Brzezinski ,in Senate hearings,warns of false domestic terror incidents

Zbigniew Brzezinski ,speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee spoke out against the Iraq War,but MOST INTERESTINGLY made a comment that there could very possibly be a set-up domestic terrorist act that would be used as a pretext to attack Iran.This by Carters National Security Adviser before the Senate.Here are two sources,the first is the most detailed,the domestic terrorist incident is towards the end of the article;

<http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02.shtml>

The second source for this glosses over the actual dialog involved in Brzezinski's testimony before the committee,focusing mainly on his opposition to the war and its escalation.

<http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq-War-Critic.php>

It is,I think,significant that speculation regarding this administrations potential for staging a domestic terrorist incident on US soil,for the purposes of furthering its agenda is being discussed,openly,before the Senate,by made members of the national security establishment.The elite is split,one faction has its hand on the curtain,openly threatening to reveal what has ,perhaps,heretofore been hidden.

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/post/index/748/Brzezinskis-showstopper


Zbig said that the USSR was falling apart, with everyone laughed.
Zbig warned about Iraq, and everyone laughed.
Zbig is warning about Iran, and I dare anyone to laugh.

Zbrilliant Ztrategist

remember that Brzezinski is responsible for the US policy of arming the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, in order to weaken the Soviet Union. At the time, it worked. Soviets got mired in their own version of Vietnam, and soon after the US could claim to have won the cold war. So yeah, he is brilliant.

But with only a little figurative excess you can say Brzezinski's policy created Bin Laden and fanatical islamist movements all over the Middle East. And his views on US supremacy, in his book The Grand Chessboard (1997) are practically a blueprint for the neocon agenda and the infamous PNAC document.

Don't think him a dove, anti-war or anti-imperialist. He's been pro all these things when it suited him. The US - and tragically, Iraq - are now paying the price, along with the rest of us.

that the fostering of Islamic fundamentalism started more in the '50's to counter balance Nasser's pan arabic socialism. The result was that it neutralized commmunism in the Middle East but did not totally kill it while also creating the monster of the Salafist movement. Of course this has also been helped by wealthy saudis funded hardcore madrassas across the muslim world.

because Bush screwed up his strategy to control Eurasia. That's what he described in "The Grand Chessboard". He said, in effect, and almost in these words, that the US cannot maintain its empire unless it controls Eurasia. Part of gaining that control involves, according to his book, controlling the Middle East, so that the US has its hand on the oil spigot. That would keep Europe, Japan and S. Korea in line, while the US moves into the 'Stans as the prelude to the military takeover of Russia. He figures that the US can finesse China somehow, rather than going to war with them.

So, Bush et al. have screwed up his strategy, which he described as spanning a couple of generations. By going in all cowboy, Bush got everybody's hackles up and set back the diplomatic push by decades.

From this point of view, you almost have to thank BushCo for what they have done. The last thing we need is for our government run the new global empire.

I wish I could feel like the wheels of justice will eventually crush that fat ghoul and the entire BFEE. But I can't.

- he definately did not hold back. At the end he said

"...everyone is so concerned about what the administration's 'secret' plan is to attain stability in Iraq. My own concern is that the 'secret' is that there is no plan"

You tell 'em Z!!

:bounce:

/typo

He's not against the war. He's against *losing* the war.

If there was a plan, he'd be all for it. He's against there being no plan. He's ripping into Bush for incompetence, not for the agenda. Google "The Grand Chessboard", a book Brzesinski wrote in 1997. You'll find very interesting quotes that could easily have been penned by Richard Perle, Bill Kristol or any other neocon warmonger. The only real difference in my opinion is that Brzezinski, unlike the hard-core neocons, is a realist. Which, reality being what it is, means he's not as dangerous and does not appear as bloodthirsty as they, because he realizes the limitations on what can be done successfully.

So if he's advocating agaist war on Iran, it's because he knows what the likely outcome is going tobe and he doesn't like it, while the neocons (and quite possibly Bush himself) don't give a hoot about the endgame. Hell, they may actually like the thought, they're all ready for rapture anyway. Brzezinski, I guess, is not rapture-ready. This may make him our ally at the moment, but never think he sides with the anti-war crowd.

On edit: Have a look at this for a bit of insight on Brzezinski:



Brzezinski made the deal with the devil, for which the US is now paying with its soul.

He is a competent strategist and an acute observer.

with this description. I was merely pointing out that his agenda is greatly removed from what (most?) progressives would readily embrace.

