Name: Joe Biden Age: 65 Education: University of Delaware (undergraduate), University of Syracuse (law) Resume: Five-term Democratic senator from Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, two-time Democratic presidential candidate Source of Speculation: He's suddenly acting the part. Earlier this week, Biden introduced legislation (with Republican Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana) that would triple non-military U.S. aid to Pakistan--legislation that just so happened to materialize the same day Obama was set to deliver a major speech in Washington on the future of U.S. national security. Miraculously, Obama announced in the aforementioned address that he would be "cosponsoring" the bill, immediately boosting his bipartisan foreign-policy cred. Talk about a tag team. Meanwhile, Biden rushed to the Illinois senator's defense Thursday over charges that he has not adequately addressed Afghanistan as chairman of a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee, deftly defusing the issue with a letter to South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint (R) that the New Republic's Noam Scheiber called "about as impressive a case as I've seen a VP candidate make for himself." Oh, and then there's the fact that Biden has come right out and confessed that he'd "make a great vice president." If he does say so himself. Backstory: Biden's interest in the No. 2 slot is nothing new. Last November, a group of NEWSWEEK editors (including yours truly) asked the senator over lunch whether he'd consider serving as Hillary Clinton's vice president. His response? "I love Bill Clinton, but can you imagine being vice president? I'm not looking for a ceremonial post." He ruled out Secretary of State for the same reason. At the time, that was the news. But looking back, what's striking is how he didn't nix the idea of signing on with Obama as well. "In a Barack administration, I'd probably be looked to a whole lot more," he told us. "Now, I don't think [he] would ask me. But I think [he] would look to me more." This was two months before Iowa. Since dropping out of the race, Biden has become even more candid, recently telling Brian Williams, "Of course I'll say yes"--a rare deviation from the candidates' standard coyness. "If the presidential nominee thought that I could help him win," he added, "I'm [not] going to say to the first African-American candidate about to make history in the world, no, I will not help you." So where does Biden actually stand? According to a report this week in the Washington Post, he's "believed to be high on Obama's list."
Odds: It's no suprise that Biden's in the running. The main reason is that his greatest strength--foreign-policy experience--is widely seen as Obama's greatest weakness. The Democratic Party's leading voice on foreign affairs--he's chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee three times during his 35 years in Washington--Biden is perhaps the only potential veep who could immediately and credibly go toe-to-to with Republican nominee John McCain on Iraq, terrorism, Afghanistan and Pakistan. As E.J. Dionne recently noted, "Biden has been critical of Bush's approach to Iraq and the world for the right reasons, and from the beginning." In the fall of 2002, he tried (with Republican Sens. Lugar and Chuck Hagel) to pass a more modest war resolution that put additional constraints on Bush, and, like Obama, he was warning of the costs of a lengthy occupation even before the war began. Since then, Biden has presented and pushed a realistic proposal to divide Iraq into semi-autonomous Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions--a plan that may appeal to Obama as he works toward a responsible withdrawal--while arguing that the U.S. should refocus its resources on Afghanistan, Pakistan and loose nukes instead. (Conveniently, Obama agrees.) What's more, Biden's son Beau, the attorney general of Delaware, will be deploying to Iraq this fall with his national guard unit--meaning that Biden will be one of the few politicians (like McCain, whose son Jimmy is also serving in Iraq) for whom the war is viscerally, inescapably personal.
Obviously, the Delaware senator is not the only older, whiter foreign-policy pro on Obama's list. But unlike, say, Sam Nunn or Jim Webb, he's expert at using his experience to score points on the trail, whether by attacking Republican inanities--a role he relishes--or clarifying Democratic proposals. In other words, he's good at policy and politics. As Ezra Klein has written, Biden dispenses with the traditional Democratic presumption that "Republicans are strong on national security, and voters needed to be convinced of their failures and then led to a place of support for a Democratic alternative," choosing instead to start "from the position that Republicans [have] been catastrophic failures on foreign policy, and their ongoing claims to competence and leadership should be laughed at." Obama can't do that on his own--but he could use someone who can. When Rudy Giuliani said, "America will be safer with a Republican president," for example, Obama spun out some airy sentences about taking "the politics of fear to a new low" and believing that "Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics." Biden, in contrast, mocked "America's Mayor." "Rudy Giuliani [is] probably the most underqualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency," he said. "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence --a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There's nothing else!" This serene self-confidence--even arrogance--made Biden the breakout star of the Democratic debates, and it would likely add a necessary dash of bareknuckle candor to Obama's "high road" bid. In other words, he'd actually make an effective sidekick.
Biden's positives don't stop there. As a working-class Catholic with an average-Joe speaking style and a heartbreaking personal story--his wife and infant daughter died in a car crash just a month after he was elected to the Senate in 1972--he could woo the blue-collar whites who were reluctant to back Obama in the primaries. Even though Delaware is a lock for the Dems, Biden was born in purple Pennsylvania and has been a regular in the Philadelphia media market for decades. Plus, he's already survived the public scrutiny of two presidential campaigns--meaning no surprises.
Biden, of course, is far from perfect. He's famously long-winded. He tends to generate gaffes--like, say, calling Obama "clean" and "articulate"--at semi-regular intervals. His thousands of Senate votes would provide Republicans with a treasure trove of oppo research. He was forced from the 1988 presidential race after plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. He kowtowed to Delaware's credit card industry by supporting a bankruptcy bill despised by liberal activists. Despite his 2002 maneuvering, he ultimately voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq--another unpopular position on the left. And his decades spent swimming in the swamps of Washington may dilute Obama's call to "change our politics."
This is a bio from Stumper
NOW ALL WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON THIS SELECTION?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 128
Obama has indicated that he wants his VP to be a working colleague, not a figurehead. Obama has the vision and breadth of understanding needed for the future, Biden would add an historical memory for how to get things done in Congress. Seems like a good working combination to me. In addition, Biden can be counted on as VP to tell the President what he thinks - honestly, and behind closed doors where it belongs - rather than doing an end-around and running his own little shadow government like Cheney.
Change means change in how things work, not change for the sake of change. (Gee, where have I heard that?) A Biden pick will give a great combination of experience and vision.
Seriously, a great post with a ton of great information...
One also should wonder, when Biden gives his speech at the upcoming Democratic Convention, how much of it came from material that was originally used by someone else first. However, I am sure the expression "high-tech bully" will be excluded from his address as he and Obama fight "mano-a-mano" for the White House............
I believe that would render Mr. Biden, if it is the worst that can be said of him; "squeaky clean", but Washington standards ; )
Change is a way of thinking. Obama brings that. Biden himself was the youngest Senator to be elected (at 29) and has always been quite outspoken and up front with his views. And while he brings decades of experience with him to the table, he's always been considered the guy you could count on to give you real straight talk, not just lip service. Not a bad guy to have to bounce ideas off of...and to get an honest assessment of opposing viewpoints.
I keep thinking about that meeting between Obama and Hillary that they held while the media was still speculating about the when and where.
Maybe, it is just my desire to see the media get egg on its collective face, but until I get my email I will assume the Obama intended to be true to his word about his supporters being the first to know and if Biden is his choice the "party sources" are going to be read the riot act if they actually knew what they were talking about when they told someone in the media that Biden was his pick.
If Obama choice was leaked, I hope it was by someone who was hoping for a job in Obama's administration. and by proving that they have loose tongues they have dashed their own hope for a new job.
I bet Obama is not thrilled with the thought of having to rewrite the email to his supporters, and is even less thrilled with the thought of all emails that won't be opened and the contribution solicitation that will also unread.
Then there is the probable Republican commericial that say the leak is proof than Obama has bad judgement when it comes to letting things slip and/or choosing advisors who can't be trusted to keep their mouth's shut and that will be a enormous risk if he choose people with loose mouth to occupy position when they would have access to national security matters. Could prove to be an expensive leak.
As far as the son that Webb has in Iraq, Biden's son shall be deployed to Iraq on October 3.
He was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party.
When questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school Biden had claimed falsely to have graduated in the "top half" of his class, (when he actually graduated 76th in a class of 85) that he had attended on a full scholarship, and had received three degrees. In fact he had received two majors, History and Political Science, and a single B.A., as well as a half scholarship based on financial need.
He stated that Obama does not have enough experience and that he would be proud to run WITH or AGAINST John McCain because he is the better candidate.
Also, there was that statement he made about Indians working at 7-11, and the 'clean and articulate' Obama....
Well... aside from those gaffes, he always seemed to be a decent man, intelligent... though somewhat partisan. Overall, I don't think it was a bad choice for him.
Biden will provide good contrast and balance to Obama. Obama brings new ideas. Biden brings perspective. Obama brings a nuanced, philosophical way of looking at issues. Biden brings practicality and straight-forwardness. Obama appeals to the cerebral, college educated crowd. Biden appeals to the working class.
What everyone forgets is that the presidency is not a kingship. It's an administrative position. The role of the president is to administrate. And smart administrators surround themselves with experienced people who are willing to tell them the truth. That is what Obama did.
http://friendsofdanh.gather.com.
Our goal is to help you further your exposure and to support other gather members.
The only one who has truly changed his mind is Biden who specifically said he would never take the VP spot and had no desire to serve in that capacity.
That's it in a nutshell. Do the math: Obama+Pelosi+Reid=SOCIALIST STATE
I am hopeful.
*Listen very carefully to the first 15 seconds of this video
I believe these few words are precisely why Sen Obama didn't vet Hillary Clinton for VP
www.youtube.com/watch
Words are my weapon of choice and, Truth is my Shield
Richard Owl Mirror
I also appreciate Carol LeHane's comment very much. I was very disappointed with the leak, and more so with the people who jumped on it and published, knowing that it was so against Obama's plan. I expect it will be used against him somehow.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... is it november yet?
Yikes! I told you to only listen to the first fifteen seconds ! LOL
What I wanted you to hear was:
"She and john mccain are very close, they always laughed that if they wound up being the nominees of their parties it would be the most civilized election in american history and they were afraid they would put the voters to sleep." ~ Quote of Bill Clinton
Senator Obama doesn't need a VP candidate who is best friends with his rival. He needs someone who will take a stand and show the differences that separate the Dem & Repub policies.
You do the math you third grade drop out!
Bush : war + lies + torture +You’re either with us or against us + SPYING ON AMERICANS - Constitution = FASCISM.
BUSH=McSAME
WAKE UP!
2 - I really like Biden, I had hoped he would at least get a Cabinet position but VP is good with me
3 - Do not mistake Obama or Biden either one as being weak. These are strong men. These are intelligent men. These are dedicated men. Finally we wont have a President that seems to be the puppet of the VP
4 - I do not have any doubt that he picked him because he believes that he is prepared and able to be President at a moment's notice.
5. - I don't have any doubt that if Obama wins that each Cabinet member, each head of this and that will be carefully selected, confered with on matters that concern their position, knowledge, experience and then he will make his decisions from the info gathered, and will take responsibility for his actions
6 - I believe if he wants to implement Change that he speaks of that Biden can help him do so.
But I dont care for the strategy of playing it safe thats not a good game plan to win a game
Do you have an opinion?
I do. Obama is the most qualified person we had running in the last 30 years.
The right has done a good job of keeping americans afraid of words like socialism..well look it up and find how many capitalisitc countries are democratic- socialist and do better than we do economically.
The only thing that can bring this country down is ignorance and fascism that quietly strips the constitution of our rights and a party that uses fear and patriotism to trash the other party so they can conitnue their agenda.
It happened in Germany, Italy and few other places and it can happen here.
Also, Obama wants to make changes in how things get done in Washington, and Biden's long experience in Washington will help him sort out the best ways to do it.
On April 18, 1977 Jimmy Carter Delivered This Speech On Energy
I think more than anything Barack Obama stands for the idea that government can accomplish good things when it is run effectively - in other words when the good of the country is placed before partisan rhetoric and ego-centric show boating. If Joe Biden's years of experience can help Obama accomplish this goal, so be it.
I also had my fingers crossed for Webb, but Biden will do.
The more I read about Biden, the more I am sure he is an excellent pick. Family values? He's got it in spades over the slimy bunch of sexual predators, divorceés, closeted gays who preach virulent macho policies, etc...etc... Foreign Affairs experience, he's got a 20+ congressional history to draw on and the fact that his son is headed off to Iraq says it all - compared to the bush/Cheney team of cowards who are all hat and no cattle, and he lives modestly, in one house and he can find it on a map as opposed to Mr. 10 houses McCain who isn't really sure where he lives and has a problem finding his way "home".
For those who argue that Biden and McCain are the same, you haven't been paying attention. Though they have been friends for many years, it is Biden who has been a constant critic of George Bush, whether it is regarding his misuse of presidential powers, his stacking of the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice Department, or the handling of the Iraq war and foreign policy.
Biden quoted McCain in his speech yesterday, using McCain's own words to show that McCain was in lockstep with Bush 95% of the time.
There is only one ticket for change, and that is Obama/Biden. Obama has the vision, tenacity, and proven ability to bring more people into the political process. Biden has the experience and knowledge to get the change done.
They make a terrific team.
I am also confused by the Acquit McCarthy part of your name. I can think of only 2 McCarthys, Joe and Gene, and neither were ever convicted of anything, although Joe was a feeble minded, out of touch, sadistic, and narrow minded bastard, who ruined many lives for no reason, while laughably failing completely to detect any of the real communist spies who were selling the country out for money. Is that who you mean?
Waaaaaaa,Jaajajajjajajajajaja!!!
Blind followers of the democratic Kool-Aid will believe that. John McCain is another GWB. Please... McCain was the Democratic most favorite Bipartisan until... sadly, and unfortunately he is running for president.
Just a few months ago Democrats loved him. Now that he jeopardizes democrats' white house dreams: "he is not the same maverick, he has changed so much, he even looks like bush"
Dear democrats: I hope you are smarter than the leaders of your party. I am not asking you to vote for the GOP candidate. All I am asking you is to be independent of the stupid political attacks you heard from the unscrupulous media. As an example: I do not listen or agree with Rush or Hanity, my mind is FREE from manipulators, and so should be yours.
Weak minded republicans are not my people, and weak minded democrats should not be anybody peoples. Unfortunately this country has repeatedly voted on candidate that successfully have manipulated weak minded voters.
Open minded voters, Reps and Dems, are just a minority.
If you don't mind, who are you fronting for POTUS?
"bad guys" are either the monied corporate interests (for the leftist gloomers) or the international liberal elite (for the right wing militia types). In recent years both have united in naming other groups as the center of the "conspiracy".
One of my favorites is the infamous 911 conspiracy theory, in which gloomers from both the left and right cannot be told apart.
The real point is that the gloomer conspiracy "I told you this was hopeless" message is really not about politics at all, but about psychology. I am sure Jeff does not have a candidate for POTUS (correct me if Im wrong Jeff, maybe you like the egotistical loser RN), because that would imply that there is actually a possibility for something positive.
The gloomer approach to reality has spread to some extent among the population, probably because of the truly difficult period we are in, and especially because we are living through what I believe to be the worst administration in US history.
I think it is time to stop indulging in gloom. As Sandy Knauer has put it in a marvelous post, it really is time to win the game, and take our country back. We dont need more gloom, we need change.
Socialism is their "Utopia;" but there is no refuge in it.
What is it about socialism that we seem to fear so much? Its not perfect but to be a doom and gloomer is sure not the answer. But Mark there is enough blame to go around without focusing on just one group. I am liberal as I am dependent on many social programs. So if you are wealthy you will support a candidate that looks out for you. Thats how we think. But being at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder I realize I have to look out for for those that have for if I dont their loses will trickle down to me. We need to realize that we are not in this mess along and vote accordingly.
The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.
The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.
Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.
Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could? Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.
Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."
PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to
22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans.
PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.
The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.
On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.
Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.
Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.
In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.
Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.
The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, is a group founded in 1997 that has been agitating since its inception for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act, a bill that painted a veneer of legality over the ultimate designs behind such a conflict. The names of every prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him for not implementing the Act by driving troops into Baghdad.
PNAC has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to a Hussein opposition group called the Iraqi National Congress, and to Iraq's heir-apparent, Ahmed Chalabi, despite the fact that on 31 counts of bank fraud. Chalabi and the INC have, over the years, gathered support for their cause by promising oil contracts to anyone that would help to put them in power in Iraq.
Most recently, PNAC created a new group called The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by PNAC members, The Committee has set out to "educate" Americans via cable news connections about the need for war in Iraq. This group met recently with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and means of this education.
Who is PNAC? Its members include:
* Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the PNAC founders, who served as Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr.;
* I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top national security assistant;
* Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also a founding member, along with four of his chief aides including;
* Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, arguably the ideological father of the group;
* Eliot Abrams, prominent member of Bush's National Security Council, who was pardoned by Bush Sr. in the Iran/Contra scandal;
* John Bolton, who serves as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security in the Bush administration;
* Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official and present chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board;
* Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, who was Trent Lott's national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;
* Bruce Jackson, Chairman of PNAC, a position he took after serving for years as vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, and who also headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign. His section of the 2000 GOP Platform explicitly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein;
* William Kristol, noted conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, a magazine owned along with the Fox News Network by conservative media mogul Ruppert Murdoch.
The Project for the New American Century seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the fighting of several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. The first has been achieved in Bush's new budget plan, which calls for the exact dollar amount to be spent on defense that was requested by PNAC in 2000. Arrangements are underway for the fighting of the wars.
The men from PNAC are in a perfect position to see their foreign policy schemes, hatched in 1997, brought into reality. They control the White House, the Pentagon and Defense Department, by way of this the armed forces and intelligence communities, and have at their feet a Republican-dominated Congress that will rubber-stamp virtually everything on their wish list.
The first step towards the establishment of this Pax Americana is, and has always been, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of an American protectorate in Iraq. The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are allies of the United States.