Friday, September 18, 2015

Morning Briefing - September 18, 2015 - Russia In Syria, ISIS Czar Allen, Samantha Power, Carly Fiorina, Margaret Thatcher, George H.W. Bush, and the Invasion of Iraq

HomeTax Wall Street Party
September 18, 2015

Amidst the hysteria of dyed in the wool warmongers, the Obama White House is approaching a rapprochement with Russia regarding the Syrian Civil War crisis. According to an article published by Fox News on Sept. 17,

“…the Obama administration plans to accept an offer from Russia for direct talks on its military buildup in Syria that U.S. officials believe is aimed at propping up Syrian President Bashar Assad.”

This offer, initiated by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov — who has consistently been open to conferring with Western countries in foreign policy matters — was made to Secretary of State John Kerry earlier this week. Skull and Bones Kerry is showing unexpected goodwill in agreeing to hold talks between the US and Russia, saying he personally thought the idea was a good one. The report by Fox continued,

“Kerry said Lavrov had proposed a ‘military-to-military conversation and meeting in order to discuss the issue of precisely what will be done to de-conflict with respect to any potential risks that might be run and have a complete and clear understanding as to the road ahead and what the intentions are.’”[1]

The White House has been claiming to be “perplexed” by the recent Russian military buildup in Syria and these talks are an opportunity to have a clearer picture of the intentions of Russia. An Associated Press article published on Sept 16 quoted Secretary Kerry and reported the following,

“It is vital to avoid misunderstandings, miscalculations (and) not to put ourselves in a predicament where we are supposing something and the supposition is wrong.”

Nevertheless, Kerry is still demanding that Assad must be removed from power,


“In his call with Lavrov on Tuesday, his third in 10 days, Kerry said he sought clarity about Moscow’s moves and warned that Russian support for Assad ‘risks exacerbating and extending the conflict.’”[2]

The American public has been lulled into a fear-induced trance by the bankrupt news establishment relentlessly barking the groupthink mantra that Assad must be removed from power for any peace to come to the Middle East. Such a criteria for peace is exactly what would create power vacuum for ISIS to sweep in and destroy the Syrian state. This of course is the goal of ISIS czar John Allen and the putschist clique standing behind him that want to continue the wave of destabilizations in the Middle East and beyond which began with the color revolutions of the Arab Spring.




Samantha Power

All supporters of such plans must be fired immediately before they provoke and precipitate more failures in the campaign against ISIS. One top contestant for being ousted first would be the loopy humanitarian bomber Samantha Power, who kowtowed to the Allen clique’s impossible demand for a political solution for Syria that would exclude Assad in her interview with The Christian Science Monitor:

“In order to solve these issues, it’s necessary for countries to work together to find a political solution to the conflict in Syria, a solution whose outcome could significantly help stem the tide of refugees fleeing that country, Power said Wednesday. ‘It [the migrant crisis] really raises questions about burden sharing and about the Syria conflict in particular, and about the need, of course, for the long elusive political solution to that conflict,’ Power said.”[3]

The next White House staff member that should be booted from the administration is obviously General John Allen himself. Cynically fleeing the country to Europe in the midst of the Senate hearings on the fudged ISIS data, Allen has made his personal adversary and CENTCOM commander General Lloyd Austin take most of the heat for failed anti-ISIS military programs. Austin spoke before such luminaries as the lunatic Senator McCain at the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, revealing the state of the so-called moderate rebels trained earlier this year, the New Syrian Force, who were betrayed by Erdogan and Turkish special intelligence and ambushed by Al-Nusra immediately after crossing the Turkish-Syrian border. Anti-War summarized Austin’s report to Congress,

‘What was initially envisioned as a force of tens of thousands of anti-ISIS fighters amounted to only 54 to start with, and Gen. Austin told Congress today that they are down to “four or five” fighters still active in the field. Needless to say, it’s not going well.’

