Globalists Coming Full Circle: Obama executes final leg of Neo-Conservative imperialism

Paul Wolfowitz (right) in 1991 was apparently pleased with the 
outcome of Desert Storm. He believed that the time was ripe
to seize global hegemony before another world power rose to
challenge the Anglo-American establishment.

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Long before the verified lies of Qaddafi's "door-to-door" genocide and even before the media cleverly tagged the engineered destabilization of the Middle East the "Arab Spring," Libya was already marked for destabilization and regime change. For nearly thirty years the US and UK have funded groups both inside Libya and beyond its borders in various attempts to remove Qaddafi from power. The current administration's feigned ignorance over the nature of the rebels in Libya is nothing short of absolute deception. The CIA and MI6 are on record for decades following, and in many cases supporting, these very groups.

Below is a partial time line covering Western efforts to implement regime change in Libya.

1980s: US-CIA backed National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) made multiple attempts to assassinate Qaddafi and initiate armed rebellion throughout Libya.
1990s: Noman Benotman and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) wage a campaign of terror against Qaddafi with Osama Bin Laden's assistance.
2003: Upon Qaddafi's abandonment of WMD programs, Libya's collaboration with MI6 & the CIA to identify and expose the LIFG networks begins, giving Western intelligence a windfall of information regarding the group.
2005: NFSL's Ibrahim Sahad founds the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London England.
2011: Early February, the London based NCLO calls for a Libyan "Day of Rage," beginning the "February 17th revolution."
2011: Late February, NFSL/NCLO's Ibrahim Sahad is leading opposition rhetoric, literally in front of the White House in Washington D.C. Calls for no-fly zone in reaction to unsubstantiated accusations Qaddafi is strafing "unarmed protesters" with warplanes.
2011: Late February, Senators Lieberman and McCain and UK PM David Cameron call for providing air cover for Libyan rebels as well as providing them additional arms.
2011: Early March; it is revealed UK SAS special forces are already operating inside Libya
2011: Mid-March; UN adopts no-fly zone over Libya, including air strikes. Immediately, the mission is changed from "protecting civilians" to "ousting Qaddafi." Egypt violates the arms embargo of UN r.1973 with Washington's full knowledge by supplying Libyan rebels with weapons, while Al Qaeda's ties to the rebels are admitted by everyone including the rebels themselves.


Recently, Fareed Zakaria on his CNN show interviewed a former Libyan Al-Qaeda associate, Noman Benotman, to dispel "allegations" that Al Qaeda was playing a key role in the rebellion against Qaddafi. Benotman would concede that Al Qaeda was involved but not significantly, suggesting there were only a few hundred fighters. The Washington Times would later quote Benotman upgrading the number to a thousand. Then after Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted to recruiting extremists into his ranks and that he believed Al Qaeda members were "good Muslims," Benotman began back peddling and even claiming, "The way they start to make statements or to understand the conflicts is unbelievable, beyond my imagination. The only explanation I can offer is because they have been affected - whether they like it or not - by the wave of democracy."


It should be noted that Al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel commander, received his training in Afghanistan and witnessed the US bombing campaign which began in late 2001. He would fight Americans in Afghanistan and was eventually captured in Pakistan, handed over to the US and later released back to Libya in 2008. Now the same man that fought Americans is being provided American air cover over Benghazi while he leads fellow Al Qaeda fighters, some of which fought Americans in Iraq as well.

For the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was founded in the mountains of Afghanistan during the CIA-backed war against the Soviets, then fighting the Americans in both Afghanistan and Iraq, now having the CIA back on the ground in Libya by their side may seem like a reunion of sorts, punctuated by the irony of jets flying overhead that had been hunting them abroad but are now protecting their lives. But to the thousands of US soldiers who have died and the tens of thousands maimed and destroyed supposedly fighting Al Qaeda, to the Americans who have been financially bled to death over the last ten years of war, and to the millions of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Libya who have been killed, maimed, displaced or otherwise affected by the "War on Terror," it is more like the punchline of a bad joke.

But the implications go much deeper than merely a conjured army of duped extremists, serving the globalist agenda every step of the way. The implications are deep, and dark indeed.

The Grander Agenda

Ten days after 9/11, General Wesley Clark visited the Pentagon where an officer from the Joint Staff warned him of an impending attack on Iraq. After the Afghan invasion, this officer shared with Clark a document handed down from the Office of the Secretary of Defense indicating plans to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries; Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Lebanon and Libya. General Wesley Clark would go on to share this story in a 2007 speech given to the Commonwealth Club of California where he repeated this list.

