Obama's Council on Foreign Relations Crew - November, 2008

On president elect Barak Obama:

Americans better wake up and realize that when it comes to serious political matters there are no real differences between Republicans and Democrats. For a long time the US has been a nation with one political party with two factions. Simply put: The political/financial elite in the US decides what shirt the people will wear, and the people are then given the privilege of picking the color (no pun intended).

I honestly feared and hated the Bush administration (as well as the prospect of having a warmongering freak like John McCain as president) but I'm really getting sick to my stomach over blind Obama worship in America, including by us hopelessly naive Armenians. In real political terms, Obama will prove to be just as bad if not worst than Bush's administration. America's economic downward spiral will continue. America's lose of freedoms will continue. America's military entanglements worldwide will continue. Moreover, I'll call it now, despite his pre-election promises, Obama will not recognize the Armenian Genocide. Maybe one day Americans will realize that US presidents don't make national policy, they are simply chosen to represent those who do.

What we the sheeple need to realize is that Obama was not elected by the people, he was instead chosen by the nation's political/financial elite four years ago as one that can potentially replace the failed and discredited representatives of Neoconservatism in Washington DC. In short, it now seems obvious that the globalist agenda of the American Empire needed a fresh new face to move it forward, a face that could again appeal to the disillusioned masses; and Barak Obama is that new face. President Obama has barely moved into the White House, yet look at the kind of people already standing behind him. Obama administration is now composed of Globalists, Clintonites, Neocons, Zionists, Turkophiles and Russophobes.

As a matter of fact, Obama's election has actually been a massive coup d’état for high level policymakers in Washington, giving them the effective means to silence, or win over, their left-leaning domestic opposition. Nevertheless, the Obama presidency will essentially be the continuation of the American Empire's global agenda by other, more effective means... and due to the sheeple's blind Obama worship, it may even prove to be more disastrous.


The men behind Barack Obama part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouUJNG8f2k
The men behind Barack Obama part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-KJC...eature=related
Foreign Policy Debate - Relations with Russia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukR4U27aoig
Ralph Nader: Obama will be like Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8H92fcSOdY
Alex Jones speaks out on Obama's team: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19esfWGZIys
Obama endorses American imperialism - anti-war activist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StDdCPZUNTE
Obama's Chief of Staff a son of terrorist?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l2W8vTD494

Obama's Council on Foreign Relations Crew

November, 2008

Meet some of president elect Obama’s leading foreign and domestic policy advisors and likely administration members, every one of them a prominent member of the Council On Foreign Relations. Will these people bring about "change" or will they continue to hold up the same entrenched system forged by the corporate elite for decades?

Susan E. Rice - Council on Foreign Relations, The Brookings Institution - Served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under Clinton from 1997 to 2001. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright is a longtime mentor and family friend to Rice. Critics charge that she is is ill disposed towards Europe, has little understanding of the Middle East and would essentially follow the same policies of Condoleeza Rice if appointed the next Secretary of State or the National Security Adviser.

Anthony Lake - CFR, PNAC - Bill Clinton’s first national security adviser, who was criticized for the administration’s failure to confront the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and now acknowledges the inaction as a major mistake.

Zbigniew Brzezinski - CFR, Trilateral Commission - Brzezinski is widely seen as the man who created Al Qaeda, and was involved in the Carter Administration plan to give arms, funding and training to the mujahideen in Afghanistan.

Richard Clarke - CFR - Former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Bush. Notoriously turned against the Bush administration after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Also advised Madeleine Albright during the Genocide in Rwanda.

Ivo Daalder - CFR, Brookings, PNAC - Co-authored a Washington Post op-ed with neocon Robert Kagan arguing that interventionism is a bipartisan affair that should be undertaken with the approval of our democratic allies.

Dennis Ross - CFR, Trilateral Commission, PNAC - Served as the director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton. A noted supporter of the Iraq war, Ross is also a Foreign Affairs Analyst for the Fox News Channel.

Lawrence Korb - CFR, Brookings - Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Has criticized manor of the invasion of Iraq but has detailed plans to increase the manpower of the United States Army to fight the war on terror and to "spread liberal democratic values throughout the Middle East".

Bruce Reidel - CFR, Brookings - Former CIA analyst who wishes to expand the war on terror to fight Al Qaeda across the globe. Considered to be the reason behind Barack Obama’s Hawkish views on Pakistan and his Pro India leanings on Kashmir.

Stephen Flynn - CFR - Has been attributed with the idea for Obama’s much vaunted "Civilian Security Force". Flynn has written: "The United States should roughly replicate the Federal Reserve model by creating a Federal Security Reserve System (FSRS) with a national board of governors, 10 regional Homeland Security Districts, and 92 local branches called Metropolitan Anti-Terrorism Committees. The objective of this system would be to develop self-funding mechanisms to more fully engage a broad cross-section of American society to protect the country’s critical foundations from the widespread disruption that would arise from a terrorist attack."

Madeline Albright - CFR, Brookings - Currently serves on the Council on Foreign Relations Board of directors. Secretary of State and US Ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton. Did not take action against the genocide in Rwanda. Defended the sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein. When asked by CBS’s 60 Minutes about the effects of sanctions: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Of course, had John McCain become president, being a member of the CFR himself, his administration would have been replete with CFR representatives also. Max Boot, Lawrence Eagleburger and Henry Kissinger, to name but a few, are all CFR members and were all advisors to the McCain campaign. Please do your own research and add more names in the comments section of this report. It is important to document how these people are a part of the engine of global elitism and do not represent change. Only with this understanding will others wake up to the false left-right paradigm and be able to create the environment for real political change.

Source: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10867

Round table in REGNUM press center: We must not indulge into illusions about Obama’s election

The new president of the USA, Barack Obama will have to follow current interests of the American establishment, Deputy Chairman of Russian State Duma Committee for International Affairs, Yuli Kvitsinsky has said during a round-table discussion at the REGNUM press centre. According to him, the election of Barack Obama as US president produced positive expectations both in Europe and in other parts of the world. “There is some euphoria, besides it is sometimes unnatural”, Kvitsinsky believes. “We should listen to what Obama will say, and see what team he chooses. We should not indulge in illusions, he is only the next president of the United States, which foreign policy and national interests are constant. There are the American establishment and the American position as a nation chosen by the God, a nation that directs orders all over the world. Obama will have to act in interests of the American establishment. If he does not, he will not be the president,” Yuli Kvitsinsky summarized. It is worth mentioning, the round table “The USA in the post-Soviet space. The new policy” is taking place at the REGNUM press centre today, on November 24.

Source: http://www.regnum.ru/english/1088354.html

Barack Obama accused of selling out on Iraq by picking hawks to run his foreign policy

Mr Obama has moved quickly in the last 48 hours to get his cabinet team in place, unveiling a raft of heavyweight appointments, in addition to Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. But his preference for General James Jones, a former Nato commander who backed John McCain, as his National Security Adviser and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, a supporter of the war, to run the Homeland Security department has dismayed many of his earliest supporters. The likelihood that Mr Obama will retain George W Bush's Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, has reinforced the notion that he will not aggressively pursue the radical withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq over the next 16 months and engagement with rogue states that he has pledged. Chris Bowers of the influential OpenLeft.com blog complained: "That is, over all, a centre-right foreign policy team. I feel incredibly frustrated. Progressives are being entirely left out of Obama's major appointments so far." Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos site, the in-house talking shop for the anti-war Left, warned that Democrats risk sounding "tone deaf" to the views of "the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush policies."

A spokesman for the President-elect was forced to confirm that Mr Obama holds to his previous views. "His position on Iraq has not changed and will not change." But the growing disillusionment underlines the fine line Mr Obama must walk between appearing to reach out to former opponents and keeping his grassroot supporters happy. Mr Obama seems conscious of the need to move fast, to reassure a watching world that he will be ready to hit the ground running on foreign and economic policy. He will wait until Friday before formally announcing his national security team, but he will on Monday formally unveil his economic team, with New York Federal Reserve bank chairman Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary and the New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson, in the Commerce portfolio. On Friday night, Mr Obama and his wife Michelle revealed that they will send their two daughters Malia and Sasha to the private Sidwell Friends school in Washington, once attended by Chelsea Clinton. That announcement ended two weeks of speculation in the capital, where excitement is growing over the arrival of the Obama family in time for the inauguration on Jan 20. City officials now expect four million people to turn out to see history made. Hotels are sold out, house rental prices for the week are rising into five figures and others are buying space for their tents on people's lawns. If every visitor descended simultaneously on the National Mall, each would have just one square foot of space.

But the huge enthusiasm of Obama supporters might dissipate if they believe he is crafting a government more likely to pursue "politics as usual", rather than his often-promised "change we need". There is growing concern among a new generation of anti-war foreign policy analysts in Washington, many of whom stuck their necks out to support Mr Obama early in the White House race, that they will be frozen out of his administration. Mrs Clinton is expected to appoint her own top team at the State Department, drawn from more conservative thinkers. A Democratic foreign policy expert told one Washington website: "They were the ones courageous enough to stand up early against Iraq, which is why many supported Obama in the first place." Their fear, he added, is that they will not now secure the mid-level posts which will enable them to reach the top of the Washington career ladder in future. Suspicion of Mr Obama's moves has been compounded, for some liberals, by the revelation that Mr Obama has for several months been taking advice from Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the first President Bush.

His return to prominence in Washington represents a resurgence of the old school conservative realists, who were largely eclipsed during this Bush administration by the neoconservatives. They place US national interests above the quest to defend human rights or to spread democracy. Progressives and liberals see Mr Scowcroft's hand in the move to retain Mr Gates, an old friend, at the Pentagon and also in the expected elevation of Gen. Jones. Others are troubled by an announcement on Friday night that Mr Obama will retain the White House political office, an institution recently associated with George Bush's adviser Karl Rove, who has been blamed for running government as a permanent and highly partisan election campaign. During the campaign, Mr Obama pledged to end "politics as usual" and the "perpetual campaign". But a spokesman for the Transition team said: "An Obama White House will be focused on meeting the next challenge, not winning the next election."

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...gn-policy.html

Obama And Russia

November, 2008

One of the most serious challenges facing Barack Obama will be finding a way to keep an aggressive Russia under control. Internal developments in Russia are extremely worrying. The Russian economy is beginning to unravel under the impact of collapsing oil prices, and changes to the Russian Constitution are planned that will probably return Vladimir Putin to office and make him president for life. At the same time, Russia is threatening to target American anti-missile installations in Eastern Europe with short-range missiles and, more important, to interfere with them electronically, which is unquestionably the action of a hostile power. Under these circumstances, President Obama, in dealing with Russia, must try to avoid traditional American mistakes. In most cases, the learning curve for an American president in relation to Russia takes up his entire term in office. Obama may not have that luxury. The following are some basic principles for dealing with Russia that can help to cut the learning period short.

1. Don't treat the Russian leader as a "friend." U.S. policy toward Russia must be based on principles, not personalities. It is not possible to "charm" Russian leaders into ignoring what they regard as Russia's national interest, and the attempt to do so at the expense of our principles will destroy our moral capital with the Russian people. Under President Clinton, the emphasis on Boris Yeltsin as the symbol of "democracy" led the U.S. to ignore Russia's complete criminalization--and to become complicit in it, in the eyes of Russians. President Bush's supposed friendship with Putin freed Putin to build an authoritarian regime and pursue a genocidal war in Chechnya without fear of U.S. political pressure or moral censure.

2. Don't assume sincerity. The moral standards Russians cite in political situations don't actually concern them. They defended the right of the Abkhaz and the South Ossetians to secede from Georgia but leveled Grozny when it was a question of Chechnya trying to secede from Russia. They denounce the U.S. anti-ballistic missile system in Eastern Europe while facilitating the threat from Iran against which the systems are intended to defend. As for the passionate denunciations of Western encirclement, Russians understand that NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine poses no military threat but are loath to give their real reason for opposition--which is that the example of democracy in former Soviet republics could inspire demands for democracy in Russia itself. For seven decades, the need to feign belief in Soviet ideology turned Russia into a nation of actors. President Obama should keep this in mind when confronted with Russian "outrage" over some aspect of Western behavior.

3. Don't treat Russia's national interests and the interests of its rulers as identical. Russia's core geopolitical interests are identical to those of the U.S. Like the U.S., Russia is threatened by the rising power of China, Islamic fanaticism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Cooperation with the West, however, is not in the interests of the small group that monopolize Russia's power and wealth. Fearing their own people, they require not friends but enemies. Only with the help of real or imagined enemies can they distract ordinary Russians from the massive corruption that is all around them and organize support for an authoritarian regime. Unfortunately, the enemy of choice is the U.S.

4. Don't listen to "realists." Self-described "realists" have suggested that Russia be given a free hand in the former Soviet republics in return for cooperation on issues that are vital to U.S. and Western security. This call to make a "deal," in addition to its blatant immorality, ignores the fact that it makes sense to reach an understanding only with those who will keep their side of the bargain. The fact that the Russians are seeking to deny the former Soviet republics their rights as sovereign nations is all the indication one needs that an unenforceable "gentleman's agreement" to cooperate with the West will be violated the minute it ceases to be to Russia's advantage. The rejection of a moral framework for relations, meanwhile, will set the stage and help provide the justification for new and more outrageous Russian demands in the future.

5. Base policy on fundamental values. The U.S. needs to defend decent values in its relations with Russia. This means taking a strong stand on such issues as political assassinations (both inside and outside Russia), the squandering of innocent life in hostage situations and the right of former Soviet republics to make their own alliances. Russian leaders try to convince their citizens and themselves that Western leaders have no principles. This is a dangerous illusion because it encourages aggression. The world cannot afford a new round of Russian-inspired conflict. But only if Russia is convinced that the West has principles and is ready to defend them will it hesitate to use force in any situation in which it feels that force can be effective. Defending our principles, because it encourages restraint, is also in Russia's long-term interest. It is the only way to preserve the possibility that Russia will one day take its deserved place as a part of the Western world.

David Satter is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His most recent book is Darkness at Dawn: the Rise of the Russian Criminal State.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/...114satter.html

In other news:

Orthodoxy Gets Foothold in Cuba

Orthodoxy gets foothold in Cuba: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50ebTO8tlPk

Cuba has opened its first Orthodox church, a decade and a half after the communist island lifted a ban on religion. Hundreds of people, including the country’s leader Raul Castro turned out to watch the consecration. Russian Metropolitan Kirill blessed the Icon of Our Lady of Kazan Cathedral, which took two and a half years to build. The opening is a victory for Russian Orthodoxy, which finally has a church in the Caribbean. It comes as Cuba is about to celebrate 50 years of communism. The country eased restrictions on religion in 1992, and since then numerous Catholic cathedrals, synagogues and even a Muslim prayer room have opened. Many Cubans see no conflict between communism and relgion. ”A communist or not, a believer or not, Fidel ordered all to come and greet the Pope in 1998, since then we started feeling comfortable when gathering for Bible readings,” a local resident said. But for many Russian-Cubans, the sight of Raul Castro standing next to Metropolitan Kirill is almost unbelievable. Apart from the domes and bells, the Icon of Our Lady of Kazan Cathedral was built entirely by the Cuban government. “Cuba isn't the richest state in the world, but they built this church for us and the Cubans are thankful for what Russia has done for Cuba,” Metropolitan Kirill said. Many in Havana are citing its symbolic value, calling it a tribute to shared the history between Russia and Cuba. “This church is part of my origin, I'm an Orthodox, like my mother, and now I have a place to talk to my God here in Havana,” another local Russian-Cuban said. During a month-long tour, the Russian delegation will visit seven countries in Latin America, as part of efforts to promote religious and cultural ties with them. And Cuba is their top priority. “Cuba is more stable, more developed, more tolerant, we have great ongoing relations with this country, as well as new joint projects,” the Russian Ambassador to Cuba, Mikhail Kamynin, said.

Source: http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/32098

Russia May Use 'Overkill' Missiles to Counter U.S. Shield

In addition to deploying tactical missiles near the Polish border, Russia could use precision-guided air-based weapons to counter U.S. missile defense plans, a Russian military expert said on Monday. "Iskander [missile system] is not the most effective combat asset to be used against the ground targets that are now being deployed in some European states. We also have the Air Force, which has precision-guided weapons," said Gen. Pyotr Deinekin, former Air Force commander. He said strategic aviation had, in particular, Kh-55 (AS-15 Kent) long-range cruise missiles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, with an effective range of 4,500 kilometers. He did not explain why such "overkill" missiles would be needed to engage targets in Central Europe. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates dismissed on Thursday Russia's proposal that the two countries abandon their plans to deploy missiles in Central Europe. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said in an interview with French daily Le Figaro published on Thursday that Russia would be willing to abandon its plans to deploy short-range missiles near Poland if the U.S. agrees not to set up a missile shield in Central Europe. Gates said Medvedev's recent threat to deploy Iskander missiles in the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad was "hardly the welcome a new American administration deserves," and that "such provocative remarks are unnecessary and misguided." Washington earlier said it had provided new proposals to ease Russia's concerns over the planned deployment of 10 U.S. interceptor missiles in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic, which the Bush administration has said are needed to counter possible attacks from Iran's long-range missiles. Russia views the missile defense system as a threat to its national security, and has said that a security agreement based on respect for common interests would remove the need for a missile shield.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081117/118359856.html

Red Army Veteran: I Shot Down McCain

A retired Red Army Lieutenant who fought in Vietnam has confessed to shooting down the plane of defeated presidential candidate, John McCain. Colonel Yuriy Trushechkin told Russia’s Moskovsky Komsomolets he had no regrets about downing the future Senator’s aircraft back in 1967. Journalists from Russia’s most popular tabloid paper found the veteran in a St Petersburg hospital. Trushechkin said he still hated John McCain and wasn’t at all sorry for what he had done all those years ago. He added he was very happy that McCain didn’t make to the White House. ”He always hated the Russians. He knew that it was our rocket that downed his plane,” Trushechkin said. The veteran makes no secret of Soviet involvement in the Vietnam War. He was 28 years old when he came to the Asian country to fight against the U.S. together with local soldiers. He served as an officer in missile guidance for the communist North Vietnamese. Trushechkin remembers the day he shot down McCain. The air alarm sounded, he said, and everybody saw two Phantom F-4 planes approaching. “One of the aircraft was trying to skirt the nearby hills, while the other went straight through the bridge. We fired at the second one," Trushechkin said. Two rockets were fired. The first exploded in the jungle but the second hit the target. The American pilot catapulted and was later captured by the North Vietnamese troops. The documents said it was John McCain. Yuriy Trushechkin said that McCain got lucky because ejected U.S. pilots were usually beaten to death with pickaxes. But McCain avoided execution and was sent to a prison, known as the Hanoi Hilton. The most valuable trophies were the pilots helmet and the so-called “almsman’s flag” – a harsh mark which said that the U.S. citizen was in trouble and needed help in five languages. Trushechkin took McCain’s documents with him and some photos made after he was captured. But the documents were later lost. Yuriy Trushechkin said he recognised McCain when he was watching a programme about the U.S. elections, which showed the pictures of a young Mccain in military uniform. McCain spent 1,967 days (five and a half years) in Vietnamese prisons before being released on March 15, 1973 - just after the signing of the Paris Peace treaty between the U.S. and Vietnam.

Source: http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/33395

No comments:

Post a Comment

Dear reader,

Arevordi will be taking a sabbatical to tend to personal matters. New blog commentaries will henceforth be posted on an irregular basis. The comments board however will continue to be moderated on a regular basis.

The last 20 years or so has also helped me see Russia as the last front against scourges of Westernization, Globalism, American expansionism, Zionism, Islamic extremism and pan-Turkism. I have also come to see Russia as the last hope humanity has for the preservation of classical western civilization, Apostolic Christianity and the traditional nation-state. This realization compelled me to create this blog in 2010. Immediately, this blog became one of the very few voices in the vastness of cyberia that dared to preach about the dangers of Globalism and the Anglo-American-Jewish alliance, and the only voice preaching the strategic importance of Armenia remaining within Russia's orbit. From about 2010 to 2015 I did monthly, at times weekly, commentaries about Russian-Armenian relations and Eurasian geopolitics in general. It was very difficult as I had no assistance in this endeavor. The time I put into this blog therefore came at the expense of work and family. But a powerful feeling inside me urged me to keep going; and I did.

When Armenia finally joined the EEU and integrated its armed forces into Russia's military structures a couple of years ago, I finally felt a deep sense of satisfaction and relaxation, as if a very heavy burden was lifted off my shoulders. I finally felt that my personal mission was accomplished. I therefore felt I could take a step back, as I really needed the rest. Simply put: I have lived to see the institutionalization of Russian-Armenian alliance. Also, I feel more confident now that Armenians are collectively recognizing the strategic importance of Armenia's ties with Russia. Moreover, I feel satisfied knowing that, at least on a subatomic level, I had a hand in the outcome. As a result, I feel a strong sense of mission accomplished. I therefore no longer have the urge to continue as in the past. In other words, the motivational force that had propelled me in previous years has been gradually dissipating because I feel that this blog has lived to see the realization of its stated goal. Going forward, I do not want to write merely for the sake of writing. Also, I do not want to say something if I have nothing important to say. I feel like I have said everything I needed to say. Henceforth, I will post seasonal commentaries about topics I find important. I will however continue moderating the blog's comments section on a regular basis; ultimately because I'm interested in what my readers have to say and also because it's through readers here that I am at times made aware of interesting developments.

To limit clutter in the comments section, I kindly ask all participants of this blog to please keep comments coherent and strictly relevant to the featured topic of discussion. Moreover, please realize that when there are several anonymous visitors posting comments simultaneously, it becomes very confusing (not to mention extremely annoying) trying to figure out who is who and who said what.Therefore, if you are here to engage in conversation, make an observation, express an idea or simply attack me, I ask you to at least use a moniker to identify yourself. Moreover, please appreciate the fact that I have put an enormous amount of information into this blog. In my opinion, most of my blog commentaries and articles, some going back ten-plus years, are in varying degrees relevant to this day and will remain so for a long time to come. Articles in this blog can therefore be revisited by longtime readers and new comers alike. I therefore ask the reader to treat this blog as a depository of important information relating to Eurasian geopolitics, Russian-Armenian relations and humanity's historic fight against the evils of Globalism and Westernization.

Thank you as always for reading.