Gen. Austin thus admitted that the ostensibly pro-US Syrian rebel faction, dubbed the New Syrian Force (NSF) in most official contexts, is virtually gone now, with virtually everybody either killed or having fled.”[4] Allen’s entire policy of appeasement and phony war for ISIS is exposed.

Gen Austin did not originate Allen’s scheming to destroy the state of Syria with proxy armies and provocations. The boondoggle of the arm-and-train program was a premeditated failure from the word go. Now the Russians have stepped in to stifle the Frankenstein monster created by Western intelligence called ISIS.

The veteran Robert Parry reported on Sept 13 that he has been told that Obama himself pushed for Putin to enter Syria:

“Privately, I’m told, Obama agreed to — and may have even encouraged — Putin’s increased support for the Assad regime, realizing it’s the only real hope of averting a Sunni-extremist victory. But publicly Obama senses that he can’t endorse this rational move. Thus, Obama, who has become practiced at speaking out of multiple sides of his mouth, joined in bashing Russia – sharing that stage with the usual suspects, including The New York Times’ editorial page.”[5]

Obama’s various contortions from a public endorsement of Russian military buildup in Syria are explained when seen through the lens provided by the Tax Wall Street Party on ISIS czar Allen and the Neo-Ottoman Erdogan. To offset the putschist clique of the inside-man Allen and his outside controller Petraeus, Obama has refrained from any public endorsements of Putin’s actions, soothing his bad conscience with the knowledge that the mad dogs in the controlled media would be set loose on him if he did. But now cooperation with Russia and an acceptance of Assad must become public.
CIA Networks Are Hyping Former Agency Consultant Carly Fiorina As Debate Winner

The consensus of informed viewers of the second GOP debate and the resulting news hype that labeled Carly Fiorina as the debate victor is that she is receiving a helping hand from her old colleagues at the CIA. Fiorina exhibited a crude and spiteful malice in the debates, lied about many issues, including the Planned Parenthood videos, and is a confirmed wrecker of multiple businesses like Lucenth and Hewlett Packard. She has personally destroyed tens of thousands of American jobs. In the upcoming future, the Tax Wall Street Party will be delving into her checkered past to bring our readers a clear view of what connection between Fiorina and Langley could account for her dizzying rise to fame despite her atrocious business record, warmongering, and abrasive attitudes.
“US plans to accept Russia offer to join military talks on Syria” Fox Newshttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/17/us-plans-to-accept-russia-off…
“Kerry says US weighing Russian offer of military-to-military talks on Syria” Associated Presshttp://bigstory.ap.org/article/ca9218eabece45989ac6b933ecf3c44f/kerry-us…
“UN Ambassador Samantha Power: ‘US will resettle more refugees’ “ Christian Science Monitorhttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2015/0916/UN-Amb…
“US Has ‘Four or Five’ Syrians Left Fighting Against ISIS” AntiWar.com http://news.antiwar.com/2015/09/16/us-has-four-or-five-syrians-left-figh…
“US Has ‘Four or Five’ Syrians Left Fighting Against ISIS” Consortium Newshttps://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/13/whos-to-blame-for-syria-mess-putin/
August 1990: How The Imperialist Mummy Maragret Thatcher Gave George H.W. Bush the “Emergency Backbone Transplant” On Iraq That Sent The United States Into The Current Catastrophic Series Of Middle East Wars

Margaret Thatcher / Jeb Bush


In hearing the pathetic Jeb Bush praise the late British Prime Minister during this week’s Republican debate at the Reagan Library – even to the point of putting her visage on the US $20 bill — we recalled the slavish devotion to Thatcher of Jeb’s father, George H.W. Bush. It is still not widely recognized that Thatcher, who as a fanatical imperialist wanted to destroy the modern secular Arab states, was a decisive factor in prodding Bush 41 to launch the fateful military adventures known today as Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. These adventures were the beginning of a descent into the abyss which has included economic sanctions, Iraq, ISIS, and much more. Here is the real story from The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush (1992), chapter 24. To read more or to download the entire book for free, go to:

http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/

In the evening, about 9 PM, reports began to reach Washington that Iraqi forces had crossed the border into Kuwait in large numbers. From the moment the crisis had emerged on July 16-17 [1990] until the moment of the invasion, Bush had preserved a posture of nonchalant silence. But now things began to happen very rapidly. Scowcroft and Bush drafted a statement which was released by 11:20 PM. This strongly condemned the Iraqi invasion and demanded “the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces.” The New York Times of August 2, in reporting the Iraqi invasion, recorded the surface posture of the Bush regime:

Despite its efforts to deter an attack on Kuwait, the Bush Administration never said precisely what the United States would do if Iraq launched a small scale or large scale attack on Kuwait. The vagueness of the American pronouncements, which eschewed any explicit promise to come to Kuwait’s assistance, disturbed some Kuwaiti officials, who hoped for a firmer statement of American intentions that would be backed up by a greater demonstration of military force.

On Thursday, Bush was scheduled to fly to Aspen Colorado for a meeting with Margaret Thatcher, a personage of whom Bush was in awe. Thatcher, whose rise to power had included a little help from Bush in sweeping the Labour Party out of government in accordance with the designs of Lord Victor Rothschild, had now been in power for over 11 years, and had assured her place in the pantheon of Anglo-Saxon worthies. This dessicated mummy of British imperialism had been invited to Aspen, Colorado, to hold forth on the future of the west, and Bush was scheduled to confer with her there. At 5 AM, Bush was awakened by Scowcroft, who had brought him the executive orders freezing all Iraqi and Kuwaiti assets in the US. At 8 AM the National Security Council gathered in the Cabinet Room. At the opening of this session there was a photo opportunity to let Bush put out the preliminary line on Iraq and Kuwait. Bush told the reporters:




Bush: We’re not discussing intervention.

Q: You’re not contemplating any intervention or sending troops?

Bush: I’m not contemplating such action, and I, again, would not discuss it if I were.

According to published accounts, during the meeting that followed the one prospect that got a rise out of Bush was the alleged Iraqi threat to Saudi Arabia. This, as we will see, was one of the main arguments used by Thatcher later in the day to goad Bush to irreversible committment to massive troop deployment and to war. A profile of Bush’s reactions on this score could easily have been communicated to Thatcher by Scowcroft or by other participants in the 8 AM meeting. Scowcroft was otherwise the leading hawk, raving that “We don’t have the option to appear not be acting.” [fn 34] This meeting nevertheless ended without any firm decisions for further measures beyond the freezing of assets already decided, and can thus be classified as inconclusive. During Bush’s flight to Aspen, Colorado, Bush got on the telephone with several Middle East leaders, who he said had urged him to forestall US intervention and allow ample time for an “Arab solution.”

Bush’s meetings with Thatcher in Aspen on Thursday, August 2, and on Monday, August 6 at the White House are of the most decisive importance in understanding the way in which the Anglo-Americans connived to unleash the Gulf war. Before meeting with Thatcher, Bush was clearly in an agitated and disturbed mental state, but had no bedrock commitment to act in the Gulf crisis. After the sessions with Thatcher, Bush was rapidly transformed into a raving, monomaniacal warmonger and hawk. The transition was accompanied by a marked accentuation of Bush’s overall psychological impairment, with a much increased tendency towards rage episodes.

