the pretenses.

Not everything bad comes from PNAC.

There are plenty of "think tanks" that stink. There are some equally as dangerous.

The basic work of all government....

As in contrast to "The People." Quite right, unfortunately, and that is the problem. That same "praise" was due Kissinger for his service to the powers that he served and the consequent slaughter of millions around the planet. They are truly twins when it comes to values and ethics.

(edit typo)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrcyyGxWqWU



They got the situation, they got me facing
I can't live a normal life, I was raised by the state
So I gotta be down with the 'hood team
Too much television watching, got me chasing dreams
I'm an educated fool with money on my mind
Like a lemon in my hand and a gleam in my eye
I'm a loced out gangsta, set trippin banger
And my homies is down so am arouse my anger, fool
death ain't nothing but a heart beat away
I'm living life do or die, what can I say?
I'm twenty-three now, but will I live to see twenty-four?
The way things is going I don't know

Tell me why are we too blind to see
That the ones we hurt are you and me?


As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death
I take a look at my life
And realize there's nuthin left
'Cause I've been blastin' and laughin' so long that,
Even my mama thinks that my mind is gone
But I ain't never crossed a man that didn't deserve it
He'd be treated like a punk, you know that's unheard of
You betta watch how ya talking
And where ya walking
Or you and your homies might be lined in chalk

I really hate to trip but I gotta lope
As they croak, I see myself in the pistol smoke, fool
I'm the kinda g that little homie's wanna be like
On my knees in the night
Saying prayers in the street light

Been spending all our lives
Living in gangsta's paradise
Been spending all our lives
Living in gangsta's paradise

Keep spending all your life
Living in gangsta's paradise
Keep spending all your life
Living in gangsta's paradise

They got the situation, they got me facing
I can't live a normal life, I was raised by the state
So I gotta be down with the 'hood team
Too much television watching, got me chasing dreams
I'm an educated fool with money on my mind
Like a lemon in my hand and a gleam in my eye
I'm a loced out gangsta, set trippin banger
And my homies is down so am arouse my anger, fool
death ain't nothing but a heart beat away
I'm living life do or die, what can I say?
I'm twenty-three now, but will I live to see twenty-four?
The way things is going I don't know

Tell me why are we too blind to see
That the ones we hurt are you and me?

Tell me why are we too blind to see
That the ones we hurt are you and me?

Power and the money, money and the power
Minute after minute, hour after hour
Everybody's running, but half of them ain't looking
What's going on in the kitchen?
But I don't know what's cooking
They say I gotta learn
But nobody's here to teach me
If they can't understand , how can they reach me?
I guess they can't
I guess they won't, I guess they front
That's why I know my life is out of luck, fool!

Been spending all your life
Living in gangsta's paradise
Been spending all your life
Living in gangsta's paradise

Keep spending all your life
Living in gangsta's paradise
Keep spending all your life
Living in gangsta's

Tell me why are we too blind to see
That the ones we hurt, are you and me?
Tell me why are we too blind to see
That the ones we hurt, are you and me?

Ain't no gansta's living in paradise
Ain't no gansta's living in paradise
Ain't no gansta's living in paradise
Ain't no gansta's living in paradise
Ain't no gansta's living in paradise
Ain't no gansta's living in paradise...


Credits
Words and music Stevie Wonder, Lawrence Sanders, Doug Rasheed & L Artis Ivey Jr
Black Bull Music/Boo Daddy Publishing/Large Variety Music/Madcastle Muzic/Wb Music Corp

is its disregard for the truth that law is more respectable than force because, and to the extent that, man is a being with natural awareness of moral constraints. - Carnes Lord

Someday we will, as a people, embark upon The Real Work.

But for now, it seems we have more of this other to endure.

The person you cite sets much store by a distinction without a difference.

a broad view of the unity of all living things to comprehend.

But I suspect we can agree to disagree about such things, sir.

In the context of the matter at hand, might I suggest that the root precepts you refer to have been misappropriated by the cabal of thinkers referred to in this thread. Under Clinton these fine advisers established a foreign policy paradigm they referred to as "military humanism," of which you may be aware. Unfortunately for mankind, the policy choices they made never matched the high rhetoric they employed. Their hypocrisy in execution simply extended the thread of imperial exploitation (if you'll excuse the hyperbole) from one Bush to another. I'd prefer to see a new team on the field. I'd even settle for one that believes in the need for your "Work," albeit with a more truly benevolent set of goals.

Mr. Brzezinski set in train the policy that broke the Soviet Union: that was his job, and he did it superbly.

Military force was used pretty well under President Clinton: the only serious charge is one of omission, namely failure to intervene in Rwanda.

Mr. Brzezinski's comments on the policies of the present administration have been cogent and beneficial.

For the rest, broad or narrow a view of the unity of things as one may choose to take, it remains a fact law is a cultural and social construct that has in all instances been based on force, and is not reliably obeyed absent force sufficient to compel obedience to it.

and under Clinton the direct application was somewhat limited but the indirect application was as widespread - as it has been since WWII. Massive military, financial and intelligence support for corrupt, brutal and undemocratic regimes worldwide continued unabated.

For example, at exactly the same time as Mr. Obama's pal Anthony Lake was defining the "new military humanism" in our glorious defeat of the Serbs and their ethnic cleansing, neighboring Turkey was slaughtering thousands, and displacing hundreds of thousands (millions by some estimates) of Kurds in an even larger ethnic cleansing operation of their own. Also at the same time, on the other side of the globe, the government of Indonesia was engaged in a brutal and murderous campaign of repression in East Timor.

The primary difference between Bosnia and Turkey/Indonesia was that Turkey and Indonesia were using American weapons, money and intelligence/tactical support to carry out their crimes. Another difference was that the neoliberal media establishment in the West highlighted one war and ignored the others.

Believe me, I have plenty of "serious charges" I could make regarding Clinton foreign policy beyond Rwanda. The "realpolitik" notions of Kissinger/Brzezinski have led Presidents of both Parties to forget our declared ends and live only for the means.