Of course, the campaigns have already begun against each of the nations Clark listed. Iraq was invaded, decimated, and has been occupied by US troops since 2003. In 2006, Israel attempted to invade and dismantle Hezbollah in Lebanon but the conflict ended in a stalemate and an eventual Israeli withdrawal. Somalia was attacked by a proxy Ethiopian invasion force with US air support starting in 2007, but it too eventually ended in failure. A silent war has already begun within Iran, including covert military operations, the arming of terrorists, assassinations, and 2 failed US backed color revolutions. Sudan has been recently carved into two states and Syria is now being intentionally destabilized by US trained and funded activists.

And now, of course in Libya's case, aerial bombardment by US, UK, and French warplanes has begun, while the CIA and MI6 are on the ground attempting to collapse the Qaddafi regime.

Wesley Clark would backtrack in his 2007 talk in California and recall a conversation he had in 1991 with then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz regarding Desert Storm. Clark was told that America's intervention in Iraq proved that the US could use its military force and the Soviets wouldn't stop them. Wolfowitz said the US had 5-10 years to clean up the old Soviet "client regimes" before the next super power rose up and challenged western hegemony. Clark claimed that this, along with the aftermath of 9/11 constituted a policy coup where Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other members of the of Project for a New American Century had hijacked US foreign policy to destabilize and turn the nations of the Middle East upside down - much the way they are now. The "Neo-Conservative" element of this current round of destabilization goes deeper than the promotion of war, as the "Neo-Cons" have uncharacteristically dedicated themselves to "human rights" and "democracy" side-by-side with the likes of George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization 
was planned as far back as 1991, with the destruction of Iraq, 
Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Iran on the
drawing board following the invasion of Afghanistan. 

Bush campaigned on an anti-war, anti-nation building platform. Obama then pledged to roll back the agenda Bush swindled the nation into, only to then continue it in earnest. All along we have been treated to the theatrics of the corporate-owned media, with pundits on the left and right reacting in shock and surprise as these engineered events unfolded according to plan.

Despite Wolfowitz' agenda being meted out nearly 20 years ago, the ham-fisted nature of both the operation itself in Libya and the propaganda surrounding it suggests a rushed sense of desperation on the globalists' behalf. Wesley Clark suggested that the operation to destabilize the Middle East and Northern Africa would take 5 years, starting in 2001. Wolfowitz believed that in 1991 the operation would have taken 5-10 years. The failed FBI attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was most likely the staged impetus to trigger the first blitzkrieg. Not only did the attacks fail to cause the catastrophic effects needed to justify such an operation, the Egyptian informant assisting the FBI had recorded his conversations with agents indicating that they were indeed building a bomb for extremists and providing them with real explosives as well.

1993 would have fit in perfectly to tip off Wolfowitz' plan. Upon failing, he and his PNAC cadre would attempt to destroy the World Trade Center buildings again, this time successfully on September 11, 2001. The catastrophic loss of life, the confusion, and the rage that was left in its wake gave the PNAC what they called a "new Pearl Harbor" they claimed they needed in their September 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

These men, who in fact helped create Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan to face the Soviets in the 80s would call on their legion of foreign mercenaries to wreck havoc across the planet, heralding globalist intervention along the way. Certainly this had nothing to do with defending America or spreading "democracy" but rather bolstering the hegemony of the corporate-financier oligarchythat both the PNAC cadre and the bankers who thoroughly saturate Obama's administration constitute.

What appears to have happened is a costly delay in 1993 and a post-9/11 campaign that has dragged on 5 years longer than expected. With the same clumsy hands fumbling in Libya also trying to stab simultaneously at both Moscow and Beijing with their agenda laid on the table openly for all to see, failure on the globalists' behalf now may incur a wrathful response from a planet about to truly awaken.

It should be expected that that any excuse to complete regime change in Libya will be made, including creating the conditions necessary to put troops on the ground - be it because of a failing rebellion, a false flag attack carried out in Qaddafi's name, or even feigned fears the globalists' own Al Qaeda might "seize" Libya should they not intervene. Similarly, with the US openly admitting to funding subversive activities across the Arab world, in Iran, and even as far as China, the globalists have painted themselves into an irredeemable, inescapable corner of confrontation.

Look past the feckless puppets occupying our public offices and toward the corporations and financial empires that are our true "misleaders." Boycott these corporations and systematically replace them by getting self-sufficient as an individual, as a household, and as a community. Independence is freedom, freedom is independence and the dominion of this dark empire can be broken by understanding that they need us, we do not need them.


