Re: [political-research] Re: Greg Palast, the Neocons and World War III
Greg Palast is one of the riper Israeli ops on the left -- grotesquely blatant in suppressing any information about or analysis of the elephant in the room -- namely, the neocons and the Israel lobby. He has been justly granted the moniker Noam Chomsky Lite. The oil companies play a major role in Mideast politics, to be sure -- traditionally they have been sharply at odds with Israel and the Israel lobby in their pursuit of friendly and profitable relations with Arab and Muslim oil-producing nations. The notion that the oil industry is trying to ignite Armageddon in the Mideast bespeaks a very great ignorance of the history of big oil in the region. Palast is pushing a bogus propaganda meme to cover up the role of Israel and the Israel lobby in the current American disasters in the Middle East, and Kris Millegan is helping Palast push that line of nonsense. I can name several hundred neocons and neolibs who agitated for the Iraq War off the top of my head. I have trouble coming up with the names of any oil industry leaders who were enthusiastic about the war. Dick Cheney is much more controlled by the neocon agenda these days than by a big oil agenda. He is one of the key members of the PNAC, and he has close personal relations with neocons like Ken "Cakewalk" Adelman. Dick Cheney's office has been stacked with neocons like Lewis Libby -- nary an oil operative to be seen in the vicinity. Kris Millegan hasn't replied to my post yet. Generally he is not able to argue these issues with any authority or knowledge and runs out of steam after an exchange or two. Then the conspiracy hallucinations move in to try to fill in the gap in reasoned discussion. LeaNder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Isreali op? Well I somehow agree that it is very unlikely this ladytells more than she is meant to tell. Greg Palast portrait of her isnot more a caricature. I somehow see her laughing reading it:http://www.onepalestine.org/resources/articles/A_Tale_of_Two_Wars.htmlBut beside that Kris seems to have read a different article. No doubtoil does matter in these games. It's a part of the power plays. Whatis the real interest of the religious players, I am not talking aboutthe things they tell their sheep.These circles consider it a much older strategy:http://www.onepalestine.org/resources/articles/A_Tale_of_Two_Wars.html-L >> Greg Palast is an Israeli op, and an Israeli gatekeeper on the left.How do we know this:> > 1. He goes to great pains not to discuss the key neoconservativeplayers behind the Iraq War and World War III -- Paul Wolfowitz,Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Commentary, JINSA, AEI,WINEP, AIPAC and hundreds of other key neocons and neocon think tanksand media outlets.> > 2. He fails to explain why the mainstream media, especially mediaoutlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post, promoted theIraq War so heavily without any calculations of oil profits in mind. How are Thomas Friedman, Judith Miller and Charles Krauthammerconnected to oil interests? They are not. They are heavily connectedto Israeli interests.> > 3. He fails to provide any specific facts and documentation aboutthe role of the oil industry in promoting the Iraq War, the Iran War,the Syria War, World War III, World War IV and all the rest. Hemerely speculates.> > 4. He fails to explain why Bush 41 interests, which are intimatelytied to oil interests, have opposed neoconservative warmongering inthe Middle East.> > Greg Palast is working for Israeli interests, no doubt forintensely emotional reasons. His analysis of Mideast politics ishighly unreliable.> > Let's see if Kris Millegan can answer the four points above with anyreliable facts and logical arguments. Since he is unfamiliar with thehistory of conflict between realists and neoconservatives in Americanforeign policy in the Middle East, which has played itself out inhundreds of articles in scholarly journals over the last four or fivedecades, it doesn't seem likely.> > > RoadsEnd <[EMAIL PROTECTED].> wrote:> Howdy folks, > > Here is a major troll trick that is used to hijack a thread andslow down the spread of information.> > > Stripped the original message and adding "noise."> > > This "noise" although noble sounding, is a distraction. > > > Why, because if you actually read the post "Bobby Kennedy andGreg Palast on Iraq," one finds information that is counter to the"controlled dialectic" that is being used. > > > Pro-Israel/Anti-Israel> > > One must choose a side.> > > Then if one is Pro-Israel they are Zionist.> > > And if one is a Zionist the support the neo-cons and officialstory of 9-11.> > > The article Bobby Kennedy and Greg Palast on Iraq includesmaterial from Palast new book that shows the oil companies are majoractors in the move to get rid of Sadam and the Iraq war. Why ? Foroil? No. To control the oil supply, ergo prices. > > > The neo-cons are "oven-mitt" proxies. > > > And Bush, Baker and Carlyle are laughing all the way to the
[political-research] Re: Greg Palast, the Neocons and World War III
Isreali op? Well I somehow agree that it is very unlikely this lady tells more than she is meant to tell. Greg Palast portrait of her is not more a caricature. I somehow see her laughing reading it: http://www.onepalestine.org/resources/articles/A_Tale_of_Two_Wars.html But beside that Kris seems to have read a different article. No doubt oil does matter in these games. It's a part of the power plays. What is the real interest of the religious players, I am not talking about the things they tell their sheep. These circles consider it a much older strategy: http://www.onepalestine.org/resources/articles/A_Tale_of_Two_Wars.html -L > > Greg Palast is an Israeli op, and an Israeli gatekeeper on the left. How do we know this: > > 1. He goes to great pains not to discuss the key neoconservative players behind the Iraq War and World War III -- Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Commentary, JINSA, AEI, WINEP, AIPAC and hundreds of other key neocons and neocon think tanks and media outlets. > > 2. He fails to explain why the mainstream media, especially media outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post, promoted the Iraq War so heavily without any calculations of oil profits in mind. How are Thomas Friedman, Judith Miller and Charles Krauthammer connected to oil interests? They are not. They are heavily connected to Israeli interests. > > 3. He fails to provide any specific facts and documentation about the role of the oil industry in promoting the Iraq War, the Iran War, the Syria War, World War III, World War IV and all the rest. He merely speculates. > > 4. He fails to explain why Bush 41 interests, which are intimately tied to oil interests, have opposed neoconservative warmongering in the Middle East. > > Greg Palast is working for Israeli interests, no doubt for intensely emotional reasons. His analysis of Mideast politics is highly unreliable. > > Let's see if Kris Millegan can answer the four points above with any reliable facts and logical arguments. Since he is unfamiliar with the history of conflict between realists and neoconservatives in American foreign policy in the Middle East, which has played itself out in hundreds of articles in scholarly journals over the last four or five decades, it doesn't seem likely. > > > RoadsEnd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Howdy folks, > > Here is a major troll trick that is used to hijack a thread and slow down the spread of information. > > > Stripped the original message and adding "noise." > > > This "noise" although noble sounding, is a distraction. > > > Why, because if you actually read the post "Bobby Kennedy and Greg Palast on Iraq," one finds information that is counter to the "controlled dialectic" that is being used. > > > Pro-Israel/Anti-Israel > > >One must choose a side. > > > Then if one is Pro-Israel they are Zionist. > > > And if one is a Zionist the support the neo-cons and official story of 9-11. > > > The article Bobby Kennedy and Greg Palast on Iraq includes material from Palast new book that shows the oil companies are major actors in the move to get rid of Sadam and the Iraq war. Why ? For oil? No. To control the oil supply, ergo prices. > > > The neo-cons are "oven-mitt" proxies. > > > And Bush, Baker and Carlyle are laughing all the way to the bank while the neo-cons take the heat. > > > Since the original article has been "stripped." > > > I am adding it back. > > > Please, read, if you want to truly understand and not just play two-step games. > > > Peace, > K > > > > > On 3.8.2006 at 5:37 Greg Palast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greg Palast > August 3, 2006 > "THE BEST THING IN THE WORLD FOR BIG OIL" > Bobby Kennedy and Palast on why Saddam had to go. > "This war in Iraq has been the best thing in the world for Big Oil and OPEC. They've made the largest profits in the history of the world. The interesting thing about your book is you show how it was all planned from the beginning. The story is like a spy thriller." -- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. > Listen to RFK and Greg Palast on Iraq, a 20-minute conversation about blood and oil, the podcast of 'Ring of Fire' from Air America. > > > > > The following is part of the story referenced in their discussion: > THE JERK: WHY SADDAM HAD TO GO > by Greg Palast > Excerpt from 'Armed Madhouse' > The 323-page multi-volume "Options for Iraqi Oil" begins with the expected dungeons-and-dragons warning: > The report is submitted on the understanding that [the > State Department] will maintain the contents confidential. > > > For two years, the State Department (and Defense and the White House) denied there were secret plans for Iraq's oil. They told us so in writing. That was the first indication the plan existed. Proving that, and getting a copy, became the
