We were warned about the upcoming military-industrial complex by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961 as he left office;
"(NEW YORK) MintPress – In his Farewell Address to the Nation on Jan. 17, 1961, President of the United States and former General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower introduced the term military-industrial complex, advising the American people that although a vital military establishment is needed to keep the peace, “The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.
“We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society,” he warned.
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”
Fifty years later, Eisenhower’s ominous words have proved prescient. In fact, according to American historian and biographer Geoffrey Perret, in one draft of the speech the phrase was “military-industrial-congressional complex,” indicating the essential role that the U.S. Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word “congressional” was dropped from the final version to appease then-elected officials.
Today, the relationship between Congress and defense contractors is indeed a cozy one. Take just one case. More than 2,000 M-1 Abrams tanks are sitting in a parking lot in Herlong, Calif., where General Dynamics would like to refurbish them to reap huge profits.
But the Army doesn’t want refurbished tanks. Chief of staff General Ray Odierno told Congress earlier this year that the U.S. has more than enough combat tanks.
If the Pentagon holds off repairing, refurbishing or making new tanks for three years until new technologies are developed, he said, it can save taxpayers as much as billion in labor costs by closing down the General Dynamics plant in Lima, Ohio.
That makes sense to Travis Sharp, a fellow at the defense think tank Center for a New American Security. “When a relatively conservative institution like the U.S. military, which doesn’t like to take risks because risks get people killed, says it has enough tanks, I think generally civilians should be inclined to believe them,” he told CNN.
Apparently, though, Congress has another agenda. So far, 173 House Democrats and Republicans have signed a letter urging Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to support their decision to produce more unwanted tanks, claiming that if the Army stops tank production and repair it would hurt the nation’s economy.
“I think there are better things they could be doing with that money,” asserted Sharp, “but the fact that the military is having such a hard time getting this relatively small amount of money to be saved is an indication of the huge uphill fight the military faces when it comes to Congress. Congress is going to fight tooth and nail to protect defense investments.”
Leading the charge in the General Dynamics controversy is Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
“The Army has a job to do and we have a job to do. And they have tough choices because they’ve been having their budget cut, with the first cuts, half a trillion dollars, and now sequestration on top of that,’ he said recently.
“But we have to look long range. If someone could guarantee us that we’ll never need tanks in the future, that would be good. I don’t see that guarantee.”
For the record, according to the website Defeat McKeon, the congressman is currently the target of
a House ethics investigation involving his receipt of a VIP mortgage from now-defunct Countrywide Financial, and he is a central supporter of legislation that would launch thousands of military drones above American soil.
Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), who was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence between 2007 and 2011, agreed with McKeon. “We don’t want to play Russian roulette with the national security of this country,” he maintained.
But there is more to the rare bipartisan harmony than that. The Center for Public Integrity conducted an investigation into the amount of money spent by General Dynamics after the Army suggested postponing work on the tanks, tracking the cash and the lobbyists hired.
“What we found was a direct spike in the giving,” revealed the center’s Aaron Mehta. “It’s true in every aspect of politics, but especially in the defense industry, that it is almost impossible to separate out the money that is going into elections from the special interests.”
In fact, according to CNN, General Dynamics has given McKeon ,000 in campaign contributions since 2009 and Reyes ,000 since 2001.
“Our money is bipartisan,” said company spokesman Kendall Pease.
Paying big bucks for votes
General Dynamics is, in fact, one of five leading defense contractors that upped their spending on lobbying by a combined 11.5 percent in the first quarter of 2012 compared to the same quarter in 2011, a review of lobbying disclosure forms by Defense News found.
The increase brought lobbying investment for Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman to a combined total of .9 million for the quarter ending March 31.
The number represented a new combined high in the four years that all five companies have been filing disclosures, which are required under the Open Government Act of 2007.
“The lobbying spike is partially attributable to the election year,” said Loren Thompson, an industry consultant and chief operating officer at the Virginia-based Lexington Institute. “Election years often see a surge in lobbying activity as companies try to posture themselves to be supportive of key legislators.”
