Sunday, December 10, 2006

Mike Whitney: Baker vs. "The Lobby"

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

BAKER VS. "THE LOBBY"

By Mike Whitney
 
“The great value of the Baker-Hamilton report is that it reasserts the necessity of pursuing American interests, as opposed to purely Israeli interests.” Justin Raimondo, “We Can’t Wait for 2008” - Url.: http://antiwar.com

12/09/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- The tension between the Bush administration and the members of the Iraq Study Group, illustrates the widening chasm between old-guard U.S. imperialists and “Israel-first” neoconservatives. The divisions are setting the stage for a major battle between the two camps. The winner will probably decide US policy in the Middle East for the next decade.

The failed occupation of Iraq has put the entire region on the fast-track to disaster. That’s why James Baker was summoned from retirement to see if he could change the present trajectory and mitigate the long-term damage to US interests. Baker was opposed to the invasion from the onset but his 4 day trip to Baghdad convinced him that something had to be done quickly. The ISG report reflects the unanimous view of its authors that Iraq is disintegrating into chaos and that action must be taken to reduce the level of bloodshed.

A DOG IN THIS FIGHT

Baker is not merely an objective observer in this process. He clearly “has a dog in this fight”. As Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan he put together the basic scaffolding for America’s imperial presence in the region and he continues to be connected to many of the corporations which benefit from US relations in the Middle East. But he has also always taken a “pragmatic” approach to regional policy and cannot be considered a war-monger. Some critics of Baker say that his business interests suggest that he indirectly supports the Bush policy. But this is an oversimplification. In fact, Baker sees war as a blunt instrument that is essentially incompatible with commercial interests. There are simply more efficient ways for clever men to achieve their objectives.

In Antonia Juhasz’s recent article “Oil for Sale: Iraq Study Group Recommends Privatization” shows how Baker was more than happy to overlook Saddam’s domestic repression as long as it didn’t damage business dealings. As Juhasz’s says:

“Baker’s interest was focused on trade, which he described as “the central factor in the US-Iraq relationship”. From 1982, when Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries supporting terrorism until August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Baker and Eagleburger worked with others in the Reagan and Bush administrations to aggressively and successfully expand trade.

The efficacy of such a move can best be described in a memo written in 1988 by the Bush transition team arguing that the US would have ‘to decide whether to treat Iraq as a distasteful dictatorship to be shunned where possible, or to recognize Iraq’s present and potential power in the region and accord it relatively high priority. We strongly urge the latter view.’ Two reasons offered were Iraq’s ‘vast oil reserves’ which promised ‘a lucrative market for US goods’ and the fact that the US oil imports from Iraq were skyrocketing.

BUSH AND BAKER TOOK THE TRANSITION TEAMS ADVICE AND RAN WITH IT”.

This is the real James Baker. He’s not ideological and he’s certainly not on a religious crusade. His approach may seem cynical, but it shows that he prefers commerce (even with a brutal dictator) over war. This proves that his role with the ISG is not simply to provide cover for Bush. Baker’s task is to salvage the imperial system which he helped to create. Besides, it’s clear that Bush is unhappy with the report and has already rejected its two critical recommendations; negotiations with Syria and Iran, and a commitment to troop reduction. Furthermore, Bush is doing everything in his power to minimize the effects of the report. In fact, he even flew Tony Blair to Washington so that he wouldn’t look as isolated in his position.

Baker has done a good job grabbing headlines and making his case directly to the American people, but his effect on Bush has been negligible. Bush appears to be brushing the report aside just like he brushed aside the results of the midterm elections. His summation of the ISG’s work was intentionally condescending; he dismissed it as “interesting” and “sincere”, blah, blah, blah.

BUT BAKER WON'T BE PATRONIZED OR PUT-OFF.

In fact, his tone has been unusually threatening at times. As more than one critic has noted, Baker appears to be offering Bush an “ultimatum” not merely recommendations. He warned Bush not to “pick and choose” the recommendations as he saw fit:

“I hope this is not like a fruit salad and I say I like this but I don’t like that. This is a comprehensive strategy designed to deal with this problem we’re facing in Iraq, but also designed to deal with other problems that we face in the region to restore America’s standing and credibility in that part of the world”.

Baker is courteous to the point of seeming unctuous, but his point is clear. He is demanding that Bush execute his plan in its totality and without deviation. This is the cautionary advice of a Mafia consigliore not the empty musings of a retired bureaucrat.

