Comments on: Richard Holbrooke: A Hillary Clinton Neocon

By: Joshua Frank | Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton and Charles Goyette

Joshua Frank | Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton and Charles Goyette — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 05:57:56 +0000

[...] Frank, co-editor of DissidentVoice.org and author of Left-Out!: How Liberals Helped Re-elect George W. Bush, discusses the impending [...]

By: Neocons Salivate Over Hillary « Is it over yet?

Neocons Salivate Over Hillary « Is it over yet? — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:38:10 +0000

[...] Frank, co-editor of DissidentVoice.org and author of Left-Out!: How Liberals Helped Re-elect George W. Bush, discusses the impending [...]

By: Hatuxka

Hatuxka — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:26:50 +0000

Anyone who tries to make the middle east crises one so abstract that it can be unlinked with the Israeli/Palestinian issue is being dishonest. Give it up. Not gonna fly. As if the that quest for “world domination” or “hegemony” would not have multiple subsidiary elements or driving justifications.
Here’s what this jerk— Holbrooke said in October 2001 in a french magazine interview:
“Bush doit mettre les points sur les «i» auprès de Moubarak, car le pire scénario possible serait le maintien d’un lien entre la question du terrorisme international et celle de l’Intifada.”
he’s basically saying the burden post-9/11 is on (for example) Mubarek to “get it right” because if he doesn’t the worst scenario (or outcome) will be a link between international terrorism and the Intifada. He’s drawing a specious AIPAC playbook-type link and putting the burden on Mubarek to stop one from developing, as if what Sharon and his successors and Bush would do were any less critical vis a vis the fate of the Palestinians and how they might go Al Qaeda on us (yeah right, as if they would ever not steer well clear of possibility of handing Israel a excuse for wiping the Palestinians off the map). And of course the U.S. and Israel have far from gotten it right, just the opposite. Where can I find Holbrooke ever saying that it’s what Bush and the Israeli leader do right or wrong that would affect the possible establishment of a link between the Intifada and Al Qaeda?

By: Binh

Binh — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:42:01 +0000

One question I have for Mr. Frank is – why did you shut down your blog? I rather liked it.

Nice piece on this SOB. A Dem in the White House = the second coming of the neocons.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:20:12 +0000

For those who think the poor US is just a victim of Zionism, we live in the belly of the beast. We can either do something about it or delude ourselves into thinking some evil Zionist has been making us do it – in Latin America, in Africa, in Asia, and in the Middle East.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:14:29 +0000

Regretably there are those who are blinded to the historical record. Chalmers Johnson has written an excellent trilogy, you no doubt have heard (read?) about it.

Johnson doesn’t shy away from controversy and his thesis is very strong (and cooberated) regarding US empire. Israel is mentioned merely as one of the 700 + US bases. In other words it has no role in US foreign policy over the great expanse of hist recent history.

I find it strange that Joe Klein was blaming Israel for the US invasion/occupation of Iraq (or anything else). He pushes attacking Iran every chance he’s in front of a camera; a regular Joe Lieberman think alike. These are not guys that are going to spill the beans about Israel (so I question the authenticity of Klein being party to this discussion). Leslie Gelb has been pushing this arrogant notion of dividy Iraq into three states (with his buddy, Bidden). So, I question what this has to do with Israel, per se, unless Gelb is representing Israel’s interest. So, far this notion is going no where with the boys in power.

If this were a thread on the invasions by Israel into Lebanon or the Palestinians; than there is no denying the war crimes committed by Israel; and the imperative for justice. But Holbrooke represents, not Israeli interests (except tangenentially). He represents US hegemony as it has been thoroughly documented. I won’t deny that there are probably Israeli officals who wanted us to invade Iraq; or that AIPAC was in agreement (and even pushing the invasion).

But that is not why we’re in Iraq; and any more than the Christian right made the decision.

Holbrooke does represent a hawkish (ala Kissinger) world-view. It is an arrogant view of US world dominance. And it has a long history that pre-dates, this administration, or the existence of the country we refer to as Israel. And yes, Hillary is very comfortable from all accounts with that world view.

By: Deadbeat

Deadbeat — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:04:53 +0000

Thanks Shabnam for your excellent analysis and response. Regrettably there are voices on the left that would rather alter the emphasis and obscure the details.