We have supported so many tin-horn dictators and death squad stoolies around the world - in the name of fighting communism, terrorism, and/or other amorphous geo-political nonsense - that one simply can longer keep track. And almost universally, a scratch below the surface of our motives reveals dishonesty, and the financial interests of the few rather than the security interests of us all.

The situation on Turkey was a real insurrection, of long standing and dedicated violence on both sides. It had little potential effect on regional stability, being pretty self-contained. While the Turks certainly behaved with great brutality, there was at the timer no record of mass killings of the sort the Serbs had engaged in routinely at Srebenicia, involving thousands, nor any close analogue to the siege of Sarajevo.

East Timor achieved its independence, with great international support, including armed forces deployed by the United Nations. The Indonesian campaign was brought to a halt.

The Serbian excesses had a special quality, as being the first such on European soil since the Second World War. They ought to have been halted long before they actually were. The Serbian assault on Kossovo that was laid in train was not a fight between two contending forces, but an extraordinarily one-sided application of violence climaxing a long campaign of oppression and displacement, which the Albanians of Kossovo had opposed in a Gandhian campaign of non-violence. Given the previous character of Serbian operations, there was no reasonable doubt of the character the operation would assume, if it were not halted.

Yeah, you're sort of like a mini-Powers in the way of shovelling the imperial propaganda. Sir.

"that was his job, and he did it superbly."

in relation to our involvement.

And I would assert that the case in Turkey was also "an extraordinarily one-sided application of violence climaxing a long campaign of oppression and displacement," much like you describe in Bosnia.

And surely you don't dispute the fact that the U.S. has chosen to provide financial and military support to a long list of undemocratic leaders worldwide, in many cases providing the impetus for the installation of such leaders, and often providing the critical resources needed to maintain their regimes.

It seems we can always find geo-political excuses to trump our stated goals of democracy and human rights. The list numbers in the dozens, if not the hundreds of cases. And it's this history of complicity, uninterrupted by the Clinton leadership team, that provides us with the most accurate answer to George Bush's prescient question: "Why do they hate us?" Until we get this straight we will continue to breed enemies for our children to fight, and we will continue to bankrupt ourselves morally and financially. IMHO, sir.

Most governments are not democratic. It is certainly a problem, and reprehensible, when the U.S, has supported the overthrow of democratic governments and their replacement by murderous authoritarians, as has been the case on several occasions, particularly in Latin America. These actions did not, in my view, serve the best interests of the United States, even in the context of the Cold War.

authoritarian Arab regimes in the Middle East in the context of our supposed strategic interests in that part of the world?

Several of such regimes would likely not have lasted as long as they have without our massive support. The alternative (as we saw in Palestine, and may see in Pakistan) could well be strictly Islamist, nationalist and anti-American/Israeli governments. Yet if these governments are freely elected and enjoy the wide support of their populations - shouldn't we stand aside in the interests of democracy?

Doesn't our long time policy suggest that we have decided - in the ME and elsewhere - that the answer to that question is no? Can we really, then, claim to be supporters of democracy? And are we really acting in our own long term interests? or just our short term, or narrowly defined interests?

Is in the interests of nobody in particular.

Dominance of the Middle East by fundamentalist regimes would hardly be a spectacle to delight the eye of any person of left and progressive views, as such regimes are noted for their violent suppression of women and minority groups. It does not matter to me that such actions are widely popular, ay least among the males, for they are reactionary in the extreme, and opposed to most things that seem good and valuable to me. Further, such regimes so not accept the idea that the people rule, should the people go against what they conceive to be the will of their god: they can only be overthrown by violence once in possession of the machinery of government.

Mr. Adams' eighteenth century comment that "We are the friends of Liberty everywhere, but the champions only of our own" seems still to me to be the best guide for the foreign policy of our Republic.

or the Saudis to be more progressive on issues of human rights? Our puppets and pawns don't seem to do much better in that regard than the Mullahs. And the trouble with our puppets is that they will eventually fall - because every illegitimate ruler eventually does. Sometimes it takes generations, but when it happens we find we are worse off than when we started - not to mention poorer financially and morally.

Maybe better that we accept the unfriendly and even extremist popular sentiment and work through other peaceful means to change that slowly over time.

Edit to add: In our modern age it seems that Jefferson's sentiment about being "champions of our own" has come back to bite us in the ass. I suspect that it will continue to do so until we decide that all humanity is "our own."

Those latter are essentially a fundamentalist theocracy as they stand now, tempered only slightly by royal prerogative, and the understanding a cleric can at need be killed by the King or a Prince.

By the standard you seem to be employing, just about every government throughout human history is illegitimate, as virtually all have ruled without much consultation with the views of those they rule. While it is possible to marshall arguments for that position, it is essentially sterile. It seems more apt to me to recognize that the sort of government we are used to in the modern West is an aberration, rather than the norm, in human affairs.

Your closing comment opens quite the can of worms, for it seems to suggest you would welcome a national crusade to 'spread freedom' throughout the world. This would be an incredibly bloody and destructive thing in its initial stages, with no surety it would ever resolve into anything else than chaos and bloodshed. It does not strike me as sound national policy, to put it mildly.

that just about every government throughout human history has been illegitimate, as you suggest. In fact, I would suggest that was a premise set forth by our founding fathers. Why you consider that position "essentially sterile" escapes me.

Regarding the promotion of democracy and human rights as "an incredibly bloody and destructive thing," - you assume I mean that we should promote this through force of arms, which I don't. But even if we were to do so, I can't imagine such a policy would engender anymore bloodshed than promoting our own self-interest through force of arms - as we do now.

As for sound national policy, I do beg to differ. Do unto others and all that. What comes around goes around, as we are just beginning to learn.

Willy Brandt set in train the policy that broke the Soviet Union: Ostpolitik.

"Failure to intervene in Rwanda"? You mean, like when the U.S. intervened for years on behalf of one side, and the French on behalf of the other? How does this proxy war between imperialist powers get turned into "failure to intervene"?

if you wouldst but contemplate on the varied and sundry effects of sacrificing peasants for the good of the state.

eventually your lordship, we run out of peasants, and have to start catapulting cows!