The impact of Bush’s Aspen meeting with Thatcher was thus to brainwash Bush towards a greater psychological disintegration, and towards a greater pliability and suggestibility in regard’s to London’s imperial plans. One can speculate that the “Iron Lady” was armed with a Tavistock Institute psychological profile of Bush, possibly centering on young George’s feelings of inadequacy when he was denied the love of his cold, demanding Anglo-Saxon sportswoman mother. Perhaps Thatcher’s underlying psychological gameplan in this (and previous) encounters with Bush was to place herself along the line of emotional cathexis associated in Bush’s psyche with the internalized image of his mother Dorothy, especially in her demanding and domineering capacity as the grey eminence of the Ranking Committee [which judged the performance of the Bush children]. George had to do something to save the embattled English-speaking peoples, Thatcher might have hinted. Otherwise, he would be letting down the side in precisely the way which he had always feared would lose him his mother’s love. But to do something for the Anglo-Saxons in their hour of need, George would have to be selfless and staunch and not think of himself, just as mother Dorothy had always demanded: he would have to risk his entire political career by deploying US forces in overwhelming strength to the Gulf. This might have been the underlying emotional content of Thatcher’s argument.

On a more explicit level, Thatcher also possessed an array of potent arguments. Back in 1982, she might have recalled, she had fallen in the polls and was being written off for a second term as a result of her dismal economic performance. But then the Argentinians seized the Malvinas, and she, Thatcher, acting in defiance of her entire cabinet and of much of British public opinion, had sent the fleet into the desperate gamble of the Malvinas war. The British had reconquered the islands, and the resultant wave of jingoism and racist chauvinism had permitted Thatcher to consolidate her regime until the present day. Thatcher knew about the “no new taxes” controversy and the Neil Bush affair, but all of that would be quickly suppressed and forgotten once the regiments began to march off to the Saudi front. For Bush, this would have been a compelling package.

As far as Saddam Hussein was concerned, Thatcher’s argument is known to have been built around the ominous warning, “He won’t stop!” Her message was that MI-6 and the rest of the fabled British intelligence apparatus had concluded that Saddam Hussein’s goal would be an immediate military invasion and occupation of the immense Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with its sensitive Moslem holy places, its trackless deserts and its warlike Bedouins. Since Thatcher was familiar with Bush’s racist contempt for Arabs and other dark-skinned peoples, which she emphatically shared, she would also have laid great stress on the figure of Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed to Anglo-Saxon interests. The Tavistock profile would have included how threatened Bush felt in his psycho-sexual impotence by tough customers like Saddam, whom nobody had ever referred to as little Lord Fauntleroy.

At this moment in the Gulf crisis, the only competent political-military estimate of Iraqi intentions was that Saddam Hussein had no intent of going beyond Kuwait, a territory to which Baghdad had a long-standing claim, arguing that the British Empire had illegally established its secret protectorate over the southern part of the Ottoman Empire’s province of Basra in 1899. This estimate that Iraq had no desire to become embroiled with Saudi Arabia was repeated to the author during the first week of the crisis by such qualified experts as former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Aikens, and was shared by the prominent French military leader Gen. Lacaze. Even General Schwarzkopf though it highly unlikely that Saddam would move against Saudi Arabia.

In her public remarks in Aspen, Thatcher began the new phase in the racist demonization of Saddam Hussein by calling his actions “intolerable” in a way that Syrian and Israeli occupations of other countries’ lands seemingly were not. She asserted that “a collective and effective will of the nations belonging to the UN” would be necessary to deal with the crisis. Thatcher’s travelling entourage from the Foreign Office had come equipped with a strategy to press for mandatory economic sanctions and possible mandatory military action against Iraq under the provisions of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Soon Bush’s entourage had also picked up this new fad.

Bush had now changed his tune markedly. He had suddenly and publicly re-acquired his military options. When asked about his response, he stated:


We’re not ruling any options in but we’re not ruling any options out.