Northrop Grumman led the way, increasing its spending by 51 percent compared to 2011, followed by Lockheed Martin, which increased spending by 25 percent.
Northrop “moved their headquarters out here so their CEO is much more focused on Washington than he was before,” one Washington lobbyist who has worked with large defense companies told Defense News.
“Boeing continually advocates on behalf of its businesses in both the commercial aviation market and the defense market,” Boeing spokesman Marcellus Rolle wrote in an e-mail to the publication.
“The objective of our lobbying efforts is to strategically and tactically interact with the legislative and executive branches of federal, state and local governments to urge support on issues of interest to Boeing.”
Lockheed also has a variety of interactions with government officials. “With 82 percent of our company’s sales derived from U.S. government customers,” said spokeswoman Jennifer Allen, “we naturally have interactions with virtually every standing committee in the United States Congress who has oversight authority over the budgets and policies of all federal agencies, and by extension, the products and services that Lockheed Martin provides to them.”
“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes,” said Eisenhower in his 1961 speech.
“Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Fair warning." http://www.mintpress.net/defense-contractors-wooing-congress-ahead-of-big-votes-elections/
Military weapons contractors continue to hold the people of the U.S. hostage with their ever increasing demands for money to fight their never ending war;
"In this column two weeks ago, I discussed how the Pentagon and its contractors used several ruses over the years to thwart any discussion about cutting their budget. These ploys are especially frustrating now because the generals and bureaucracy in the Pentagon act like any cuts, especially the cuts planned in the budget sequestration that may or may not take place by the end of the year, are the end of the world as we know it. All this frenzy over any Pentagon budget cuts needs to be tempered by the facts - the Pentagon budget is higher than during the height of the cold war and even the sequestration cuts would take us back to 2006 levels when George Bush was president.
However, as much as the Pentagon works behind the scenes to kill any budget cuts, the Pentagon contractors use even more influence and money to keep anything from being cut. When the contractors worried about any cuts in the budget, they turned to their tried-and-true enablers, the Congress, to force the money through using the fear of losing jobs, jobs, jobs in various Congressional districts. Unfortunately, this ploy by the contractors usually works, and in a bipartisan way, with both Democrats and Republicans out cheerleading for ineffective and overpriced programs to continue so they can bring the Pentagon pork home to their district or state.
Recently, the contractors, including Northrop Grumman's CEO Wes Bush, joined with members of the Virginia delegation and the Virginia governor to hold rallies in heavily defense-contract-laden districts in Virginia to fight any sequestration cuts and any jobs that may be lost in the state. A report in the publication Defense Daily shows this bipartisan effort, rare in today's Congress, but it also shows the power of defense contractors and their money:
Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), called on Democrats and Republicans alike to work toward finding a compromise to prevent the "extraordinary destructive" effects of sequestration and to "stop this insanity." He was joined on stage by fellow Virginia representatives Gerry Connolly (D), Frank Wolf (R) and Robert Scott (D). Marion Blakey, the head of the Aerospace Industries Association, also addressed the gathering.
It is not like the major defense contractors are at death's door, even with the threat of cuts back to 2006 levels. According to AOL Defense, the financial group Motley Fools isn't too worried about the viability of the largest contractors:
Even as Lockheed Martin chairman Robert Stevens warns of mass layoffs if sequestration hits, his company has been doing remarkably well this year, with revenue up six percent this quarter and earnings up 26 percent, according to an analysis by Motley Fool's Rich Smith.
Boeing has done even better, with 58 percent earnings growth, thanks largely to its commercial aircraft sales. Raytheon basically stayed even on revenue but gained 17 percent on earnings, while General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman declined on both measures. Smith called Northrop's problems puzzling, given its strong position in unmanned aerial vehicles (although its Block 30 Global Hawk faces cancellation) and its undervalued price-to-earnings ratio.
While sequestration may already be having a chilling effect on investment and on small business, the axe has yet to fall for the biggest defense companies.