So if ZBiggy is good at "The Work" that you describe which is as you state using violence for The State do you advocate supporting such an individual and such violenece?

I agree that ZBiggy IS good at using and promoting violence for The State, his record proves this, but I certainly don't condone it.

Please use straight talk.

Violence is the essence of all state actions, whether foreign or domestic. The only question of importance is whether this is done competently, and in a proper direction, or otherwise. Mr. Brzezinski is competent, and has pretty good aim. He will play a signifigant role in any Democratic administration, and that is a good thing.

So let me ask again, and please use straight talk, are you a proponent of this violence?

An easy to answer question and it seems that you are advocating violence with only a concern that it is in the proper direction and "done competently."

You may wish to expand on your definition of how this violence can be done competently and in which direction this violence would be deemed proper.

What you are espousing sounds like a colonial mindset.

As it stands it appears you are okay with Brzezinski, in fact supportive, because he is competent at violence (other reasons as well?). That is a repugnant position that cannot be justified by anyone of a progressive persuasion. It is quite authoritarian.

It is certainly nothing I would wish to teach the children or the grandchildren.

The use of violence may be viewed as right or wrong in accordance with a variety factors, chiefly with whether or not one holds as good the end towards which it is directed. Other factors can include such considerations as whether the desired end could be achieved in some other manner, or even whether the end is one that can be achieved by violence at all. The proportionality of the violence to the situation in which it is employed, and its legality in that situation, may also be important factors in assessing whether it is due approval or not. Several of these considerations combine into the question of whether violence is being employed competently, but it is certainly possible to recognize the competent employment of violence towards an end of which one disapproves. Franco's conduct of the Nationalist side in the Spanish Civil War, for instance, was extraordinarily competent, and he achieved not only victory in the conflict, but the precise shape of the following peace he desired from the outset. That shape was abhorrent to me, but he certainly deserves high grades for expertise and judgement.

Mr. Brzezinski saw the full scope of the opportunity opened against the Soviet Union by events in Afghanistan towards the end of President Carter's administration. Breaking the totalitarian Soviet regime was a national goal of the United States at the time, and struck me then and now as a proper goal for the United States. The policy set in train by Mr. Brzezinski achieved this goal.

clearly supports the contention that ZBig is competent, if not skilled - in the use of state violence. But the question remains whether he and the others we have discussed are even working toward the ends most Americans want their leaders to work toward. Are they working to achieve long term security, or simply short term prosperity?

And what creates long term security? Access to resources? U.S. Friendly regimes in key locations? The maintenance of our ability to project military force worldwide at all times? Personally, I think the answer is none of these. Instead I (and many other progressives) believe - unlike ZBig et al - that long term security will only result when our fellow humans live under self-determined leaders, in full control of their own resources and without our meddlesome involvement.

Something they can feel they have a finger of their own in, and that is not dependent on the good will of, or even just the sensible calculation of self-interest by, others. This runs so deep in the human affairs, on every level from the most deeply personal to the grandest scales of state, that argument over whether it is correct or not will be both pointless and fruitless: the thing simply has to be accepted, like the number of limbs we are born with.

I firmly believe the argument over whether our aims are correct is not fruitless. When you suggest that "the thing simply has to be accepted," I fear you have hit an intellectual roadblock that will condemn future generations of Americans to war and even destruction.

At some point we will meet with the limits of our ability to control the human environment and protect ourselves through amoral force of arms. At such time our only hope will be to "let go" and adopt thinking that takes into account "the sensible calculation of self interest by others," as you say. We are already meeting the very edges of these limits, as 9-11 foretells.

You are undoubtedly correct that the tendencies you describe "run deep in human affairs." It is precisely for this reason that a revolutionary change of thinking about our relations with our fellow man is required. Indeed, I fear it's our only hope. (And it doesn't involve ZBig)

Particularly since rum has recently been poured into my orange juice. It has certainly been an enjoyable exchange, and perhaps we can do this again, and even find some points of agreement despite our somewhat different starting points and attitudes.

Happy hunting!

'All we are saying, is Give Violence a Chance!' It's a singalong with Magistrate everybody!

Well there are a few contortions but overall it is very clear that you are quite okay with US intervention and only have some minor qualms about style.

Well that's not okay, it's quite the wrong track as we see today in the geopolitical landscape.

Now it may be easy for you to write it off as some "Great Game" or "The Work" but in fact what you are so easily dismissing is the suffering of people. In the case of The Soviet Union what we have seen since "the opportunity", as you put it so clinically, is a dramatic decrease in life expectancy and quite a breakdown in the social infrastructure, such as it was, due to the "shock therapy" of these market reforms that were brought about by the IMF.

Even Mr. Sachs, who bears some responsibility too, has recanted somewhat.

And the desired end? It was not to bring Democracy (this is just the code word as everyone knows) to The Soviet Union, if you have a single example of the US doing such a thing anywhere I'd be interested, but to gain access to resources and force the much mythologized "Free Market" down the throats of everyone in sight.

So there it is, your "proper goal." It's called imperialism.

So you wont mind if i come over and kick you in the nutsack?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Buy War Bonds!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The military expenditures of Germany are not proportional to its economic or population size vis a vis the United States.

If your explanation is that Europe enjoys a parasitic relationship with the United States, then I am forced to congratulate Europe for its shrewdness as it spends its finite resources on more productive endeavors.


The steel invested in an M-1 tank provides precious little compared to that invested in infrastructure and fuel spent sailing and flying in circles clearly is a waste as well.

The overwhelming conventional military superiority we possess simply invites attack by other means, whether these take the form of 'asymmetric warfare' when our forces have been lured into positions where conventional military operations have limited value, or appear as subtler forms of economic attack, which our over-expenditures on arms render even more efficacious than they might other-wise be.

havent you read his posts before?

Not only is Brezezinski more principled than those folks, he's also smarter.

Can't speak to his long-term record and his years with Clinton, but during the Bush presidency, every time I've heard ZB talk, I've been nodding my head in agreement.

The advisor choices you mention make me more confident in Obama, not less confident.