For ways to battle the globalists by achieving self-sufficiency and freedom through independence please read on:

Self-Sufficiency 
Alternative Economics
The Lost Key to Real Revolution
Boycott the Globalists
Naming Names: Your Real Government

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.   

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Liberals Willing to Trade Blood and Treasure for Oil Company Profits Under Obama

US Navy/Wikimedia Commons image

Eric Blair
Activist Post

It's perplexing to see a high level of support for the unprovoked bombing of Libya on so-called "progressive" websites.

There has been an endless stream of humanitarian propaganda flowing from these sites trying to convince average liberals that the "human thing to do" is to rain down tomahawk missiles with depleted uranium to bring freedom and democracy to an oppressed people.

Huffington Post ran a piece by Ed Schultz titled Why I Support President Obama's Decision to Invade Libyawhere he described his reasoning as follows:

...President Obama explained this won't be a long-term operation. 

Matter of days, not a matter of weeks. Not even months. 

...He's (Obama) trying to give the rebels, those who want democracy, a fighting chance at just that and trying to stop Gaddafi -- this is the human thing to do -- from slaughtering his own people.

By the very use of the word "invade" in the title, Schultz would seem to understand that the continued military support is likely to last for quite some time.  Indeed, this was confirmed on Sunday morning when Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hinted that the operation could indeed last for months, which seems to debunk Schultz's main argument that it's only a days-long conflict.  This justification is reminiscent of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld falsely stating that the Iraq war would be quick and easy -- only cost a couple of a billion dollars that would be paid for by Iraqi oil.

Additionally, Schultz and others making the "humanitarian" argument that we needed to prevent Gaddafi from slaughtering his own people is convoluted at best, if not a blatant hypocritical contradiction.  It has become clear that the United States and their imperial partners, Britain and France, are picking and choosing which civil uprisings and which dictators to support with no genuine concern for democracy or civil rights.

Everyone with an objective view knows by now that this intervention is about protecting oil resources and making sure Israel survives these revolutionary times in the Arab world. Whether it's control over Egypt's Suez Canal, Libya's sweet crude, or propping up the tyrannical Saudi regime in the face of protesters there, this selective military action in Libya seems to be exactly what liberals screamed about during Bush's preemptive oil wars.

In an informative article this weekend, Mike Rozeff wrote about the pre-Bush history of the same plans for the oil-rich Arab world:

A RAND document reviews the U.S. oil policy in the mid-East and associated regions. It points out (p. 60) that President Carter enunciated this policy on January 23, 1980 in his State of the Union Address: 

'Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.'

Even before this, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in September of 1978 issued a strategy assessment in which it wrote of 'continuous access to petroleum resources' as priority #1 in the region, along with seeing that Israel survived. In 1979, the military put together a 'Rapid Deployment Force (RDF), which soon gained full, unified command status as the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM).'

Rozeff makes a compelling argument why the United States will spare no expense to ensure the control of oil in the Arab world no matter what the consequences may be:

Hence, there is no question that the U.S. considers the uninterrupted oil flow from this region as a vital interest. The U.S. has made war over Kuwait in 1990, in Iraq in this century, and now in Libya. It has gone into related areas such as Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan. It has confronted Iran for decades. It has armed and aided all sorts of dictatorial regimes in the region. 

The U.S. government has done all of these things under the doctrine that oil flows must not be interrupted. It has acted strongly even when such an interruption was a remote prospect. It acted under false pretexts in Iraq. It has imposed sanctions on Iran. It has threatened war on Iran over its nuclear activities on more than one occasion. 

The U.S. is acting now in Libya. Although Libya poses little risk of interrupting U.S. oil supplies, the U.S. wants to control the outcome in Libya. The U.S. must demonstrate control if it is to maintain control in neighboring regions such as Saudi Arabia where revolts, possible revolts, and revolutions are likely.

It may be even worse than Rozeff reports, as it seems more appropriate to say that U.S./NATO are doing the dirty work for the multinational oil companies rather than "national interests."  It's clear that these borderless companies are the ones who benefit from the drilling contracts when the military dust-ups settle.  For example, the UK people didn't exactly benefit from BP's massive drilling contracts in Iraq that also earned ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair handsome consulting kickbacks.