Was embraced by most on left here in the United States. There were differences with the right over how this was best to be accomplished, but not much disagreement on the goal. The Afghan matter Mr. Brzeznski set in motion was poorly executed, in fact, by the Reagan administration, which under-rated the skill of the Pakistanis in playing the operation for their own interests, and failed lamentably to clean up afterwards.

There seem to be far too many players and variables to estimate the results, or even an 'end' strategy. And 'clean up' ......we'll never get all the blood stains off the carpet.

Was to the leaving intact the mujahideen movement after the Soviet withdrawl: competent imperialists dispose of their human tools once they have served their use....

"You cannot do as the Romans did if you do not act like the Romans acted.'

The answer, of course, is absolutely anybody. When a country's war making policy is dictated by the actions of terrorists, there is a massive interest in terrorist attacks for malicious third parties. Want America to attack Foobistan? Just send some of your country's agents to frame foobistanian terrorists for the act, and BAM! The world's baddest military is at your command, attacking your enemy. Afraid to send agents? No problem! Any break away splinter group of extremists can carry out the act! No worries! :(

that a Frank Kitson book called "Low Intensity Operations" should be required reading.

Like many great older books, its hard to find online. I'm not seeing it.

how many people out there believe, and accept that this could happen, and express such dis-belief and/or disdain that it hasn't already. Thanks.
quickesst

There are too many "coincidences" and too much evidence that gets glossed over, but such things have happened......and frequently.

--then I'm worried. This is the fellow who thought that the genocide perpertrated in East Timor by Indonesia was just peachy keen, and who first implemented the notion of using the fervor of Islamic fundametalism against the Soviet Union. Sounds like he's wised up a bit in old age.

he's not worried about the war or the killing. He's only worried because he thinks, correctly, that the war is not winnable, or that the consequences are not worth whatever gain winning the war might be. Or, which is probably also correct, that Bush, Cheney and the neocons don't even have a definition of "winning" a conflict with Iran, just like they didn't have one for Iraq.

And he's right. And it *is* notable that he comes out saying it. But he's merely a bank robber advocating against robbing this particular bank, because he thinks it's not worth the risk.

is scared for his personal safety. That is why he is speaking up.

I don't trust him, but I'll take what I can get from this insider, weigh it, measure it, and consider it.

Not for altruistic reasons, of course. He might think the Bushco invasion plan is simply too risky, the unknowns too numerous, and/or not achievable within acceptable parameters. But you can be sure if the indicators for an invasion were more favorable in his mind, he wouldn't hesitate.

It is interesting that several of the steps from his own "new" policy approach to Iran that he co-authored (link - http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Iran_TF.pdf) which outlines 'diplomatic' maneuvers to take toward Iran, have for the most part been followed so far. They are mainly carrot and stick economic 'incentives' and pressures. And perhaps his opinion is that this approach is having the desired affect, albeit slow going. Nowhere in his policy report did he suggest a direct attack on Iran, which seems the same as saying that the policies he outlined would work, and that an attack would NOT.
That an "if all else fails we'll attack" resolution didn't even enter into the report as an option was telling, though I'm sure that option has been discussed in private. The report, afterall, was as much for public consumption as it was for open policy discussion. And it seems the majority of Congress is in agreement with this policy approach.

So if Bushco feels differently - that this approach will not now, nor ever shall, have the preferred results - then he might be itching to invade. And Israel's rightwingers are likely supporting/encouraging this sentiment. If that is the case, then Bushco will also need to create a 'reason' to invade which might, indeed, include another MIHOP attack on the U.S. or elsewhere.

If so, then Brzezinski, by calling him on it, pre-empts him and makes that move difficult to impossible.
Which, at the very least, buys Brzezinski's Iran policy more time to take effect.

And then there is Syria which might be considered a 'backdoor' of sorts. If Syria is attacked then that surrounds and tightens the noose and puts more distance between Iran and Israel. However, Syria and Iran have made a mutual defense agreement between them. So don't know how that would play out. At any rate, there are many ways to skin a cat if you want to do it damage...so short of impeachment, I'm sure Bushco is considering all his options to get around impediments.

begin Impeachment proceedings NOW.

If the MSM won't even report Brzezinsky's testimony (and that appears to be the case), then their silence probably means they are likely to support Bushco's plans instead. Silence means they are in lockstep with Bushco.

Bloggers need to spread this testimony around and MAKE it an issue. Not to support Brzezinski the man so much as one NON-VIOLENT option.

I take issue with the U.S. corporate aggression & all it's bloody aspirations for global imperialism. So choosing which weapon is least harmful seems to be some sort of agreement, when in fact BOTH options should be rendered unacceptable and the whole premise for them re-examined within a new context that redefines our direction and values and what is best for this country.