Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • World View
    Military Men Who Oppose Neo-Con Warmongering Under Attack MILITARY LEADERS MUTINYING By Michael Piper Issue #18 & 19, May 1 & 8, 2006 www.americanfreepress.net
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 2, 2006
      Military Men Who Oppose Neo-Con Warmongering Under Attack

      By Michael Piper
      Issue #18 & 19, May 1 & 8, 2006

      For generations, Republicans were strong supporters of the American
      military. But now that top military men are in open rebellion against
      the armchair civilian war hawks—the hard-line pro-Israel ideologues
      who directed President George Bush to order an invasion of Iraq and
      who now want war on Iran—the angriest voices condemning the military
      are from GOP circles.

      Following the lead of the neo-conservatives, who are viewed as
      fanatics but still dominate the Bush administration and key GOP policy
      groups, many GOP loyalists are declaring war on the battle-tested
      generals, admirals and other military heroes who are saying, "Enough
      is enough."

      Although none of the military men have yet said "No more wars for
      Israel," their rhetoric in writings and public utterances says
      essentially that.

      Conservatives roundly denounced former Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni as an
      "anti-Semite" for noting that pro-Israel neo-conservatives were the
      driving force behind the Iraq war and that everybody in Washington
      knew it. Zinni knew what he was talking about: he formerly commanded
      all U.S. forces protecting Israel in the Middle East.

      More recently, another retired Marine, Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, former
      director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in Time
      that the Iraq war was "unnecessary" and that the rationale for war by
      those whom he called "the zealots" made no sense. Newbold's choice of
      the word "zealots" was loaded. The term arises from the legend of the
      Zealots—an ancient sect of Jewish fanatics.

      Newbold quit the service four months before the Iraq invasion, in
      part, he said, because he opposed those who exploited the 9-11 tragedy
      "to hijack our security policy"—referring to the zealous neo-con
      fanatics. He added:

      "Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public." But, he said,
      "I've been silent long enough."

      What particularly disturbed Newbold's critics was that he said he was
      speaking out "with the encouragement of some still in positions of
      military leadership."

      He also struck out at what he called "the distortion of intelligence
      in the buildup to the war"—a slam at the neo-conservatives and their
      Israeli allies who shoveled up garbage, disguised as "intelligence,"
      and used it to justify the war.

      Newbold brandished his anger at the armchair war hawks, most of whom
      never served in the military, saying, "the commitment of our forces to
      this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special
      province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury
      the results."

      Newbold's statements received much media attention, so the neo-cons
      fired back.

      Perhaps the most telling attack on the generals came from Stephen
      Herbits, a former top executive of the Seagram liquor empire, the
      fiefdom of World Jewish Congress chief Edgar Bronfman, a major patron
      of Israel.

      This longtime Bronfman henchman was appointed by Defense Secretary
      Donald Rumsfeld to make "heads roll" in the military, screening all
      Pentagon promotions and appointments, implementing the agenda of
      enforcing lockstep Zionist control of the American war machine.


      Writing in the April 20 edition of the egregiously pro-Israel
      Washington Times, Herbits urged the media to start to investigate
      military leaders who dared to take on the administration.

      Herbits said it would be "a service to this country when the media
      digs a bit below these attacks to examine the generals."

      Herbits is obviously calling on spy agencies such as the
      Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a conduit for Israel's Mossad, to come
      up with "data" on the military men and provide it to the media to
      bring the dissidents into line.

      But cracking the whip over the entire military will be tough. On April
      18, David Broder, senior Washington Post commentator, revealed that
      some months ago after he wrote of how Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.)—a
      former Marine colonel who served in Vietnam—had called for U.S.
      withdrawal from Iraq, Broder was contacted by a Pentagon officer who
      gave his name and rank and then said:

      "This is a private call. I am not speaking officially. But I read your
      column, and I think it is important for you to know that Jack Murtha
      knows us very well and speaks for many of us."

      This is no secret to those who know official Washington since Murtha
      has been a leading Capitol Hill voice for the military for years. And
      this is what makes pro-Israel Republican attacks on Murtha so
      disingenuous: they paint Murtha as a "pacifist," "defeatist,"
      "liberal" ideologue. He is anything but that.

      For its own part, in an April 18 editorial, titled "The Generals'
      Revolt," The Washington Post said "the rebellion is problematic" and
      "threatens the essential democratic principle of military
      subordination to civilian control—the more so because a couple of the
      officers claim they are speaking for some still on active duty."

      That same day, a lead editor of The Washington Times Tony Blankley—an
      advocate of all-out war against the Muslim world—declared that
      generals still in service who may be planning to quit together in
      protest against Bush policies may be "illegally conspiring."

      Not content with accusing American military leaders of being
      seditious, Blankley followed up the next day with a repetition of his
      smears, calling for a court of inquiry to determine whether the
      military leaders are guilty of insubordination.

      Echoing Blankley, shrill pro-Israel agitator Charles Krauthammer, a
      psychiatrist by profession, not a soldier, blustered on April 21 with
      a column in The Washington Post crying of "The General's Dangerous

      In the end, though, what's most interesting is that prior to the
      explosion of reports in the mainstream media about the dissatisfied
      generals—four years after American Free Press first broke the story at
      a national level, even before the invasion of Iraq—the April issue of
      America's oldest and most respected magazine, Harper's, featured a
      provocative cover story:

      "American Coup d'Etat: Military thinkers discuss the unthinkable."

      This was one month after Harper's—in another cover story—called for
      the impeachment of President Bush.

      Clearly, some people in high places are not happy with the pro-Israel
      internationalism of the Bush regime.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.