And even if there are any cuts, these contractors will cruise for quite a while on their hefty Pentagon backlogged contracts. According to the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) (note: I founded and ran POGO for many years and am still on the board of directors), these contractors have more stashed away in future contracts than many Cayman Island bank accounts:
2011 was another record year for defense and aerospace industry revenues and profits. According to a recent PWC report, Lockheed Martin currently has an billion worth of backlogged orders; Boeing has a billion backlog; and Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics both have billion backlogs. "Backlogs provide a significant cushion between demand and current production rates that could absorb any reasonably anticipated softening in demand." [PriceWaterHouseCoopers, Aerospace & Defense: 2011 year in review and 2012 forecast, 2/12.] http://truth-out.org/news/item/10648
This report from the Virginia Military Institute outlines the control that Christian Zionists have over U.S. foreign policy;
Clifford A. Kiracofe, Jr., Ph.D.
"Christian Zionism: A Foreign Policy Challenge"
By Dr. Clifford A. Kiracofe, Jr., Adjunct Professor Virginia Military Institute and former Senior Professional Staff Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Palestine Center, Annual Conference, Washington, D.C. November 21, 2003
"During June of last year, I had the good fortune to visit the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia, I met with officials at our embassy, with American businessmen, and with officials of the Saudi government. I then went to Egypt where I met with officials at our embassy, including our ambassador, with officials of the Egyptian government including the foreign minister, with the head of the Arab League, and with the Rector of al Azhar. I returned home with a sinking feeling, having concluded that we were headed for a serious crisis in the Middle East as a result of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy and drive to war.
Today, we are in that crisis.
Owing to the Bush Administration’s preventive war against Iraq, and failure to constructively address the Palestine Question, confidence in America has collapsed in the Arab and Muslim world, not to mention in Europe.
In my view, the “passionate attachment” of American Christian Zionists to the modern State of Israel, and their inveterate antipathy toward the Arab and Muslim world, impairs the United States’ capacity to properly defend our national interests. Christian Zionist influence in the Executive Branch, and in the Congress, poses a serious challenge to the formulation and implementation of American foreign policy.
The Bush Administration’s reckless foreign policy in Middle East -- preventive war against Iraq, blank check for Zionist expansion, and crusade against the Arab and Muslim world – is not the result of any “intelligence failure.” Rather, it is the result of a national policy failure. And this national policy failure is a direct result of the actions of politicians and their advisors in the Executive Branch and in Congress who are under the influence of Zionist lobbies, “Christian” and Jewish alike.
That the foreign policy of the Bush Administration is dominated by militant (Revisionist) Zionist Neoconservatives is beyond argument. That this Neoconservative neoimperial, and neocolonial, foreign policy is staunchly supported by the Christian Zionist lobby is also beyond argument. 
Today I shall first comment on Christian Zionism as a tool of imperialism. Second, I shall comment on Christian Zionism and the Israeli Right. Third, I shall comment on Christian Zionism and the Republican Party.
1.Christian Zionism: Tool of Imperialism
The use of Christian Zionist support to promote imperial policy in the Middle East is nothing new. In fact, the technique was developed in early Victorian England by Lord Palmerston. President Bush’s neoimperial policy today parallels the old British imperial policy of Lord Palmerston.
Back in 1839 and 1840, Palmerston, as Foreign Secretary, devised a Middle East policy for the British Empire that promoted a Jewish entity in historic Palestine linked to the Ottoman Empire as a counterweight to Egypt and Russia.
Today, taking a page from Palmerston, Bush’s Neoconservative advisors call for a US-Israel-Turkey axis in the Middle East. Their policy of active destabilization of the Arab world, cloaked under calls for “democratization” and “modernization,” is designed to tighten the US-Israel-Turkey axis as a “stabilizing” regional force.
In line with the old Palmerston policy, various Christian clerics and movements in England, who supported Palmerston’s imperial policy, obligingly called for the “restoration” of Jews to Palestine. British preachers spread the Christian Zionist ideology in North America as well. Thus, the defrocked Anglican priest, John Nelson Darby, during a series of visits to the United States and Canada between 1859 and 1872, spread the Christian Zionist “Dispensationalist” ideology of the bizarre religious cult he himself created.
Today in the United States, pro-Zionist “Christian” clerics and religious movements provide political support, and political cover, for the Neoconservative neoimperial policy in the Middle East. The influential network of Christian Zionist preachers and advocates includes: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsay, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, Tim LaHaye, Kenneth Copeland, Oral Roberts, Herbert Armstrong, John Walvoord, Rex Humbard and Mike Evans.
Jerry Falwell, for example, says, “Right at the very top of our priorities must be an unswerving commitment and devotion to the State of Israel.”
Pat Robertson says, “The future of this Nation may be at stake, because God will bless those that bless Israel. And God will curse those that curse Israel.”
Oral Roberts says, “What a fulfillment of prophecy…What a future Israel has.”
Mike Evans says, “For Biblical reasons, first and foremost, we support the State of Israel.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, today we are certainly far from the traditional American approaches to the Arab and Muslim world that reach back into our founding period and our early republic.
During the 19th century, American foreign policy toward the Middle East was based upon a constructive engagement with the Arab and Muslim world. Our policy was an implicit rejection of British and European imperialism. The American University of Beirut, the American University in Cairo, and Roberts College in Turkey indicated our constructive cultural engagement. The development of fair and mutually beneficial commercial relations in the region, with such countries as Morocco and Oman for example, indicated our constructive economic engagement.
American foreign policy traditionally emphasized international law. As John Bassset Moore, a great American authority on international law and Legal Advisor to the Department of State, said almost a century ago:
“…besides exerting an influence in favor of liberty and independence, American diplomacy was also employed in the advancement of the principle of legality. American statesmen sought to regulate the relations of nations by law, not only as a measure of protection of the weak against the aggressions of the strong, but also as the only means of assuring the peace of the world.”
But during the 20th century, something changed in American policy and we strayed from our traditional path of friendly, and mutually beneficial, engagement with the Arab and Muslim world. The rise of Zionist influence in our polity during World War I, and subsequently, accounts in large measure for this.
Writing just after World War II, in 1947, an American expert on the region warned that “the political divisions which prevail in the Near East today should not blind us to the underlying cultural and psychological unity of the region as a whole. Unifying forces invariably come to the fore in the Near East when foreign interests are involved…the far-reaching interdependence of the local states and territories imposes on the interested foreign power the obligation to approach the entire region as a unit…any foreign policy in the Near East which is not a comprehensive regional policy is an invitation to bankruptcy….our lack of a considered regional policy, and our single-minded concentration on a given objective without due regard to its potential implications, have left us bewildered and helpless time and again.”
The expert I just quoted was Ephraim A. Speiser, Professor of Semitics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Baghdad. During World War II, Professor Speiser was the head of the Near East Section of the Research and Analysis Branch of the Office of Strategic Services, the OSS, which was the forerunner of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Now let’s take a look at the situation in recent years.
2.Christian Zionists and the Israeli Right
Christian Zionist ideology is aggressively promoted by “fundamentalists” who are politically allied to the most militant extremist elements of the Israeli political spectrum. Over the past two decades, American Christian Zionists developed complex and close relations with a range of extreme right wing Messianic Jewish circles in Israel including the Gush Emunim, the “Settler’s” movement, and the old-line Jabotinsky right wing nationalists of Begin’s Herut Party.
Let’s go back to the mid-1980’s for a moment.
The Christian Zionist lobby held its first “National Prayer Breakfast for Israel” in Washington, DC on February 6, 1985. The event attracted many important political personalities and political activists.
The keynote speaker did not pull any punches. He said, and I quote:
“A sense of history, a sense of poetry, and a sense of morality imbued the Christian Zionists who more than a century ago began to write, and plan, and organize for Israel’s restoration…The writings of Christian Zionists, British and American, directly influenced the thinking of such pivotal leaders as Lloyd George, Arthur Balfour and Woodrow Wilson.”
The keynote speaker was none other than the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations at the time: Benjamin Netanyahu.
A few months after the first National Prayer Breakfast for Israel I just mentioned, the first “International Christian Zionist Congress” was held at Basel, Switzerland, in August 1985. The meeting was held, symbolically, in the same hall Theodor Herzl used for his own first Zionist Congress at the end of the 19th century.
The 1985 Christian Zionist Congress in Basel declared “that Judaea and Samaria are…and by Biblical right…ought to be part of Israel.” The Congress also called for the censure and punishment of “any incidents of anti-semitism in any form including anti-Zionism and anti-Israel activity…”
For our purposes today, the relevant background on the Israeli link to contemporary American Christian Zionists dates to the 1967 war. In the wake of the war, extremist elements in Israel formed the “Movement for Greater Israel,” and the “settler” movement that established Kiryat Arba near Hebron. The extremist Gush Emunim settler organization grew out of this environment.
In the years after 1967, the Gush Emunim became the leading edge of the Israeli New Right. The components of this New Right were three: Labor party factions supporting the “Movement for Greater Israel,” the new religious-nationalist activists, and the old-line Jabotinsky nationalist right converted into the Begin-led Herut party.
From 1974 to 1977, three Labor Party leaders vied for supremacy, and each had his Gush Emunim supporter within his ministry. Prime Minister Rabin had General Ariel Sharon as his special advisor. Defense Minister Shimon Peres had Yuval Ne’eman, later leader of the pro-Gush Emunim Hatechiyah party. Foreign Minister Yigal Allon was the patron of the fanatic settler network behind Kiryat Arba.
By the time that the Likud came into power in 1977, the power of the Gush Emunim over the government was complete because Begin was a long-time supporter of the settler movement.
Given the Begin government coming to power in Israel, it is not surprising that U.S. Christian Zionists then were easily led to interface with leading extremist political and religious circles in Israel.
Indeed, Christian Zionist clergy in the United States assimilated the theological-political views of the most extreme Israeli religious nationalist leaders. A peculiar Christian Zionist literalist emphasis on the Old Testament, paralleling extremist Israeli Jewish messianism, is characteristic of this mindset. In this sense, Christian Zionists have rejected the Good News of the New Testament, and the New Covenant mediated by Jesus Christ and so are not authentic Christians within the traditional understanding of the faith as expounded by Saint Paul, for example.
In 1979, Jerry Falwell made an important visit to Israel which advanced the political alliance between the Christian Zionists in the United States and the Likud in Israel. This Falwell visit to Israel spurred the development of the Christian Zionist-Israeli Right political alignment in the early 1980s. This political alignment between the Israeli New Right and the Christian Zionists would, of course, enhance the position and influence of the Jewish (Revisionist) Zionist Neoconservative policy network in Washington during the Reagan years.
It is, therefore, not surprising that high level coordination between Christian Zionist leaders in the United States and extremist political leaders in Israel is an on-going process, and has been for two decades.
Several weeks ago, for example, Israeli Tourism Minister Benny Elon, who is linked to the most extreme political elements in Israeli society, such as the Moledet party, made a special trip to the United States to interface with key Christian Zionist circles. In Memphis, Tennessee he met with the well-known evangelical leader Ed McAteer, and a number of key Christian Zionist leaders McAteer had organized for the visit. McAteer was a co-founder of the Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell and the founder of the Christian Roundtable organization which has branches in all 50 states. The Elon-McAteer political partnership plays a key role in lining up Christian Zionist support in the United States for the extremist proponents of Greater Israel in Congress and in the Executive Branch.
The alliance between the Christian Zionists and hardline (Revisionist) Zionist Neoconservatives, on the one hand, and the Israeli Likud, and other extremist Israeli political parties such as Moledet, on the other hand, has not gone unnoticed around the world.
During the past year, a raft of articles appeared in prominent European newspapers and magazines detailing this international strategic political alignment. European journalists, and politicians, regularly refer with reason to what they call the “Likud wing” of the Republican Party, the “Likudniks” in the Bush Administration, and the “Christian Right.” Detailed analysis of the Neoconservative influence on the Bush Administration has now appeared in the press all the way from Europe to Japan.
3.Christian Zionists and the Republican Party
Over the past two decades, the Republican Party has come increasingly under pressure from Christian Zionism. Organizations such as the so-called “Christian Embassy” and the “National Unity Coalition for Israel” play a key role in pressuring Congress and political leaders to adopt pro-Israel policies. The foreign policy positions of these Christian Zionist organizations are those advanced by the Neoconservative policy network.
Will the current Middle East crisis – the Iraq War and occupation, and the unresolved Palestine Question – force “Main Street” Republicans to question and to rethink their party’s foreign policy? Will “Main Street” Republicans come to resist the extremism of the Christian Zionists? Will moderate Republican leaders take effective steps to bring balance into their party’s foreign policy and to suppress Christian Zionist and Neoconservative influence?
Time will tell. But any doubt about the pervasive influence of Christian Zionist ideology in the US Congress was erased by the former leader of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives. On May 1, 2002, Texas Congressman Richard Armey, on national television, bluntly told MSNBC talk show host Chris Mathews that he supported the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Israeli-occupied Palestine. 
Dick Armey’s protégé, and now House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, openly espouses Christian Zionist ideology using such coded terms as “Judaea and Samaria” to describe a portion of today’s occupied Palestine. Speaking to the Israeli Knesset on July 30 of this year, DeLay emphasized that, “The common destiny of the United States and Israel is not an artificial alliance dictated by our leaders.” DeLay was reportedly hosted by the Christian Embassy on his visit.
Christian Zionist influence over Republican Congressman and Senators has reached such a level that Republicans in Congress routinely introduce and vote for inflammatory, and irresponsible, resolutions and bills opposed to US national interests and security requirements in the Middle East. The recent passage of the “Syria Accountability Act” is a case in point. Activity relating to Sudan is another example.
Prior the 1980 elections in the US, the Israeli New Right made careful preparations to form political relationships with the Christian fundamentalist groups in the United States. The plan was that these Christian Zionists would form an activist political base to penetrate the Republican Party and lobby Congress and the White House in support of the right wing Likud’s expansionist “Eretz Israel” (Greater Israel) policy.
The vector of an extremist pro-Likud foreign policy in the Republican Party is, of course, the Neoconservative policy network. The Neoconservatives piggybacked on the staunchly pro-Israel “Conservative Movement,” which for decades aimed to take over the Republican Party. Of this so-called “Conservative Movement,” we should not forget, for example, that Bill Buckley and the National Review crowd attacked President Eisenhower’s Suez policy and defended the British, French, and Israeli aggression against Egypt.
Now, just a few weeks before the 1980 elections in the United States, one of the leading international Christian Zionist organizations, called the “International Christian Embassy-Jerusalem (ICEJ),” established an office in Jerusalem. The idea was that Christian Zionists needed an “embassy” in Jerusalem to organize their activities while awaiting the return of Jesus. On September 20, 1980, Mayor Teddy Kollek hosted the opening ceremony, and this organization became a pivotal international Christian Zionist support mechanism for the Likud’s “Eretz Israel” (“Greater Israel”) policy.
During the 1980s, the Christian Embassy’s Washington, DC office established itself as a focal point for Christian Zionist political and lobbying activity in the United States.
During the 1990s, the so-called “National Unity Coalition for Israel” (NUCI) emerged as an important lobbying arm of the American Christian Zionists. It is not surprising that this organization has close links to the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, to Neoconservatives in Washington think tanks, and to highly-placed Neoconservative operatives and sympathizers inside the Bush Administration.
On Capitol Hill, the National Unity Coalition for Israel works in parallel with the well-established and influential American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and Religious Right organizations such as the Christian Coalition, to dominate Congress when it comes to legislation and policy relating to the Middle East.
So, ladies and gentlemen, “What is to be done?”
Quite simply, we as a Nation must return to our traditional principles of foreign policy. We must begin to rebuild our international position on the basis of “good faith and justice toward all nations” to use George Washington’s phrase.
The Bush 43 Administration has led the Republican Party far from its general post-World War II foreign policy orientation ranging from the moderate internationalism of Eisenhower to the conservative internationalism of Nixon.
Even the conservative US Senator Robert A. Taft, back in 1951, rejected preventive war and supported international cooperation. As he said then, “I do not think this moral leadership ideal justifies our engaging in any preventive war.” Senator Taft also rejected the neoimperialism of those who “want to force on these foreign peoples through the use of American money and even, perhaps, American arms the policies which moral leadership is able to advance only through the sound strength of its principles and force of persuasion.”
The Republican Party can certainly return to honorable foreign policy principles as outlined in its own 1944 platform which called for the “attainment of peace and freedom based upon justice and security.” Specifically, the Republican Party platform of that day emphasized achieving such goals through “organized international cooperation” and the “responsible participation by the United States in postwar cooperative organization among sovereign nations to prevent military aggression and to attain permanent peace with organized justice in a free world.”
The Republican Party must come to its senses, and moderate Republican leaders must insist on changes in the Bush Administration: principally the elimination of Christian Zionist and Neoconservative influence on our Nation’s foreign policy.
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents – Christians, Moslems, Jews, and all persons of good will -- who oppose the extremist policies of the Christian Zionists and Neoconservatives can work together in a broad front. We must support a non-partisan foreign policy that promotes peace and justice in today’s world through international cooperation and the rule of law, not the rule of force. We must insist on a just solution to the Palestine Question, and we must insist on a halt our own neoimperial occupation of Iraq.
Thank you for your kind attention." http://www.vmi.edu/fswebs.aspx?tid=37359&id=37425
comment from the visitors;
The Christian Zionists and AIPAC have also funded both Republicans and Democrats to support Zionist Israel despite their ongoing war crimes. This is religion intruding on the separation of church and state. If the Christian Zionists want to fight their religious war of Armageddon they should go over to Israel themselves as a private militia and leave the U.S. military out of it. The U.S. military is needed for defense purposes only, NOT to occupy foreign nations and side with Israel against the occupied Palestinians. Nor should the U.S. military be operating bases in foreign nations, only within the current U.S. borders. We have plenty of work to do here building setback levees and vegetated dunes in preparation for sea level rise and flooding events. Israel needs to handle their own affairs and quit being bullies against the occupied Palestinians.
The people living in Palestine prior to the formation of Israel are not responsible for the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews and should not be forced to pay for the crimes of a now extinct fascist government bankrolled by industrialists like Ford, Rockefeller and Prescott Bush. This sort of transference of aggression by the Israeli government really makes humans look bad as a species in the eyes of a more logical species from elsewhere. On the other hand Hamas killing Israeli civilians isn't helping matters as it provides the IDF with further excuses for attacks.
The alligator visitors to Earth are losing their patience with the humans and their religious warfare. They also resent the term "cold blooded killers" when most of the killing on Earth is being caused by the warm blooded humans who cannot control their emotions and religious beliefs. Logical cold blooded reptilians only want to restore the ecosystems of Earth and live in peace with humans as neighbors, though the humans just cannot seem to calm down their religious warfare enough for them to try to make contact.
The alligator's messenge to all humans is that if the humans cannot live on Earth in peace with one another their entire system of civilization will be destroyed into a pile of ash. They did not come all the way to our solar system to become babysitters! Time to grow up humans!!
The alligators also expressed concerns that certain humans were instigating warfare and getting paid while other humans were fighting on the front lines and risking their lives for nothing other than the profits of the warmongers. The alligators seek to arm the wounded soldiers and turn them against the military weapons contractors and Christian Zionists that sent them off to die for profits of a few wealthy evildoers.
to the military weapons contractors and the Christian Zionists;
"You're the ones who commit the crime yet it's always us who is crucified!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvPXl67D_Ho&feature=related