Brzezinski’s back

From time to time I link to articles by China Confidential. Jonathan, who runs it has had a busy week.

Brzezinski Advised Obama Bombing Iran Would be War Crime; Ayatollah Threatens Bush with Tribunal
China Confidential has learned that Zbigniew Brzezinski has persuaded US Senator and Presidential aspirant Barack Obama that bombing Iran would be a war crime and an impeachable offense.

Brzezinski, who is well known for his animosity toward Israel, may have also influenced Iran’s so-called Supreme Leader to threaten President Bush with an international war crimes tribunal over the Iraq war. The threat by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is sure to resonate with radical Left elements in Europe and the US; demonstrations and mock trials modeled after the late Bertrand Russell’s propagandistic mock trial of the US over Vietnam can be expected. [..]

[I hope he does. Maybe we’ll hit two birds with one stone.]

Nuclear Flip-Flop? Obama Talked About Bombing Iran and Pakistan When He Ran for US Senate

[I wonder who is advisor is now.]

Obama Getting Advice from Brzezinski

[..] Brzezinski has never expressed regret over his role in backing the jihadists. On the contrary, he has often defended the pro-Islamist intervention in Afghanistan, telling a French magazine, for example, that a few “stirred up Moslems” constituted a small price to pay in return for a strategic Soviet defeat.

Brzezinski also persuaded Carter to betray Iran’s Shah in the hope of currying favor with the Ayatollah Khomeini prior to his overthrow of the pro-US monarch.

September 18, 2007 | 6 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

6 Comments / 6 Comments

  1. Bill

    You have really made my case in almost every word you write above.

    Get this clear. The US is the dominant force in the world, an imperialist power with massive resources.

    But it is a capitalist system, a world system, totally intertwined, a system geared to profit, a largely UNPLANNED system, a system which cannot plan except within certain narrow confines.

    The US took over from the British Empire somewhere about 1920. But the contradictions facing the US cannot be compared to those of the Brits, far more serious!

    Let me tell you Bill of something I heard a young BBC science reporter recently ruminating on.

    Why he asked was the Sahara Desert not given over to the production of electricity for solar power. What else use is the Sahara for mankind. Solar panels would coexist along qith the lizards surely. Science is now developing advanced solar panels, there are a dozen strands on this. But still it is oil oil oil.

    Man has the cleverness to solve these problems. But is held back by the relations of productions. So much truth in Karl Marx Bill. Just read the Communist Manifesto. Why not Bill. You are never too old to learn the main features of this material world we have been fated to be part of.

    And of course the need for profit, the need for an oil supply, the need to appease the Islamists, the need for a Fascist foil if ever the American miners ever rise up again etc etc…That dominates these pygmies like Bush and the poor Jews may suffer grievously once again. It is bloody heart rending Bill!

  2. Felix, if you are suggesting that the U.S. strategy is to empower radical Islam, I cannot agree with you.

    America has a number of key interests of national concern in the ME. One is obviously tied into oil, but the U.S. is also seeking to maintain and expand her geopolitical influence as a superpower. The ME is one of the significant areas in the world that America seeks to do so.

    The Saudis are the leading OPEC nation, but it is also an influential political power in the Muslim ME. Accordingly, the road to furthering American interests runs through Saudi Arabia.

    U.S. ME strategies have featured U.S. limited engagement of the radical Islamists by Western rules of engagment, unknown to radical Islamists. This has allowed Islamists some successes thereby in the minds of the radical Islamists, they have been empowered. America is suffering blowback in that regard.

    Also limiting U.S. strategies against radical Islam is the fear that by taking all measures needed to defeat radical Islam and keep America and the world safe, the Muslim world, both outside and within America could see America as reviving the Crusades and respond violently en masse with unbridled anger.

    It is not right at all that America is forcing Israel to pay for America to proceed along the road of American self interest through Saudi Arabia, but that is the way it is.

    Only Israel can say no to America, but it will bear a price for that. So far, it appears that for many Israelis, they see that price as being higher then the loss Israel will suffer by acceeding to American will and submitting to American pressure.

  3. It is not just Brzeinski. The political philosophy of Brzeinski lies at the heart of the US war in Iraq which is supported openly by many on this site.

    The leading character on the American side in the Iraq war is Zalmay Khalizad who is an open disciple of Brzeinski.

    When the dust settles in Iraq and America has won then what wil be in place there is an Islamist state working under Sharia Law, with trade unions repressed, the rights of women completely trampled upon, homosexuals murdered by the State.

    This is the way that the American Empire hopes to rule, with the aid of Islamofascism.

    The issue of Afghanistan and of Yugoslavia is most interesting because it leads into Iraq and into the whole strategy of the US Government today.

    It is exactly this strategy which lies behind the Nov Conference in the US which will carve up Israel, by imposing a Palestinian state right on top of it.

  4. Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981 did little to earn respect for his views and quite the opposite, managed to impair his own credibility while in office. He is no wiser since.

    If his biased anti-Israel views are well known and he has no more credibility then he did while advising the Palestinian apologist and appeaser Carter, then why does anyone in the Democratic party search this man out for advice, unless of course it is biased advice they are looking for?

    And what do Jewish democratic leaders have to say about Brzezinski and any co-Democrat who relies on Brzezinski’s advice that relates to the Israel – Palestinian conflict? Probably nothing. Now why is that?

Comments are closed.