That said, Obama's still not my first choice.

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..."(Regarding Middle East strategy in The Grand Chessboard p. 198)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (The Grand Chessboard p. 211)

"The three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (The Grand Chessboard p.40)

- Zbigniew Brzezinski, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives"

In his 2007 book, "Second Chance: Three Presidents & the Crisis of American Superpower," in which ZB calls Bush's foreign policy "catastrophic," here are his prescriptions for a post-Bush foreign policy:



-Wikipedia.

(Not that I've read it, nor the book you quote.)

But I do see your point. Some of that language -- "vassals," "tributaries," "pliant," "barbarians" -- seems pretty old-school balance-of-power imperialist. Could he possibly have been joking or being ironic? Anyway, based on your and other's comments, I want to back off from supporting ZB's overall record or the records of the other two advisors you mentioned, of whom I know nothing.

However I will continue to say that based on what I heard him say during the Bush era, ZB's a smart and knowledgeable guy and I'd definitely talk to him if I had to make foreign policy decisions; he makes WAY more sense than the Neocon hawks that have been in charge; and I don't hold it against Obama that he consults with ZB on foreign policy.

Incidentally, Orwellian_Ghost, do you have as harsh an opinion of Madeline Albright, who apparently consulted with Hillary?

Madeliene Albright is appalling.

Just her (in)famous comment in the interview w/ Leslie Stahl should earn her a place in some eternal dungeon but there's far more to her atrocious record.

I got dibs on Noam Chomsky.

Your choice?

Sewall was excoriated by Tom Hayden in http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2007/10/sarah-sewall-and-coin.html">The Nation for her defense of "the new counterinsurgency.


"...the Petraeus plan draws intellectual legitimacy from Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, whose director, Sarah Sewall, proudly embraces an "unprecedented collaboration a human rights center partnered with the armed forces." Sewall, a former Pentagon official, co-sponsored a "doctrine revision workshop" at Fort Leavenworth that prepared the Army and Marines' new counterinsurgency warfighting Field Manual."

Hayden continues:

"Yet Sewall of Harvard's Carr Center suggests that intellectuals have a moral duty to http://www.tomhayden.com/harvard.htm">collaborate with the military in devising counterinsurgency doctrines. "Humanitarians often avoid wading into the conduct of war for fear of becoming complicit in its purpose," she writes in an introduction to the Field Manual. In a direct response to critics who argue that the manual's passages endorsing human rights standards are just window dressing, she adds, "The Field Manual requires engagement precisely from those who fear that its words lack meaning."

"One would think that past experiences with death squads indirectly supported by the United States, as in El Salvador in the 1980s, or the recent exposure of abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan's Bagram facility and Guantánamo, would justify such worries about complicity. But Sewall defends Harvard's collaboration through a pro-military revisionist argument. She says, "Military annals today tally that effort as a success, but others cannot get past the shame of America's indirect role in fostering death squads." Can she mean that the Pentagon's self-serving narrative of the Central American wars is correct, and that critics of a conflict in which 75,000 Salvadorans died--the equivalent of more than 4 million Americans--most of them at the hands of US-trained and -equipped security forces, including death squads, simply need to "get past" being squeamish about the methods? Instead of churning out self-deluding platitudes about civilizing the military, Harvard would do well to worry more about how collaboration with the Pentagon impairs the critical independent role of intellectuals."

In his last paragraph, Hayden accuses Sewall of being someone who urges us to "get past the shame of death squads."

For those who can still get past the shame of death squads, as Harvard's Sewall seems to urge, and who still believe a better world lies ahead for Iraq under US tutelage, Congress could ask the Navaho and Ute to testify. These believers might then learn that the hidden shame behind the counterinsurgency in Iraq is the same one that has compromised America's identity for centuries.

turning that poor country into a killing field, and being the "father" of Islamic Fundamentalist hate cultures around the planet. As he said, "What's a few stirred up Muslims?" when the greater good of Corporate hegemony is at stake. He is only less evil than Kissinger because he had fewer years to practice genocide for the sake of imperialism.

for the nutty neocons and their email letters.

He has a direct tie to a murderous monster who thought of Osama and the hate-based fundies of the Islamic religion as "a good thing," and still does.

Weigh that however you might, but that is not innuendo, that is a simple fact about who he chooses to advise him.

I read that here I think.

Chicago branch

http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html


Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.













Everyone should have a Vietnam, shouldn't they

I wouldn't advocate drug turf wars.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=zbigniew_brzezinski


Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski publishes a book in which he portrays the Eurasian landmass as the key to world power, and Central Asia with its vast oil reserves as the key to domination of Eurasia. He states that for the US to maintain its global primacy, it must prevent any possible adversary from controlling that region. He notes, “The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” He predicts that because of popular resistance to US military expansionism, his ambitious Central Asian strategy can not be implemented “except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”
Entity Tags: Zbigniew Brzezinski
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

January 15, 1998: Former National Security Adviser Has No Regrets Giving ‘Arms and Advice to Future Terrorists’ In an interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Adviser, admits that it was US policy to support radical Islamists to undermine Russia. He admits that US covert action drew Russia into starting the Afghan war in 1979 (see July 3, 1979). Asked if he has regrets about this, he responds, “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.” Then he is asked if he regrets “having given arms and advice to future terrorists,” and he responds, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?” The interviewer then says, “Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.” But Brzezinski responds, “Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam….” Even after 9/11, Brzezinski will maintain that the covert action program remains justified.
Entity Tags: Zbigniew Brzezinski
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
1999: US NGO Formed to Promote Peace in Chechnya The American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC) is founded by Freedom House. Its mission is to promote a “peaceful resolution of the Russo-Chechen war.” Board members include Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alexander M. Haig, Jr., Steven J. Solarz, and Max Kampelman. ACPC’s regular members include Richard Perle; Elliott Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, Midge Decter, Frank Gaffney, Bruce Jackson, Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, James Woolsey, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, among others. The APC is closely tied to the American Enterprise Institute and the Jamestown Foundation and National Endowment for Democracy and other US democratization initiatives

"in order to bait the Russians into Afghanistant" . . .
"in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type experience" --- !!!