By: Shabnam

Shabnam — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:34:56 +0000

Thanks for this article that exposes Holbrooke.
On April 11, 2006 Richard Holbrooke was the host of Charlie Rose show with Joe Klein and Leslie Gelb from the council on foreign relations as his guests. They were talking about Iraq and they agreed that Israel wanted Iraq war and got it, and Israel is pushing for a war with Iran now. I am sure Holbrooke thinks highly of Hillary Clinton because both think the same way. Both are very secretive and arrogant, and they try to deceive people with big words such as DIPLOMACY. Holbrooke thinks the major beneficiary of US policy in the last five years is Iran, “the most dangerous country in the region”, he says, copied from Aipac manuscript. Both have said they will leave all the options open to deal with Iran. They use diplomacy to get what Israel want, if not successful then attack, like in Bosnia. Bush is doing the same thing. He Pretends using the diplomacy channel but he is not genuine and is trying to fool the “international community” that consist of former colonial/ imperial countries and weaker countries where have been either bribed or forced into the “community”.
Hillary Clinton spoke about Iran at an AIPAC conference once and she called for talks with Iran. But she tried to make us to understand that the purpose of talks with the Iranians was to assess the situation and find out about their weakness to be prepared for the last resort, military action. In a speech at the council on foreign relations, Hilary expressed affection in words only, for the INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES and wants to create even more International organizations. One should ask Hillary, the AIPAC girl, why does she put pressure on Iran to abandon her rights, protected under the international agency program NPT, to fuel enrichment for peaceful nuclear energy but says nothing about Israel nuclear program that has been exposed more than 24 years ago by Vonuno who paid dearly for it, 18 years in prison. Vonuno has repeatedly said “Israel nuclear program is the problem for world peace not Iran peaceful nuclear energy.” One must have no Sense of responsibility to call Sharon “the man of peace” and asks the victims of the Zionists, the Palestinians, to abandon the election result, Hamas, where took place under the international agencies and instead to work with the puppet of Israel and the US, Abbas and the turned Millioner over night, Mohammed Dahlan, who are supported by Israel and US.
Holbrooke believes that we need even more troops to maintain “peace” in Iraq and like Hillary who voted for the war, thinks Israel must win in Iraq. Israel plan is to partition Iraq to create a puppet state in name of Kurdistan to be an ally of Israel in the region. Kurdistan is a spy network for Israel and Us and the Kurdish leaders repeat the lies of the occupier when they say “if US leaves, a civil war will follow.” The Kurds want US to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=265807
http://agonist.org/xanthippas/20070721/the_kurds_and_the_future_of_iraq

By: cemmcs

cemmcs — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:06:56 +0000

He’s awful. I saw him on PBS the other night repeating the lie that Hussein wouldn’t let the weapons inspectors to verify that there were no WMDs in Iraq before The US invasion.

By: Adnan

Adnan — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:43:19 +0000

Another higlight of Holbroke’s career was when he carwed half of Bosnia as award for Serbian genocide.

By: Hatuxka

Hatuxka — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:49:31 +0000

Holbrooke extolling how ready H. Clinton is to use force (code words for many ugly possibilities) kinda sickens one for what the future might bring and is depressing for how little things are likely to change if and when this crowd takes over.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:43:52 +0000

Thanks Josh for this article and the research.

It illustrates the underpinnings of US foreign policy, the pure arrogance of power. The continuity, as Hollbrooke puts it, is there regardless of what wing of the party (Repub/Dem) is overseeing the euphemistic “national security”.

American empire could never be without that bare fisted arrogance that shadows each administration. That is why we are lost when we dwell on the prism of the Israel/Zionist/AIPAC influence. There is doubtless a confluence, but it is the raw hegemony that dictates US policy.

In these terms, national security, or put another, and more appropriate way, THREAT, is not meant to be a threat to the life and limb of American homelanders (except for public consumption to drum up war). THREAT is the tool of a policy of DOMINATION. Whatever threatens, however it is threatened, it must be attacked. Iran is a THREAT because it poses a relatively minor obstacle to total US Middle East domination. H. Chavez is a threat because he respresents an alternative to the US puppet regime – and so far he has been successful.

Hillary Clinton will fit just fine with this arrogance. She’ll stop listening to the man she loaths once she’s ensconced in the Oval Office, and Richard becomes her point man.