Furthermore, the average price for oil prior to America's undeclared wars between 2001-2002 was less than $23 per barrel.  After America invaded Iraq, the price of oil skyrocketed relatively quickly to peak at $147 in 2008, leaving some to speculate that this spike in society's life-blood was the real trigger for the economic collapse in the fall of that same year.  Regardless, it is obvious that a 500% increase in oil price in just five short years was not exactly protecting the "vital interests" of the American people who endured the brunt of the fuel increases, the subsequent bailout of the global economy, while also paying for the war tab.

Now, Huffington Post and others are trying to justify this expensive and unconstitutional new war front, while at the same time slamming domestic spending cuts brought on by deficits primarily caused by bloated and unnecessary defense/war/surveillance spending.  In the name of humanitarian intervention, these so-called progressives have become no different than the war-mongering Neocons they so despised.  Perhaps their stunning hypocrisy makes them even worse than Neocons.  Regardless, what's clear is that they all serve the same masters for the same end result no matter what labels or excuses are given.

However, it's encouraging that the general progressive public don't seem to be buying into the establishment-liberal support for the new "invasion".  Judging by the 1400-plus comments responding to Schultz's article, about 90% of them are challenging Schultz, and those who support his position are universally panned by other commenters.  After all, the hypocrisy of this preemptive military strike is so blatant -- the lack of Congressional approval makes it clearly illegal -- and the cost of more foreign intervention during rabid spending-cut debates at home proves where their alliances truly stand.

Establishment progressives can no longer hide behind phony labels.  They have officially joined the ranks of the War Party serving up American blood and treasure to support profits for the military-industrial complex and Big Oil, while compromising on austerity cuts at home.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Obama in staunch defense of US Libya policy

A Libyan rebel stands at the site of a Western-led
air strike in the strategic oil town of Ajdabiya
© AFP Patrick Baz

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President Barack Obama gave a staunch defense of the US role in the international military mission in Libya Saturday, as he comes under pressure to explain US goals to a public exhausted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama's weekly radio and online address was his most detailed review of the UN-sanctioned action so far, and comes ahead of an address to the nation Monday on the US strategy in Libya.

"Make no mistake, because we acted quickly, a humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided and the lives of countless civilians -- innocent men, women and children -- have been saved," Obama said.
When innocent people are brutalized by a leader like Kadhafi who was threatening a "bloodbath," and when nations are prepared to respond together, "it's in our national interest to act," he said. "And it's our responsibility."


"Every American can be proud of the lives we've saved in Libya," he said.

Conservative and liberal politicians have criticized Obama for joining what many say is an open-ended, ill-conceived operation to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya.

Obama however emphasized that the US mission "is clear and focused."

The UN Security Council mandated the no-fly zone and an international coalition that includes Arab countries was protecting Libyans to prevent "further atrocities."

"We're succeeding in our mission. We've taken out Libya's air defenses. Kadhafi's forces are no longer advancing across Libya," he said.

A key part of the administrations' information blitz on Libya includes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who are to appearing Sunday on influential TV political talk shows.

Critics are already taking shots at Obama's Libya policy on grounds of failing to define the mission and for not first consulting the US Congress, which has the sole authority to declare war.

Newt Gingrich, a prominent Republican critic and possible 2012 presidential hopeful, said he was "utterly confused" about the operation's goals.

A gas mask hangs on a destroyed tank
belonging to Moamer Kadhafi's forces
© AFP Aris Messinis

"It's not a humanitarian mission. It's a mission to defeat Kadhafi," said Gingrich Saturday. "I've never heard a no-fly zone that includes everything," he added, a reference to air strikes on Kadhafi's tanks.

The UN mandate on Libya is limited to protecting civilians, and does not cover overthrowing Kadhafi.

Gingrich however was panned for first criticizing Obama for not being more forceful in imposing a no-fly zone, even without UN approval.

"I would like to see, of course, as long as we're in it -- we better be in it to win it," said former Alaska governor Sarah Palin earlier on Fox News. "And if there's doubt, we get out."

Another possible Republican presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, described Obama's lack of clarity on the Libya mission as "dithering."

In Congress, legislators like Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat Dennis Kucinich have called for a debate and vote on military action against Libya.

Obama briefed key congressional leaders -- included Republican House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, Majority leader Eric Cantor, and Nancy Pelosi, the chamber's Democratic leader -- on Libya Friday.

After the briefing however Boehner said Obama "left some fundamental questions about our engagement unanswered."

Clinton, Gates, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and the top US uniformed military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, are later scheduled to offer a classified briefing for members of Congress on Wednesday.

