Here’s an article from last September. Does this sound like Brzezinski is a neocon?

Dershowitz: Obama Should Repudiate Brzezinski

By RUSSELL BERMAN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 12, 2007

WASHINGTON — Senator Obama may have distanced himself from a book criticizing the Israel lobby, but a prominent Harvard law professor — and Senator Clinton ally — says the Illinois lawmaker needs to go a step further and repudiate his newest foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The Harvard professor, Alan Dershowitz, has emerged as a chief critic of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” a new book in which authors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argue that a powerful coalition of individuals and organizations has pushed America into supporting Israel in ways that undermine its national interests.

The book has drawn widespread scorn from the pro-Israel community, and it appears to have divided Mr. Obama and Mr. Brzezinski, a former national security adviser to President Carter who recently joined the Illinois senator’s presidential campaign. Mr. Brzezinski will be with Mr. Obama as the candidate delivers a major policy address on Iraq today in Iowa.

Amid a firestorm over an initial working paper Messrs . Mearsheimer and Walt published last year on the Israel lobby, Mr. Brzezinski rose to their defense, even as he demurred on the question of whether he agreed with their central arguments. The authors, he wrote in the journal Foreign Policy, “have rendered a public service by initiating a much-needed public debate on the role of the ‘Israel lobby’ in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign took the opposite route earlier this week when notified that an ad for its Web site appeared on the Amazon.com page of the Mearsheimer-Walt book. The campaign immediately removed the ad, saying its placement was unintentional, and issued a statement saying Mr. Obama believed the arguments in the book were “just wrong.” “I’m glad he’s done that, but now he has to dissociate himself from Brzezinski,” Mr. Dershowitz said in an interview yesterday. He said the Mearsheimer-Walt book was “a bigoted attack on the American Jewish community” and that Mr. Brzezinski’s comments in Foreign Policy last year amounted to an endorsement.

Through an assistant, Mr. Brzezinski declined repeated requests to be interviewed yesterday about his views on the book and Mr. Obama. He endorsed the first-term senator last month, praising his long-running opposition to the Iraq war and offering a high-profile boost to a candidate who has struggled at times to combat the perception that he is inexperienced in foreign policy.

Mr. Dershowitz, who has contributed $1,000 to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and is supporting her candidacy, said his criticism of Mr. Brzezinski extended beyond the Mearsheimer-Walt book to what he said was Mr. Brzezinski’s broader “anti-Israel” rhetoric in recent years. The former Carter aide was highly critical of Israel during its war last year with Hezbollah in Lebanon, at one point saying its actions amounted to “the killing of hostages.”

The rest of the article may be read at

http://www.nysun.com/article/62439

This is why I have been supporting Obama for over a year. There is no better way to predict a candidate’s foreign policy than by looking at the advisers. The differences with Clinton are very significant. Anybody who thinks Brzezinski is a “neocon” knows nothing about him or U.S. foreign policy for the last 30 years. He is neutral on Israel, and will consider only the U.S. national interest. He does not want the U.S. to be dragged into war supporting Zionism, for which he has no particular affection. For this he has been called “anti-Semitic” by the Zionist smear machine. This indicates to me a healthy independence from Israeli-neocon-AIPAC influence. I think we can expect tough diplomacy, but with much more respect for international law and human rights, including a willingness to get tough with Israel. With Clinton we can expect a continuation of the Bush foreign policy, which after all Clinton, Albright, etc. have supported all along and continue to support. 

Ideological purists who can’t tell the difference between Obama and Clinton are blind.

http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1906

Campaign Donations: Rockefeller Backs Hillary; Kissinger Backs McCain

As globalist tool John McCain rises to the forefront of the GOP party, it becomes increasingly clear that he will likely head off Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Behind the veil, this fixed-election might be indicated, at least for illustrative purposes, by maximum contributions from globalist kingpins David Rockefeller to Hillary, and from Henry Kissinger to John McCain.

Of course, pockets as deep as a Rockefeller can afford to back all the horses in the race– which, of course, generally happens through CFR and Bilderberg vetting, but perhaps David Rockefeller’s own donation gives away his selected choice for heir. (And all indicators have Hillary taking the crown).

At least two other Rockefellers have thrown money behind Hillary, though several other minor Rockefellers have contributed towards Obama, McCain, Richardson, and Edwards, all of whom are within the CFR-sphere of control as well.

Notably, William and Lisenne Rockefeller have donated to Mike Huckabee– they are the surviving immediate family of the late Winthrop P. Rockefeller, who was Lt. Governor under Huckabee.

The elder Winthrop Rockefeller was Governor of Arkansas from 1967-1971 (and often rumored to be the illegitimate father of Bill Clinton).

Politics are theater, and virtually any candidate could be cast aside at any point, but the elite-level of support for Hillary Clinton and general control of all the contenders can’t be good for the democratic process– so much so, that it may be little more than an illusion. It certainly appears that the fix is in.

After all, Rupert Murdoch, owner of NewsCorp / Fox News has also donated heavily to the Hillary campaign despite the Fox reputation as a ‘conservative’ network.

Why don’t we ask the “New” president to put a couple of billion dollars in the budget to build a retirement center for all the folks who want to be in politics but never run for office, or politicians that did, but never made it, and former politicos who love to expound on TV. And old news anchors and pundits who love to see and hear themselves? [And anyone else we can think of that we see all the time and wish we didn’t.] Complete with in-house TV network and attentive audience. Then they could do the only thing they know how to do, day and night and we wouldn’t have to bother with them.

Well that would take care of a few airheads.
Now about everybody else ...

Someone told me half the adults in the United States can’t find the United States on a World Map. And somebody else told me half the adults in the United States never vote.

Lets hope it’s the same half.

I am very appreciative of this excellent article from Stephen Zunes. It puts into perspective, (and clarifies) the actual positions of these candidates and their advisers, so that we have more than the standard partisan rhetoric, cherry-picking, spin and outright fabrications that display so frequently on these threads. (like Paracelsus would have us believe that Zibig was the Eastern European Subversive spanning two centuries of US foreign policy). Come to find out, the man was very instrumental in helping to focus US foreign policies on the all important issues of Human Rights, which should ALWAYS be at the forefront of any foreign or domestic policy, especially for any person or state claiming to be a democracy.

Anyway, there was one thing though, that popped out immediately, at least for me, because I found it odd. The lead in to the article says this….

“….Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama’s foreign policy agenda.”…

Now, taken just as that is, (even though it does follow up to say something different) this can be a very misleading statement, taken at face value. It was enough for me to question in my own mind at least, because I see myself as a progressive democrat, and I don’t have any particular disappointments with Obama’s foreign policy agenda.

I might quibble with a few isolated sorts of issues and/or comments he’s made. For instance, I’d just as soon he didn’t have anything to say about the internal issues in Pakistan, because I don’t think he can know enough right now, about how much of Pakistan’s internal political problems are directly related to any terror concerns for us here in the US. And, his call for the capture of Osama bin Laden in that area slightly annoys me, because I’m convinced that bin Laden is dead. That’s not to say that a terrorist operation doesn’t continue under the original bin Laden sponsorship, as Osama himself promised that it would.  Still, if anybody really wanted to route out the al-Qaida/Islamic fundamentalists in that region, they could have, and he can work on that when he gets to be president, since obviously, the currently installed Cabal isn’t going to. Without the bogeyman of OBL and AQ, there would be no war on terror.

Otherwise, I have no troubles with his proposed foreign policy agenda, which can only be a rough draft anyway. Global issues are exceedingly fluid these days. So, WHY does the sentence from the lead-in suggest that? Well, in reading the full article, it could be that an important word or two may have been left out, which would change the meaning entirely. Here’s what Stephen Zunes actually wrote…

• “Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed by the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama.”

Ah ha! Disappointed in the SIMILARITY. Now THAT reads very differently, and it’s worth noting,, because in fact, the point of the article by Prof. Zunes, is to explain the DIFFERENCES, that have somehow been lost (or wildly spun) in the public discourse.

That has been particularly noticeable on this forum, from HRC supporters who use the tortured logic that we should elect HRC, because Obama’s policies/positions are the SAME as hers. Now, if that isn’t some ass-backward reasoning, I can’t think of any.

At any rate, this article is quite effective at pointing out what are in fact very discernible and very critical differences in their foreign policy agenda positions.

Meantime, I did find 2 seemingly bad apples in Obama’s group, though that’s just based on the superficial knowledge available. I honestly DON’T understand Joe Wilson’s consult to the Clinton team. Maybe I’m naïve. We learn something new every day.

Some photos are worth the proverbial thousand words.  Here’s one: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/