Bush also revealed that he had told the Arab leaders with whom he had been in contact during the morning that the Gulf crisis “had gone beyond simply a regional dispute because of the naked aggression that violates the United Nations charter.” These formulations were I.D. format Thatcher-speak. Bush condemned Saddam for “his intolerable behavior,” again parroting Thatcher’s line. Bush was now “very much concerned” about the safety of other small Gulf states. Bush also referred to the hostage question, saying that threats to American citizens would “affect the United States in a very dramatic way because I view a fundamental responsibility of my presidency [as being] to protect American citzens.” Bush added that he had talked with Thatcher about British proposals to press for “collective efforts” by members of the United Nations against Iraq. The Iraqi invasion was a “totally unjustified act,” Bush went on. It was now imperative that the “international community act together to ensure that Iraqi forces leave Kuwait immediately. Bush revealed that he and his advisors were now examing the “next steps” to end the crisis. Bush said he was “somewhat heartened” by his telephone conversations with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, King Hussein of Jordan, and Gen. Ali Abdallah Salib of Yemen.

There is every reason to believe that Bush’s decision to launch US military intervention and war was taken in Aspen, under the hypnotic influence of Thatcher. Any residual hesitancy displayed in secret councils was merely dissembling to prevent his staffs from opposing that decision. Making a strategic decision of such collossal implications on the basis of a psycho-manipulative pep talk from Thatcher suggests that Bush’s hyperthyroid condition was already operating; the hyperthyroid patient notoriously tends to resolve complicated and far-reaching alternatives with quick, snap decisions. Several published accounts have sought to argue that the decision for large-scale intervention did not come until Saturday at Camp David, but these accounts belong to the “red Studebaker” school of coverup. The truth is that Bush went to war as the racist tail on the British imperial kite, cheered on by the Kissinger cabal that permeated and dominated his administration. As the London Daily Telegraph gloated, Mrs. Thatcher had “stiffened [Bush’s] resolve.”

Bush had been scheduled to stay overnight in Aspen, but he now departed immediately for Washington. Later, the White House said that Bush had been on the phone with Saudi King Fahd, who had agreed that the Iraqi invasion was “absolutely unacceptable.” [fn 35] On the return trip and through the evening, the Kissingerian operative Scowcroft continued to to press for military intervention, playing down the difficulties which other advisers had been citing. Given Kissinger’s long-standing relationship with London and the Foreign Office, it was no surprise that Scowcroft was fully on the London line.

Before the day was out, “the orders started flooding out of the Oval Office. The president had all of these diplomatic pieces in his head. The UN piece. The NATO piece. The Middle east piece. He was meticulous, methodical, and personal,” according to one official. [fn 36]

The next morning was Friday, August 3, and Bush called another NSC meeting at the White House. The establishment media like the New York Times were full of accounts of how Iraq was allegedly massing troops along the southern border of Kuwait, about to pounce on Saudi Arabia. Scowcroft, with Bush’s approval, bludgeoned the doubters into a discussion of war options. Bush ordered the CIA to prepare a plan to overthrow or assassinate Saddam Hussein, and told Cheney, Powell, and Gen. Schwarzkopf to prepare military options for the next day. Bush was opening the door to war slowly, so as to keep all of his civilian and military advisers on board. Later on Friday, Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington, met with Bush. According to one version, Bush pledged his word of honor to Bandar that he would “see this through with you.” Bandar was widely reputed to be working for the CIA and other western intelligence agencies. There were also reports that he had Ethiopian servants in the Saudi embassy in Washington, near the Kennedy Center, who were chattel slaves according to United Nations definitions.



When the time came in the afternoon to walk to his helicopter on the White House south lawn for the short flight to the Camp David retreat in the Catoctin Mountains of Maryland, Bush stopped at the microphones that were set up there, a procedure that became a habit during the Gulf crisis. There was something about these moments of entering and leaving the White House that heightened Bush’s psychological instability; the leaving psyching himself up towards the fit that he would act out on his Sunday afternoon return. But there was already no doubt that Bush’s bellicosity was rising by the hour. With Kuwait under occupation, he said, “the status quo is unacceptable and further expansion” by Iraq “would be even more unacceptable.” This formulation already pointed to an advance into Kuwait. He also stressed Saudi Arabia: “If they ask for specific help– it depends obviously on what it is– I would be inclined to help in any way we possibly can.” [fn 37]