In his Saturday address Obama emphasized that the US goals were limited, that "responsibility for this operation" would be transferred to US allies and NATO partners, and that no US ground troops would be sent to Libya.

"The United States should not, and cannot, intervene every time there's a crisis somewhere in the world," Obama said.

The president also repeated his warnings that Kadhafi, who has ruled Libya with an iron fist since 1969, should go.

"Moamer Kadhafi has lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to rule, and the aspirations of the Libyan people must be realized," Obama said.

US public support for the conflict is lukewarm: a March 22 Gallup poll showed that 47 percent of Americans surveyed approve of action against Libya.

The pollsters said this support "is lower than what Gallup has found when asking about approval of other US military campaigns in the past four decades."

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Egypt Arming Libyan Rebels

Wikimedia Commons

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

After the corporate owned media's failed attempt in February 2011 to portray the Libyan unrest as "unarmed protesters" being brutalized by Qaddafi, reports began trickling in of what was actually a full-scale rebellion with weapons coming across the border from Egypt. These reports are now confirmed, as large scale operations to supply the rebels with weapons have now been admitted by both the US and Egyptian governments.

The Wall Street Journal, quoting a "senior US official," claimed that the latest Egyptian operation to arm Libyan rebels had started several days ago and is ongoing. The WSJ reiterates what many globalist think-tanks have been saying all along, that the operation to overthrow Libya, despite being a Western project, should be led by the newly "reordered" and shook up Arab states. The WSJ concedes that the US "wanted to avoid being seen as taking a leadership role in any military action against Mr. Gadhafi after its invasions of Iraq and Afganistan fueled anger and mistrust with Washington throughout the region." We are left to believe that the US deceptively meddling in Libya by proxy, somehow, is supposed to alleviate this anger and regain lost trust.

If all goes well for the globalists, this servile proxy Arab conglomerate, after being marshaled to raid Libya on behalf of the West, will then be organized and ready to turn its attention east toward Iran at the behest of their globalist masters. The WSJ in their article recognized this new servile fervor as an "unusually robust diplomatic response from Arab states."

Brookings Institute policy wonk, Kenneth Pollack's "The Real Military Options in Libya," outlines the full array of plans the US has at its disposal - options it has already been working ceaselessly starting mid February to build a consensus for and put into motion. Several of these "options," including "covert support" are already now admittedly in play.

Meanwhile, those still under the illusion that humanitarian concerns drive the UN Security Council's decision to authorize a Libyan no-fly zone, would do best to refresh their memories of how the globalists used the UN to become mired in a decade of war with Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Pakistan. It should also be remembered that the "Neo-Con" cadre of the globalist cartel within the confines of the Project for a New American Century engineered the entire "War on Terror" including their wish for a "new Pearl Harbor" a year before 9/11.

Today, the Project for a New American Century exists as William Kristol's Foreign Policy Initiative, and is once again writing letters reminiscent of the ranting insanity signed off by America's leading "Neo-Cons" urging for one foreign intervention after another. They also played a central role in the "Ground Zero Mosque" hoax in 2010. Their latest "letter" is addressed to President Obama under the title, "Foreign Policy Experts Urge President to Take Action to Halt Violence in Libya."

The globalist Foreign Policy Initiative is the reinvented 
"Project for a New American Century." (Image: FPI)

In it they call for not only a no-fly zone to be initiated by the US, but also for air strikes and the official recognition of the "Libyan National Transitional Council." They go on to insultingly state "Today the United States and its allies should stand with the men, women and children of Libya who seek a future of peace and dignity." We can only assume the "Neo-Con" globalist ghouls of the Foreign Policy Initiative are referring to the same peace and dignity the Afghans and Iraqis are currently enjoying.

For a full updated review of globalist support for the Libyan rebels, please see: "War with Libya."

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer.     

Related Articles:

Scientists investigate the possibility of wormholes between ...

Gas companies blamed for more than 30 earthquakes in two ...

Thousands of soldiers to be trained to run prisons as the ...

China US bond purchases decline for 3rd month

Ron Paul: Hemp for Victory

LinkWithin

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

The Globalists' Egyptian Gambit: ElBaradei

From the Council on Foreign Relations to the Brookings Institute, Globalists agree. Mohamed ElBaradei for (Egyptian) President 

source

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer

Activist Post 

 It was previously reported that Mohamed ElBaradei, the self-proclaimed leader of the unfolding Egyptian protests, is actually sitting on the Board of Trustees of the Zbigniew Brzezinski/George Soros globalist think-tank, the International Crisis Group.

