Skip to content or view screen version


Rosalinda | 15.03.2003 02:53

With allegations of ``conflict of interest,'' and possible
``blackmail'' of U.S. allies in Saudi Arabia hitting Richard
Perle, the head of the chickenhawk-loaded Defense Policy Board,
the neo-conservative hatchetmen in the press are trying to stop
the exposes about ``Clean Break,'' the 1996 policy paper that
Perle wrote for Benjamin Netanyahu, that mapped out war against
Iraq, Syria, and Iran, and abrogating the Oslo Accords.

The neo-con line is that anyone who questions Clean Break is
an ``anti-Semite.'' But most of Perle's defenders are on the same
neo-con foundations' payroll. Among the freakouts:

March 13: in the Moonie Washington Times, columnist Tony
Blankley lunges after NBC's Tim Russert for asking Perle about
Clean Break and the Israeli stake in Iraq war during a Feb. 23 interview.

``If such a respectable citadel of the establishment
as Russert's Meet the Press can air such a question, we could
expect worse....''

But Blankley is not an objective observer; he
was Newt Gingrich's chief of staff, when Gingrich was being
courted by IASPS, the think tank that wrote the Clean Break.

On March 12, the Moonie Times trotted out Shoshona Bryen, a director
of the Likud-linked JINSA group, that infiltrates military
networks, to screech about Rep. Jim Moran's (D-VA) attack on
American Jewish support for the Iraq war.

Also March 13: the ``liberal'' Washington Post, partially
owned by Sharon intimate Lally Weymouth (daughter of the late
Katy Graham), has a long character assassination of Moran, for
having called on ``leaders of the Jewish community [to]...change
the direction'' of the Iraq war policy that they are supporting.

Quoting all neo-con outets: the National Review, the New
Republic, and the Weekly Standard, Kurtz also freaks out about
Patrick Buchanan, who just launched a magazine called American
Conservative and wrote about Clean Break.

But, it is doubtful
that the freakouts will stop the exposes of the neo-cons -- every
day, more ``citadels of the establishment,'' including the London
Financial Times, and ABC's Nightline, are questioning the roots
of Bush's insane policy.

[source: House Appropriations Committee hearing, March 13]
Secretary of State Colin Powell was invited
to depart from normal procedure
at an appropriations hearing today,
to respond to allegations about Israeli influence
on U.S. policy toward Iraq.

Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Az), raised the issue in his opening
statement, citing Robert Novak's column, the Washington Post
"Blaming the Jews" editorial, etc. He asked Powell to respond,
even before any other opening statements were made, or before
Powell delivered his prepared testimony.

"U.S. policy with respect to Iraq is not just something that
has been developed in the last month or so; one can go back many
years to the end of the Gulf War," Powell responded, outlining
one version of the history of the past 12 years of Iraq policy
(but without mentioning that Wolfowitz, Libby et al. elaborated
their policy of preventive war about 12 years ago).

Powell said
that "we have a comprehensive policy for the region, and strategy
with respect to Iraq has derived from our interest in the region
and our support of the U.N. resolutions over time."

"It is not driven by any small cabal that is buried away
somewhere, that is telling President Bush or me or Vice President
Cheney or Condi Rice or other members of our administration what
our policies should be...."

"So this is not just the result of a few individuals who are
running loose, as some suggest, but it's a comprehensive policy
developed over the years, over several administrations...."