Another sneaky attempt by israelis to blame US for their mischief and fabricate a case for attacking Syria . . .

[David Wurmser's wife] reportedly told [Ynet] that a successful attack by Israel on Damascus would have dealt a mortal blow to the insurgency in Iraq.

Right.

So, we're supposed to believe that it's in our best interest to attack yet another of israel's arch enemies, which just happens to be impeding their plans to control Middle East oil and tap into a captive, and VERY lucrative European energy market.

"If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended," she asserted, adding that it was chiefly as a result of pressure from what she called "neo-cons" that the administration held off demands by United Nations Security Council members to halt Israel's attacks on Hezbollah and other targets in Lebanon during the war.

"The neo-cons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space ... They believed that Israel should be allowed to win," she told Ynet.

"A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hezbollah ... If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have weakened it and [changed] the strategic map in the Middle East."

Which is the ultimate goal.

Wurmser's remarks bolster reports from Israel that hawks in the Bush administration did, in fact, encourage in the first days of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to extend its war beyond Lebanon's borders.

"In a meeting with a very senior Israeli official, [US Deputy National Security Adviser Elliot] Abrams indicated that Washington would have no objection if Israel chose to extend the war beyond to its other northern neighbor, leaving the interlocutor in no doubt that the intended target was Syria[.]"

Just because, officially, Abrams wears an American hat, doesn't mean he has our best interests at heart, as Juan Cole clearly points out in arguing why Abrams must go:

The remaining Neoconservatives in the Bush administration, like David Wurmser in Cheney's office and Abrams at the NSC have been agitating behind the scenes for war on Syria and Iran. These people hate peace the way the devil hates holy water. They confess themselves actively disappointed when a war doesn't happen. They helped send US troops into Iraq where 24,000 have been wounded or killed, and they'd just love to expend some more lives on other pet projects.

Furthermore . . .

Abrams has been known to work particularly closely with both David Wurmser [and] Cheney's national security adviser, John Hannah, who in turn have long favored regime change in Damascus.

Indeed, both Wurmsers, along with former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and former under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith, worked together on a 1996 paper, "A Clean Break", for incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which called for overthrowing Iraqi president Saddam Hussein as the first step toward destabilizing Syria.

Uncanny coincidence? Not a chance.

Everything is moving along as planned.

Wurmser and Hannah, according to the New York Times, argued forcefully - and successfully, with Abrams' help - against efforts by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to persuade Bush to open a channel to Syria in an effort to stop the fighting in its early days.

Seems like Cole hit the nail on the head - these people LOVE war.

And their love for it convinces the world that the US is behind all this insanity.

[Syrian president, Bashar] Assad himself argued as much in his Repubblica interview. "The most important thing ... is that Washington doesn't want that. This means [Olmert's] is a weak government; it allows Washington to take the decision instead of the Israeli government."

Meanwhile, Wurmser, Hannah, and the rest of the neocon cabal are merely Likudniks by a different name.

But, their influence appears to be waning. "Appears to be" being the operative phrase.

Indeed, Meyrav Wurmser, who is herself an Israeli closely identified with the Likud Party, expressed a sense of imminent defeat. Noting last week's departure of former ambassador to the UN John Bolton, a key neo-conservative ally, she said, "There are others who are about to leave.

"This administration is in its twilight days," she said. "Everyone is now looking for work, looking to make money ... We all feel beaten after the past five years ..."

Oh, boo-hoo.

While she blamed Rumsfeld, the military and the State Department for the failure to achieve neo-conservative goals in Iraq and the wider region, she also attacked Israel's conduct of the summer's war, insisting that it provoked "a lot of anger" [among Likudniks] in Washington, presumably in her husband's office, among other places.

"The final outcome is that Israel did not do it [attack Syria]. It fought the wrong war and lost ... instead of a strategic war that would serve Israel's objectives, as well as the US objectives in Iraq."

How utterly sick and twisted - the loss of a thousand lives and the destruction of a nation is not important - israel's strategic interest is always paramount.

This is the dictionary definition of SUPREMACISM - and they have the gall to complain about Hitler.

Submitted by qrswave on Tue, 2006-12-19 13:08

• qrswave's blog
• Login or register to post comments
• 2507 reads
•