The mainstream media has been backing ElBaradei's ownership of the protests, hailing this Nobel Laurette and former UN IAEA director as the potential next president of Egypt and the "hero" of the protests. The New York Times refers to him as the "Nobelist" portraying him as standing "toe-to-toe" with hundreds of riot police and promising to run for president if and only if elections were "free and fair."

While ElBaradei poses as a critic of the United States, it is not because of their meddling with Middle Eastern affairs, it is because they are not meddling enough. ElBaradei berates the United States for not intervening in what he calls "social disintegration, economic stagnation, and political repression" in Egypt. Apparently ElBaradei isn't the only one who thinks so either.

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) senior fellow, Project for a New American Century signatory, and Bush wrangler Elliott Abrams elaborated on the sort of "intervention" the United States should be committed to in his piece "Less 'Engagement,' More Democracy" in the New York Times. In his piece he criticizes the current policy of engaging with nations he deems repressive regimes as equals and calls for a revisit to George Bush's "freedom agenda." In other words - the export of "democracy" that has brought America the trillion dollar military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan at the cost of thousands of US soldiers' lives and the lives of millions of foreigners killed, maimed, or displaced.

Ultimately the "freedom agenda" has created puppet governments and sweeping economic reforms giving globalist corporate cartels free reign in these "importers of democracy." Those that remember Paul Bremer's Colalition Provisional Authority, may also recall the various "liberalizations" imposed upon Iraq including 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi companies and immunity granted to foreign contractors from Iraqi law.

In the end, the "freedom agenda" is nothing more than 21st century gunboat diplomacy coupled with the one-sided "treaties" the European imperialists imposed across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

Fellow CFR policy wonk, Robert Danin echos Abrams' sentiments regarding the freedom agenda by regretting how President Obama had backed away from it during his 2009 speech in Cairo, and how interesting it is now that the administration seems to be interested in perhaps adopting it. He then goes on to explain how the protests are unprecedented, in that they are concerning not anit-American or anti-Israeli causes, but directed at inward problems at home.

With Tunisia and now Egypt internally infighting, a collective regional division seems to be developing. It is no secret the globalists via the United States and Israeli governments, want regime change in Iran and to desperately halt their nuclear program. Elliot Abrams in his New York Times piece states explicitly "our ultimate goal for Iran is not a nuclear deal with the ayatollahs but freedom for its people under a government they choose in honest elections." Newsweek goes one step further and reports on a covert war against Iran's nuclear program already well underway.Seymour Hersh reported as early as 2008 that the US was conducting military operations in Iran.

The floundering efforts to achieve the globalists' goals with Iran, now spanning several years, may have spurred the real policy makers, the globalist think tanks, to consider a wider regional campaign of destabilization and the installation of more reliable and more zealous allies to build the needed coalition to confront an unmovable Iran. At any rate, any opposition for the globalists' next phase in the Middle East will be muted with regimes across the region battling for their very survival.

Mohamed ElBaradei, then literally sitting on the International Crisis Group's Board of Trustees with the likes of George Soros, would not only be a trusted candidate to sow instability throughout Egypt, but would make an equally trustworthy leader of a pliable proxy regime to turn against Iran, Russia, and China. An ElBaradei controlled Egypt could equally be turned against disruptive members of the other globalist pet project Egypt is conveniently positioned to deal with, the African Union. And last but not least, Egypt controls the Suez Canal. Greater control over Egypt means greater control over the passage of freight through the canal.

Finally, globalist think-tank, the Brookings Institute, chimes in claiming Egypt's new opposition leader is indeed Mohamed ElBaradei and claims he is already reaching out for ties and a loose alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, an extremely large and influential opposition organization in Egypt. The Brookings Institute feigns the same ignorance as the rest of the mainstream media regarding ElBaradei's position in the International Crisis Group by claiming it will be Egypt that will decide the outcome "not Washington." Brookings also laments that Israel's government holds a huge stake in the outcome of Egypt's unrest but has "absolutely no ability to influence the course of events."

It should then comfort Israel and the Brookings Institute to know that ElBaradei is working so closely with US policy makers via the International Crisis Group and that his sentiments are echoed by America's "Neo-Conservative" establishment. In other words, Israel and America have their foot in the door and seem not to even realize it. The wiser suspects they most certainly do realize it.

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer.   

Related article by Tony Cartalucci
All is Not What it Seems in Egyptian Clashes 

RELATED ARTICLE:
The Tipping Point Has Passed: Sweeping Change is at Hand
Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner