[...] The neo-conservatives and their allies in the Israeli apologist think tanks and institutes were terrified when George Bush delivered his first strategic address on the Middle East in April 2001. His address implied a qualitative shift in the US policy toward Israel and Palestine.
Accordingly, they launched their campaigns and offered Bush the ladder from which he could escape from this 'surprising' commitment. The outcome was materialized by the June address, which shifted the focus from ending the 1967 occupation, to a confusion over ending an occupation.
Then, thanks to the neo-conservatives' effort and solid campaigning, came the April 2002 address to consolidate their victory. In this address, George Bush completed his retreat from what he had said a year before. This draw back was the result of the patience, persistence and strategy of the neo-conservatives to guarantee George Bush's failure in realizing his vision of a Palestinian State that would replace the Israeli occupation, living side by side with Israel within frontiers as close as possible to the borders of 1967.
Then came the 9/11 terrorist attacks of 2001 as a valuable gift to this cabal. It allowed them to pin the terrorism on the Palestinians and undermine the Palestinian-Israeli peace partnership.
Naturally, terrorist acts committed by the Palestinians against civilians contributed to supporting this position. But capitalizing on the 9/11 attacks to pin terrorism on both the Palestinian government and people was, nevertheless, the neo-conservatives' strategic political decision.
Thus, George Bush's vision was foiled, and the strategy to drag the US into an ideological war in Iraq succeeded, not only in luring terrorism into the heart of Iraq under the elusion of vanquishing it there, but also in exonerating Israel from its commitments both as an occupying power and as a partner in the peace process.
Furthermore, the neo-conservatives set forth a strategy to overthrow Arab regimes and split up regional countries by fueling sectarian conflicts. The neo-con cabal sees Iran, with its Shiite majority - although a minority in the Islamic World - as a necessary 'partner'.
In the view of the neo-conservatives, since Iran has never waged a war or entered into direct confrontation with Israel, and, despite all the public US and Israeli challenging rhetoric against Iran, it remains the most qualified candidate for a pragmatic partnership with the US. [...]
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
The title of this piece is "Saving Bush Jr. from the Neo-Conservative Cabal," and the author means it. This projects a weird image of Bush as a noble figure beleaguered by sinister Neo-cons (diabolical laughter):