Whatever one thinks about James Baker, he is a seasoned diplomat and a serious man. His record shows that he has broad support among the leaders in the American oligarchy, so he can’t simply be ignored. He represents a powerful constituency of corporate chieftains and oil magnates who are conspicuously worried about the deteriorating situation in Iraq and want to see a change of course. Baker’s their man. He’s the logical emissary for the growing number of jittery plutocrats who see that the Bush policy-train has jumped the tracks.

But if Big Oil wants a change of direction than where is Bush getting his support for “staying the course”?

AN AP POLL CONDUCTED THIS WEEK SHOWS THAT ONLY 9% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT “VICTORY” IN IRAQ IS POSSIBLE.

Even the hard-core Bush loyalists have abandoned the sinking ship. The only group left touting Bush’s failed policy is the “Israel first” camp which continues to wave the bloody shirt of incitement from their perch at the Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute. These same diehards are leading the charge for a preemptive attack on Iran; a criminal act which will have catastrophic effects on America’s long-term energy needs.

An article which appeared in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz shows how confident Prime Minister Olmert is in the ability of the Jewish Lobby to torpedo the Baker-Hamilton report and steer the US away from changes in Iraq:

“On his way home from Los Angeles, the Prime Minister ‘calmed’ the reporters –and perhaps even himself—by saying there is no danger of the US President George Bush accepting the expected recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton panel, and attempting to move Syria out of the axis of evil and into a coalition to extricate America from Iraq. The Prime Minister hopes the Jewish Lobby can rally a Democratic majority in the new Congress to counter any diversion from the status quo on the Palestinians. (Akiva Eldar, “The Gewalt Agenda”) - Url.: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789919.html

Olmert has good reason to be “calm”. While the new Congress is being apprised of its duties to Israel, the Brookings Institute is convening a forum at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy entitled: “America and Israel: Confronting a Middle east in Turmoil”. The meeting will be attended by Israeli right-wing extremist, Avigdor Lieberman, as well as political big-wigs, Bill and Hillary Clinton.

THE ANTICIPATED ATTACK ON IRAN

The context of the meeting suggests that right-leaning Israelis will be informing their friends in the Democratic Party about the anticipated attack on Iran, as well as discussing strategies for sabotaging Baker’s report. If we see the Dems lambasting the ISGs recommendations next week; we’ll know why.

So, the battle lines have been drawn. On one side we have James Baker and his corporate classmates who want to restore order while preserving America’s imperial role in the region. And, on the other side, we have the neo-Trotskyites and Israeli-Jacobins who seek a fragmented and chaotic Middle East where Israel is the dominant power. (see "A Clean Break")

The one group that has no voice in this “Battle of the Titans” is the American people. They lost whatever was left of their shrinking political-clout sometime around the 2000 Coronation of George Bush.

In any event, Baker and his ilk are not going to sit back and watch the empire (and the military) they put together with their own two hands be systematically pulverized by a cabal of zealots pursuing an agenda that only serves Israeli hardliners.

THAT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN.

Expect Baker to wheel out the heavy artillery and fight tooth-and-nail to reassert the primacy of the American ruling class. “The Lobby” may be powerful, but it’s going to be tough-going to take the country away from the people who believe they own it.

THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE POLITICAL HEAVYWEIGHTS IS ABOUT TO BREAK-OUT INTO OPEN WARFARE.

Mike Whitney

Click to read or post comments - Url.: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15853.htm

* Smear and Fear - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/yeapqc

* BEING SMEARD & DEMONIZED BECAUSE THEY PRESENTED SOME FACTS: Prof. John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago's Department of Political Science and Prof. Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government: 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy' - Working Paper Number: RWP06-011 - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/fsl7h

* FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107 - any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information.

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/gpr4j
The Netherlands
fpf@chello.nl

-0-

Poor Bush had a week that reeked

US SUNDAY MORNING: INSTEAD OF 'BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S' THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS:

[The 'omissions' in the (mainstream) text are commented in short in ( ) or get a *]

POOR BUSH HAD A WEEK THAT REEKED

AND ONLY 27% OF AMERICANS BACK HIS IRAQ POLICY: A NEW LOW

by Thomas M. Defrank - Daily News Washington bureau chief.

WASHINGTON - Sunday, December 10th, 2006 - For a wounded President* locked in a lethal downward spiral ever since his reelection, it was the cruelest week of all.

Not since Bill Clinton forlornly insisted that "the President is still relevant" after being trounced in the 1994 mid-term elections (no elections - vote fraud) has a President* struggled so hard to salvage his political traction.

In 72 hours last week, a bipartisan commission ('Bipartisan'? Pepsi or Coca Cola?) harshly repudiated Bush's Iraq policy. Incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told senators the U.S. isn't winning the war. Then a British journalist snarkily asked at a White House press conference if Bush weren't "in denial" about Iraq.*

For good measure, a new poll found only 27% of Americans back his Iraq policy, a new low. And a moderate GOP senator termed the policy "absurd" and possibly criminal.

"He'll be fine but he can't be doing very good," said a well-placed Bush source who talks with the President often.

"IT'S BEEN A TERRIBLE YEAR, AND IT KEEPS GETTING WORSE."

Yet Bush is described by another recent visitor as still resolutely defiant, convinced history will ultimately vindicate him.

"I'll be dead when they get it right," he said during an Oval Office meeting last week.

Another Bush confidant, however, says the President reluctantly understands an Iraq course correction is mandatory:

"He is determined not to let Iraq go up in smoke and start a slaughter. But he knows something's got to give here. It just has to. We're going to start a pullout. The only question is when."

Despite the Democratic takeover of Capitol Hill and the steady cavalcade of grim news from Iraq, White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and political guru Karl Rove - (Bush's 'Turdblossom' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/ygj8pj) - are busily overseeing Bush's State of the Union address, scheduled for Jan. 23.

Outside Republican sources report that except for isolated pockets of realism, the West Wing bunker hasn't yet absorbed Bush's diminished power. - [http://tinyurl.com/w97ua]

"The White House is totally constipated," a former aide complained. "There's not enough adult leadership, and the 30-year-olds still think it's 2000 and they're riding high."

One White House assistant insisted to a friend last week that the election was merely a repudiation of Bush's execution, not his policies.

"They don't get it," a GOP mandarin snapped. "The Iraq report was their brass ring to pivot and salvage the last two years, and they didn't grab it."

EVEN IF THE CHAOS IN IRAQ SUBSIDES, PROSPECTS FOR OTHER BUSH ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THE TWILIGHT OF HIS TERM ARE DIFFICULT AT BEST.

"Short of doing something on Iraq, there's not much good he can do anymore," a key Bush adviser conceded.

A senior Republican official who enjoys excellent relations with the White House was even more downbeat.

"We will get an immigration bill, and the President will make a valiant but doomed attempt at entitlement reform," he said. "But we are looking at two frustrating years of gridlock and several foreign policy failures."

With Kenneth R. Bazinet

Story at New York Daily News - Url.: http://www.nydailynews.com

-0-

* BUSH & DENIAL: ‘IT’S BAD IN IRAQ. THAT HELP?’ - At a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a reporter asked President Bush whether his use of the word “unsettling” to describe the violence in Iraq would “convince many people that you’re still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq.” Bush responded curtly, “It’s bad in Iraq. That help?” and then chuckled.' - Watch and read it at Url.: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/07/bush-denial/

* RELATED INFORMATION at one of the best info web sites "Information Clearing House" - Url.: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html

* CRIMINAL YOU SAID? - US ''PATRIOT DAILY'' list of Bush’s violations of the law for March 2006: Violations of US laws in general, civil rights, and international laws. - Url.: http://www.patriotdaily.com/bm/blog/bushs-impeachment-as-seri.shtml

* GEORGIA CONGRESSWOMAN MCKINNEY HAS LONG INSISTED THAT BUSH WAS NEVER ELECTED LEGITIMATELY ANDINTRODUCED A BILL TO IMPEACH BUSH - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/yyyqgb

* BUSH'S BANANA REPUBLIC - BY FRANCIS BOYLE - GEORGE W. BUSH WAS NEVER ELECTED PRESIDENT by the People of the United States of America. Instead, he was anointed for that Office by five Justices of the United States Supreme Court who themselves had been appointed by Republican Presidents. Bush Jr.'s installation was an act of judicial usurpation of the American Constitution that was unprecedented in the history of the American Republic. - More at Url.: http://tinyurl.com/yk39xn

* KNOW THE WELL FROM WHICH PEOPLE GLOBALLY ARE DRINKING: 'AP' (ASSOCIATED PRESS) NOW STANDS FOR 'AMERICAN PROPAGANDA' - Just one example: ''AP Propaganda About Iraq'' - by Dahr Jamail - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/y6l59e

* HOW THE US JUNTA'S POWER VIA PROPAGANDA IS SPREAD - ASSOCIATED PRESS DECIDES? - From AxisofLogic.com - News Article - Oct. 28, 2004 - Vote fraud? - As Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin said: ''It's not important who votes. The people who count the votes decide." - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/5zosu

* THE NATION - ''IS AL QAEDA JUST A BUSH BOOGEYMAN?'' - BBC: 'The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/acnjy

* "WAR CRIMINALS, BEWARE!" - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/y7wr67

* FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107 - any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information.

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/gpr4j
The Netherlands
fpf@chello.nl

-0-