Murder and death means nothing to them ---
there's something very wrong with these people ---


Shouldn't there be a psychological test to keep people like this out of government---???

control key locations in the Middle East, particularly Iran

September 4, 1997: Brzezinski’s ‘The Grand Chessboard’ Advocates Overthrow of Iranian Goverment Pre-orders of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s new book, “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives” goes on sale at Amazon.com. In the book Brzezinski details how in order to protect America’s status as the last remaining super power on earth it would be necessary to invade and control key locations in the Middle East, particularly Iran. The book theorizes that America could be attacked by Afghan terrorists which would lead to our invasion of Afghanistan and ultimately control of Iran as a key strategic country to hold in the war for global supremacy.


http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=zbigniew_brzezinski

With a level of calm and reason that is rare in books of this sort, Brzezinski provides an understandable yet sophisticated articulation of a real-world "grand strategy" essential to the future of America in this new century. His strategic vision honors both France and Germany as co-equal and vital elements of a new European community; shows how the larger Europe (ultimately co-equal to America) is essential to the salvation of Russia; makes the case for an American-Chinese strategic accommodation as the anchor for America's involvement in Eurasia; carefully integrates America's direct and special relations with Japan, Korea, and India as the bowl beneath China and Eurasia, and then concludes with decisive evaluations of the future importance of drawing Turkey into the European community while encouraging Iranian-Turkish collaboration and Iranian commercial and commodities channels from Eurasia out to the world. In passing, the author validates Australia's new strategy of working closely with Indonesia to resolve the latter's many ethnic issues while establishing a southern line against excessive Chinese influence in the region.

There are numerous subtle and deep insights throughout the book, from the observation that war may now be a luxury only the poorest of nations can afford, to why China should consider America its natural ally and why Russia is at risk of becoming genetically Asian instead of European within a generation or two. The author proposes a new Trans-Eurasian Security System (TESS) that engages Russia, China, Japan and America-one would assume that at some point Turkey, Iran, and the new Europe would be included.

In what fucking world is his book a call for dominating the middle east and Iran through war?

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

:rofl:

A false one, too.

More like a false summary.

I believe he is an honest man. Who wrote your review?


none of these guys knows squat compared to Paul Thompson, prove to me they do.


The New York Times Book Review, Bernard Gwertzman

The Los Angeles Times Sunday Book Review, Walter Russell Mead

From Kirkus Reviews

American Spectator, David Aikman

Therfor I trust it when it says that the book advocates against war, and for economic engagement. There are many problems with economic engagement, the world bank, and the IMF, but that's not what is being argued here, is it?

BTW, Do you realize the PNAC has criticized him for being too soft on Iran, because he cautions against war and favors engaging them diplomatically?

POST 78.

was just a customer review. It was like any other customer review. Here's another that you did not choose:

"I'm surprised by the popularity of this semi-sanitized rehash of 19th century Imperialism. Manchester's 'The Last Lion, Winston Churchill' trys to make 19th century imperialism palatable by claiming it was over (Churchill was the last) and it's death-throes saved us happy non-imperialist types from Hitler. Brzezinski uses the same "it's ok because it about over" trick. The concluding paragraph provides an excellent taste of the book's delights: "In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world's current "regent," which has for the time being assumed the burden of responsibility for world stability and peace. Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America's role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower."
Here is what this means: At some unknown time, the United Nations will gradually take over the United States world regency. World regent America is 'ok' because the US will only do it for a few years and no one else will try it, again.

I guess Churchill wasn't the 'last lion,' after all.

After carefully hunting through the book, I don't think the 'temporary' side of imperialism is a serious concern for Brzezinski. His primary concern is insuring American power remains pre-eminent and American business monopolize it's 'regional sphere'. His method of operation involves catering to ethnic mythology at every turn, insuring a maximum of ethnic friction. The blandishments about an emerging 'structure of global cooperation' is just a fig leaf."

Now what I would suggest is that you read the book. I have, several years ago, and I assure you it is indeed a long-winded rationale for American domination of the world's resources.

Have you read the book?

Do you know about ZBiggy's track record. This guy isn't even marginal.

you realize that, right?

in fact most of the interventions at present are of an economic order. What's worrisome is that several of Obama's advisers are not only theoretically in line with this form of imperialism but have in fact been involved in such forms of imperialism for years.

This is unacceptable.

Why should I address Afghanistan, when I didn't even bring that up and is not the point of my contention?

Could he change his mind again?

Do you know he is being sued for the Nojeh Coup

http://www.cfr.org/bios/3348/


or this guys review?

Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy

http://www.cfr.org/bios/bio.html?id=3495




yea they probably have a point of view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission

The Trilateral Commission is a private organization, established to foster closer cooperation between America, Europe and Japan. It was founded in July 1973, at the initiative of David Rockefeller; who was Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations at that time and the Commission is widely seen as a counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations.<1> He pushed the idea of including Japan at the Bilderberg meetings he was attending but was rebuffed. Along with Zbigniew Brzezinski and a few other people, including individuals from the Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations and the Ford Foundation, he convened initial meetings out of which grew the Trilateral organization.




http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Trilateral_Commission

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC; Robert Osgood Professor of American Foreign Affairs, Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs

Hawkish "security moms and dads". Free traders. Yuppie scum.

The people that created the Dem wing of the OSS. (Before they
turned on JFK and set up the rise of the Bush--Secret Services
Behind the Scenes Fascism in the security wing of the US gov't.)

They brought down Carter -- they didn't have to bring down
Clinton, he pardoned Bush Sr. and welcomed them in. When I say
Yale-Harvard liberals, I mean it quite literally. The urban
Democratic party is dominated by a narrow business-class elite now,
from a select few universities and risen thru the ranks of
activist/political campaigns accordingly -- they are politically
where the Republicans were in the 1950s under Eisenhower. Look
at Pelosi's career (she bought her way into Dem party leadership
as a wealthy heiress fundraiser.)

If Obama picks Edwards as a running mate I might vote for him.

Otherwise he is alienating genuine lefties and populists with
every statement he makes as he attempts to woo clinton voters
and portray himself as the "adults are in charge" candidate

(with Edwards representing the idealistic, unrealistic kids
in the back seat.)

Thanks for the info OG.

Brzezinski is quite possibly as bad as Condi Rice was as NAt'l Security Advisor. Jimmy Carter made some bad personnel decisions, but Brzezinski was in the top two or three of them. Obama simply has not spent any time at all apparently on looking for first rate advisorrs...I suspect his ego is telling him that like his supporters he already knows all there is to know about everything, therefor good advisors would be superfluous.

The Grand Chessboard in many ways is the blueprint for PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses, from controlling Eurasian energy supply all the way down to the need for a catalyzing event like a New Pearl Harbor. I guess the only good news is that Zbiggie's behavior in the last year tells us that the more reasonable elites like him are now freaked out about Cheney and the neocon cabal.

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large.

A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves 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 U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_allen_l__070205_brzezinski_clearly_s.htm

She has said her father is an advisor for Obama and her brother is working for John McCain.... At least she's honest about it. But, one wonders how she got her new spot on the show before an election year...

n/t

America Plundered by the Global Elite




How well has America fared in the last 25 years?

As a country, are we financially healthier or are we on the verge of a melt-down?

These issues are explored, along with some concrete examples of how the "money-laundry" works.

The Trilateral Commission's 1973 vision of a "New International Economic Order " has swept the world like a hurricane.


Introduction

In 1978, Trilaterals Over Washington revealed the global strategy of the Trilateral Commission and it's co-founders David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Brzezinski, in particular, provided the intellectual reasoning and political strategy for the "New International Economic Order".

Brzezinski was also an astute political operator.

He is credited as the first person to take interest in Jimmy Carter, to mentor him in globalism starting in 1973 when Carter was chosen to be part of the Trilateral Commission.

Upon Carter's election victory in 1976, Brzezinski was appointed National Security Advisor.

By the end of 1976, Carter had appointed no less than 19 members of the Trilateral Commission to high-ranking government positions.

These 19 members represented just under 20% of the entire U.S. delegation of the Trilateral Commission.


The stage was now set for their power to become permanently embedded.

Each successive Administration has been disproportionally dominated by members of the Trilateral Commission:

George H.W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, Richard B. Cheney.

Each administration filled top posts from the Trilateral Commission.

Think-tanks connected to the Trilateral Commission cranked out volumes of studies that droned on and on about the New International Economic Order and the need for political change.

Looking backward to Brzezinski, however, is necessary because he most clearly and lucidly embodied the heart and soul of the rush to globalism. He created the watershed that initiated the plundering of America and the buildup of the global corporate elite.

This issue intends to quantify the extent of this plundering.

Brzezinski was interviewed in 1974 by the Brazilian newspaper Vega:

"How would you define this new world order?"

Brzezinski declared "...the reality of our times is that a modern society such as the U.S. needs a central coordinating and renovating organ which cannot be made up of six hundred people."

In his 1969 book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, he wrote that the "nation-state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state."

Indeed, members of the Trilateral Commission chosen from north America, Europe and Asia (mostly Japan), are all in agreement on this point -- the nation-state only gets in the way of so-called "free trade" and therefore must be closely manipulated for their own common good.

Collectively, they have taken a self-induced quantum leap above national law, into an elevated position of making their own rules as they go.

We see some direct evidence of such an attitude, for instance, when President Bill Clinton had no particular legal qualms (or consequences) of giving (free or for money) top-secret missile technology to Communist China.

The gathering of corporate elites in the Trilateral Commission started with names such as Coca Cola, Ford Motor, Deere & Co., Hewlett-Packard, Cargill, Chase Manhattan Bank, Cummins Engine, Texas Instruments, Honeywell, Bechtel Corporation, Weyerhauser, General Motors, Boeing, and many others. Today, we see the same kind of makeup: Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), J.P. Morgan, Chase, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Pitney Bowes, GE, Citigroup, American International Group (AIF), Bank of America, Xerox and Halliburton, just to name a few.

To summarize then, the real plundering of America started with the founding of the Trilateral Commission in 1973 and the consolidation of power in 1976 with the dominance of the Carter Administration.

When one begins to see the pattern emerging, many unanswered questions start to clear up.

Why does President George Bush so pointedly want to eliminate the U.S./Mexican border?

Why the stampede to outsource American jobs, even to the hurt of our own citizens?

Why do people around the world intuitively hate the World Trade Organization, NAFTA and CAFTA?

(The last question suggests that the U.S. is not the only nation-state being plundered these days.)

Nations are financially disintegrating while global corporations grow fantastically richer.

One might protest that the scope of this operation is just too fantastic and huge to be real.

This writer would remind the skeptic that U.S. history is littered with monopolistic tycoons who tried to get a lever on the societies they lived in.

Monopolies are blind to politics, except when politics can be manipulated to establish or extend the Monopoly.

The vast majority of Americans are left completely in the dark because American mainstream media, collectively slanted toward globalism, has been dominated by the very same globalists who founded the Trilateral Commission in the first place: New York Times, Time-Warner, Chicago Sun-Times, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Policy Magazine, Comcast, CBS, Atlantic Media, The Rand Corporation, Washington Post, Dow Jones & Company, U.S. News and World Report all have direct representation on the Trilateral Commission.

The reader is encouraged to read Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II, to get a deeper sense of background on these issues.

Both of these books are available in full-text versions on The August Review website.

The State of the Nation


This issue attempts to give the reader a background and perspective on the state of affairs of American business.

There are three factors to consider.

First, there is the government itself.

Second, there is private industry.

Although they are very different types of entities, they both can adequately be described in terms of flows of income.

Third, we will look at the transfer of ownership of U.S. based corporations to foreign ownership.

In the case of the government, there has been virtually no restraint on keeping its spending within its income.

Whenever it spent outside of income-in-hand, borrowing whatever extra was needed was all too easy.

You can quickly see what the last 37 years look like from the chart to the left.

Prior to 1975, budget deficits were very small.

The upward trend started in earnest in 1975.

A brief surplus was recorded between 1998 and 2001.

Presiding presidents are purposefully not mentioned because they are irrelevant to the big picture.

It should also stand out that there are three troughs: the first "peaked" in 1986, the second in 1992 and the third in 2005.

The extremity cycle is approximately 6 years long.

The cumulative effect of these deficits on the U.S. national debt is quite dramatic. In 1970, the debt was well under the $1 trillion level. Today, it stands over $8 trillion, a 10-fold increase.

To put this in personal terms, every man, woman and child in America owes $28,500 each.

A family of 4 collectively owes $114,000. You might say, "But, that's the government debt, not mine!"

The fact is though, we are the government.

Except that taxpayers pay taxes, the federal government would have no source of income whatever.

So, let's take a look at the business economy now.

A trade deficit occurs when we import more than we export.

A surplus occurs when the reverse is true. Whether positive or negative, the figure is called the "current account".

Since 1981, America has been in the red every single year.

The curve is similar in nature to the National Debt curve: very low deficits in the 70's and early 80's, then rising dramatically during the 90's into the current decade.

In the chart to the right, you can see that the gap between imports (orange line) and exports (purple line) is widening at an increasing rate every year.

The bottom curve shows the negative balance on the current account as it accumulates more and more red ink.

Currently, the annualized rate of the current trade deficit is easily $600 billion.

By contrast, there were only two years in the decade of the 1970's that had small trade deficits.

In March, the Business Telegraph in London reported that the March (2005) deficit of $55 billion was well below the $60 billion that was expected by the markets.

"It's a relief," said James Glassman, senior economist at JP Morgan Chase in New York. "It does dampen the fears that there was something bad going on in the US economy."

The psychology at play here is amazing.

The fact that the trade deficit for a single month is $55 billion instead of $60 billion is a cause for reassurance that nothing bad is happening to the U.S. economy?

On the other hand, note that Glassman is senior economist at JP Morgan Chase bank which has been at the very core of the New International Economic Order from the beginning.

The third area to look at is transfer of ownership. Corporate mergers are everywhere. It's so confusing that most people don't have a clue who owns what anymore.

Outlays for New Investment in the United States by Foreign Direct Investors, 1980-2003

(Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis)



During the 1960's, American business increased its ownership in the U.S. every year except one. During the 1970's, there were only 5 years that we increased our position. Since 1982, there has not been one single year where foreign investment did not outstrip our own... and dramatically so, to the tune of $3.8 trillion. You ask, "How can this happen?" Simple.

Mergers.

Consider a few mergers from recent history - do you recognize any of these "American" names?

American Company Foreign Company Country Purchase Amount
Amoco Corp British Petroleum Co PLC United Kingdom $48.17 Billion
ARCO BP Amoco PLC United Kingdom $27.22 Billion
Texaco-US Refining & Marketing Shell Oil-Western US Business Netherlands $3.964 Billion
AirTouch Communications Inc Vodafone Group PLC United Kingdom $60.29 Billion
VoiceStream Wireless Corp Deutsche Telekom AG Germany $29.40 Billion
Chrysler Corp Daimler-Benz AG Germany $40.47 Billion
Harcourt General Inc Reed Elsevier Group PLC United Kingdom $5.60 Billion
Simon & Schuster-Educ, Prof Pearson PLC United Kingdom $4.60 Billion
Magma Copper Co BHP Australia $2.432 Billion
John Hancock Finl Svcs Inc Manulife Financial Corp Canada $11.06 Billion
TransAmerica Corp Aegon NV Netherlands $9.691 Billion
SmithKline Beckman Corp Beecham Group PLC United Kingdom $7.922 Billion

These few examples are listed only to give you a flavor of the depth of penetration of foreign purchases into the core of American industry. In order to get to an aggregate of $3.8 trillion, you can hardly imagine how many billion dollar deals there have been over 20 years. In short, America is literally being sold out from under us.

Let's summarize this now. In the past 35 years, the U.S. government has racked up over $8 trillion in debt. The current trade deficit for 2005 alone will likely exceed $600 billion (importing more than we export). The $3.8 trillion of showcase American companies have been sold to foreigners.

Is something wrong with this picture?

When this writer began to do research for Trilaterals Over Washington in the late 1970's, we focused on the Trilateral Commission because it was very apparent that it was laying the groundwork for -- in their own words -- a "New International Economic Order" The concept of the nation-state was outdated and we were moving into an era of "interdependence."

David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973. It has been composed of slightly over 300 members chosen from North America, Europe and Asia (primarily Japan). The members are literally the Who's Who of global elitists: top politicians, think-tank philosophers, industrialists and bankers.

We clearly documented in Trilaterals Over Washington (available in full text form to The August Review subscribers on this site) that the move toward global economic consolidation was well on its way. Twenty-five years later, we are standing under an avalanche of economic deterioration.

During these 25 years, America has literally "LOST its shirt". We are technically quite bankrupt.

(snip)

U.S. Businesses have filed volumes of complaints with the U.S. Trade Representative, Rob Portman, about issues ranging from China's dumping of products at prices below cost of manufacturing, to widespread copyright and patent violations. Congress is somewhat sensitive to this issue and, bucking the president, is pushing for tariffs and quotas against China to punish them for milking the system.

Bush must now be critical of China (and infuriate China) or give China a clean bill of health and say that everything is fine (and infuriate Congress and the American people).

So, what do you do when you've invited an 800 pound gorilla into your living room? You pray he doesn't get mad when you ask him to leave.

Treasury Secretary John Snow is on the spot. In the past, he has refused to criticize China openly, but rather seeks to rely on "financial diplomacy" instead. He believes that China can be persuaded that flexible exchange rates ought to be in its own interest.

Mr. Snow, in an interview on Monday with CNBC, reiterated his optimism that China would change policy on its own. "I'm convinced they will move," Mr. Snow said. "Now is the time. We're anxious to see them move. It's time."

What evidence does Snow have that China will voluntarily pull back from an opportunity to plunder the U.S.? His wishful thinking that they might compliantly respond to our being "anxious" to see them move?

It is easier to understand the conflict of interest if you look back a few years at John Snow's career. From 1994-1996, Snow was chairman of the Business Roundtable, an association of 250 chief executive officers of the largest corporations, representing over $3.7 trillion in combined revenues. During that time, he was a key player in supporting the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

He recently received the Marco Polo Award (2001), awarded by the U.S.-China Foundation for International Exchanges as the highest honor that can be given to a foreign business leader. He is a director of CarMax, U.S. Steel, Johnson & Johnson, Verizon Communications, sits on the boards of Johns Hopkins University, is chairman of the Kennedy Center Corporate Fund Board, and is a member of the Business Council and Business Roundtable.

In short, Snow has been at the corporate center of promoting globalism and in particular, building China's trade for many years. As Treasury Secretary, he is in an influential position of trust to protect the American people from economic harm. But, will he?

To understand more completely, ask yourself this question. Who invested money in, and built up, this 800 pound gorilla?

Take Bechtel for instance, one of the largest construction and engineering companies in the world. In 1994, Bechtel was the first U.S. company to receive a construction license in China. It has completed 80 major projects in China and has permanent offices located in Beijing, Shanghai, Taipei and Hong Kong. Its latest project is a $4.3 billion petrochemical complex in Daya Bay that will produce 2.3 million tons of products annually. It's being touted as one of the largest Sino-foreign investments to date, and is 50% owned by a subsidiary of Royal Dutch/Shell.

If we say, "China is really profiting from the U.S.", to whom are we really referring? It's true that the Chinese government is getting an advantage from the increase in economic activity, but who are the front-line collectors of revenue and aggregators of profit in China? That's right, it's the same multinational corporations.

So, as noted above, when John Snow reiterates his optimism that China will change policy on its own, you can see just how selective his vision is. As long as China's policy remains as it is, America gets plundered and the global corporations in China rack up record profits.

This issue contends that America is For Sale. The sale is "under the table" in that the American people don't have a clue that it's being slowly sold out from under their feet, one piece at a time. The sale is deceptive because as the red ink grows larger and larger, we are told by these same globalists that trade and budget deficits don't really matter that much. The sale is dishonest because it was planned from the beginning by elitist groups like the Trilateral Commission, to twist and manipulate the system to their own benefit.

The fact that America's downward financial spiral started in earnest shortly after the Trilateral Commission was founded by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, is not incidental. The very policies that brought us the "New International Economic Order" (their own phrase) have wrecked our country. This is not an anecdotal observation, as will be demonstrated over and over in future issues of The August Review.

America is in a very grievous and trepid situation. Any number of isolated incidents could touch off a financial firestorm that burns our house to the ground. When a company goes bankrupt, it is seldom advertised in advance. Its customers, shareholders and debtors are invariably in a state of shock when the bankruptcy occurs, even though hind site shows that there were ample evidences of impending bankruptcy. So it is with America: There is evidence everywhere of what is happening to us, but there are few eyes to see it nor ears to hear it.

In 30-40 short years, America has gone from the strongest and most stable nation in the world, to one of the weakest and unstable. Poor Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall and had a great fall, but few people will see the real truth that Humpty was actually pushed!

http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/america_plundered_by_the_global_elite_2005051812/

Zbigniew Brzezinski: "The Neo-Conservative Formula Doesn't Work"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101904H.shtml

Brzezinski: Air Strike on Iran Could ‘Merit the Impeachment of the President’
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/25/zb-iran/

Terrorized by 'War on Terror'
How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America

By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, March 25, 2007; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html

Just FYI.

up and nothing is going to change them — most of all, facts.

Some of us would simply suggest they are irrelevant. A whole long list of neoliberal imperialists have taken to criticizing Bush, his war in Iraq and his threats against Iran. After all, the war has been poorly executed and we are losing.

But believe me - none of these folks (including ZBig) - oppose our suicidal militarism and imperialism as a general modus operandi of American foreign policy. They just don't like it when the imperial plans are poorly executed. As soon as we have a more tempered-down leadership image in place it will be back to world domination as usual with this crowd.

Rudy has Podhoretz...Obama has Zbig...both suck scarily...

Um.

I've been yelling for a while that this election, specifically regarding the Oval, is largely meaningless...((for those fixated on candidate A, or candidate B, or...I say...Go home. You will make more difference there...and they do pushups like I ask...and then they save my life. Sense? Ha. But truth...

Senate? LOL. 34 of them have to run this November, setting up an astonishing schism. Disorganized, foolish, dumb...feel like a fly in a pitcher plan...mmm... Try to change the law, hilarity ensues...

67 seats an' all that. Maybe. But it would need to be 67 progressives for a real change.

Or maybe just 43 progressives out of 67 Democrats. I don't friggin' know Will. I think my head's gonna explode.

Ain't no Zbig fan, as one would know specifically from my '03-'04 writings.

But fuck that.

"Yes he was for attacking Iran before he was against it?"

Backup, please. Not just links. On this one, pls. cite the specific text.

***I'm tired of DUers who, when asked to prove their asserion(s) in public, always wind up sprouting gobldeygook, and not just in some native tongue. If anyone's angry about the lady's postal/drapes, the baby is fine, all is well.***

For now. ;)

Not saying any of that against you, to be sure. You know the kind of thing I'm talking about, anyway.

Anyhoo, back it up. I'm here, and love to apologize if need be.

look up or


look it up

standby. Thought Obama was going to give us Fresh Ideas. :eyes: Will we ever rid ourselves of the same old War Horses who've brought our foreign policy to where it is today....which is disaster? Maybe Obama will bring back Greenspan thinking he did a better job and has the greatest experience with "fresh ideas."

he runs for a second term and oh no we have hostages in the middle east! And as hard as Obama tries he is defeated and the hostages are released 71 days later. Sounds like a rerun to me

:kick::kick:

That's why the One Percenters allow them to be frontrunners.

Zbig in the house! Three Cheers for Imperialism!

with a cabinet like that

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:kick::shrug: