The current Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is in the news lately over his endorsement of Barack Obama's plan for withdrawing troops on a sixteen-month timetable, but yesterday in Washington it was a former Iraqi prime minister, Iyad Allawi, who was making news. And it wasn't good news for Maliki.

Allawi, a former Baathist and an Iraqi nationalist, heads the Iraqi National List party in Iraq, and he served as the first prime minister of a sovereign Iraq until elections gave power to the Shiite religious parties. Allawi is a Shiite, but a secular one, who appeals to both Sunnis and Shiites. After quitting the Baath party, Allawi lived in exile and he was supported by MI-6 and the CIA, and he returned to Iraq in 2003. He makes no secret of wanting to replace Maliki, who is a confirmed sectarian with close links to Iran.

Last September, Allawi tried to arrange clandestine meetings between Iraqi resistance forces under Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former aide to Saddam Hussein, and US commanders in Iraq.

Yesterday he testified in front of a subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to discuss the proposed US-Iraq status of forces agreement (SOFA) and the parallel US-Iraq strategic framework.

Allawi blasted the so-called surge, saying that it failed in its primary objective, namely, to end the Iraqi civil war and foster political reconciliation. He said that General Petraeus personally came to his house early in 2007 to assure him that the surge would accomplish its intended objective. Instead, things got worse, said Allawi.

"There is an urgent need to build nonsectarian institutions," he told the committee. Sitting alone, dressed conservatively in a gray suit, Allawi said that Iraq's police and army are still organized on a sectarian basis. Asked about the importance of US training for Iraqi forces, Allawi said, "The issue is not training. By and large, training is secondary." The problem, he said, is that the police and army are not loyal to Iraq, not loyal to a national chain of command, but report informally to Shiite militias.

Asked by subcommittee chairman Rep. Willian Delahunt (D.-Mass.) if the Iraqi army was composed of sectarian militias that have just "exchanged uniforms," Allawi replied, "Unfortunately, this is the case." He said that he'd discussed the problem directly with President Bush and General Petraeus, but without answer.

Allawi said that thirteen members of his party had been assassinated by thugs tied to the army and police. "They were killed by people in uniforms, dressed in police and army uniforms. We had not only thirteen killed, but we had hundreds arrested." Such arrests and killings, Zimbabwe-style, made a sham of the 2005 and 2006 elections. Backed by more than 100 Iraqi parliamentarians, Allawi is trying to ensure the UN and Arab League observers keep a close watch on provincial and national elections in 2009. (Originally scheduled for October, 2008, the provincial elections will likely be postponed because of Kurdish sabotage of the election law over its Kirkuk provisions.)

Most of the militia gangs who've infiltrated Iraq's security forces are tied to the Iran-backed Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and its Badr Brigade, who provide Maliki's main political support.

Allawi stressed the Iraq's constitution, which he called "divisive," needs to be rewritten.

Allawi demanded that the Iraqi parliament be given a chance to review any US-Iraq accords signed by Bush and Maliki.

In testimony before Allawi, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute pooh-poohed Iraqi public opinion, which is strongly opposed to a continuing US presence. The only thing that matters, said Pletka, a hardcore neocon, is what America wants, Iraqi public opinion be damned. She ridiculed Iraqis, suggesting that most Iraqis believe that there were no Jews in the World Trade Center on 9/11. "If we polled Iraqis about the number of Jews in the World Trade Center, their answer is not likely to reflect reality," she huffed. So why take Iraqis seriously when they say that they want US forces to withdraw? She added:

The question of the extension of the United Nations mandate that governs the allied presence in Iraq has received undue attention, and distracted from the very real question of American interests. ...

Some have suggested that Iraqi parliamentarians who have expressed concern about the shape of any bilateral agreement with the United States should carry the day. Their views, however, are theirs alone. These parliamentarians are responsible to their constituents. Their opinions regarding immunity for American service people, contractors, the nature of American bases in Iraq and all else are questions to bring to their side of the table. We have our own side.

Maliki, who'd like the US to stay in Iraq indefinitely to continue training his security forces, is under great pressure from Iraqi nationalists, including Muqtada al-Sadr, to support the timetable idea.

Sadly, only four -- four! -- members of the House of Representatives bothered to attend the Allawi hearing: Democrats Russ Carnahan, Rosa DeLauro, and Lynn Woolsey, and Republican Dana Rohrabacher.

Comments (10)

1. "Sadly, only four -- four! -- members of the House of Representatives bothered to attend the Allawi hearing: Democrats Russ Carnahan, Rosa DeLauro, and Lynn Woolsey, and Republican Dana Rohrabacher."

   Probably because it's irrelevant.

   And I don't say that snarkily, just factually. Obama OR McCain, we'll be out of Iraq by 2010...both men have said or hinted (in McCain's case) that that's what they want.

   After that, Iraq can handle its own problems and al-Maliki can become a "President-for-Life"...as long as long as he's relatively nice to us, Israel, and the Oil Companies....just like the Saudis and the Gulf sultans.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 1:26pm

2. Allawi is a CIA front, and is being used by Bush as a bargaining chip in his negotiations with Iraq over the status-of-forces agreement.

   Bush is essentially trying to send a signal to Maliki that "if you don't play ball, we will put our guy -Allawi - back in charge so we can get what we want.

   Allawi has absolutely ZERO credibility, as it was he who claimed Sadaam possessed weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the invasion!

   I'm glad most of Congress missed his testimony as it is clear that he is simply being used by Bush to try to justify continued American presence in Iraq and control of Iraqi oil by US oil companies.

   And why do we care what Danielle Pletka has to say about anything? If she doesn't not respect the opinion of Iraqis concerning their own country, then she obviously has no regard for the democratic process and is just like a lot of neocons who think they can dictate their views to the rest of the world.

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2008 @ 1:46pm

3. Only a fool would place any credence on Malicky's support for the Obana plan. He knows it's all hype.

   Posted by frankgrits at 07/24/2008 @ 1:50pm

4. >>>Only a fool would place any credence on Malicky's support for the Obana plan. He knows it's all hype.

   Posted by frankgrits at 07/24/2008 @ 1:50pm <<<

   It certainly is better than John McSame's 100-years-in-Iraq plan thank bankrupts the US economy and continues to attract hostility toward America from the Muslim world.

   If McCain cannot offer anything different than the Bush occupation of Iraq, then he REALLY IS a third-term Bush presidency!

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2008 @ 1:59pm

5. It probably should not surprise anyone to learn that figures in the Iraqi "government" right now have ties to militant groups and will try to organize death-squad activity against political rivals. FWIW, Allawi's "engagement" with the former Ba'athist elements etc. constitutes the potential for a coup. All those guys over there right now play real hardball with each other, they're ugly people living in an ugly world that we helped create first with our creation of the ugly Saddam Hussein and then with our ugly invasion and occupation.

   As above, so below. If you don't want to want witness the worst of man, then don't give into the worst of man and precipitate a disaster that produces the worst of man in spades. The history of US "interventionism" in the Middle East is a fine example of how sewing the sees of hatred and destruction can produce a bountiful harvest.

   Posted by Zero at 07/24/2008 @ 2:16pm

6. Hmm. I guess that whole greeting us with open arms and flowers thing still isn't true. A lot of people seem to want us to leave. Oh well. LETS TURN THIS INTO A MILITARY OCCUPATION!!! That way we can fight a real war, where we are fighting the entire country not just "insurgents"

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 2:47pm

7. Posted by frankgrits at 07/24/2008 @ 1:50pm

   Geez...of course. FRANK (and McCain) know what the Iraqi people want more than their so-called "Prime Minister"!

   Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 3:37pm

8. The only thing that matters, said Pletka, a hardcore neocon, is what America wants, Iraqi public opinion be damned. She ridiculed Iraqis, suggesting that most Iraqis believe that there were no Jews in the World Trade Center on 9/11. "If we polled Iraqis about the number of Jews in the World Trade Center, their answer is not likely to reflect reality," she huffed. So why take Iraqis seriously when they say that they want US forces to withdraw? She added:

   What kind of horseshit is this!? First of all, what difference does it make if there were Jewish people killed in the 9/11 attacks or not? What about the people who weren't Jewish? Don't they count!!

   Pletka is an idiot wrapped up in a moron to steal a line for 2.5 men. Even if most Iraqi's believed that, what the hell difference does that make on what they have to say about "THEIR" country. Gee, with the same logic, if Americans voted against a neocon, who cares what they have to say, the neocon should be president.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/25/2008 @ 12:33pm

9. There is evidence that only three Israelis were killed at the WTC on 9/11.

   Other Israelis were warned by Odigo.

   ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------

   Additional Titles

   Other Monteith Articles:

   The Peak Oil Myth

   More Montieth Articles:

   THE TRUE STORY OF 9-11 PART 4

   By Dr. Stanley Monteith July 22, 2007 NewsWithViews.com

   Most Americans weren't aware of the threat of Islamic fundamentalism before the "terrorist attack" on September 11, 2001. Where did the radical Islamic movement come from? When did it begin? The modern-day Islamic movement originated in 1977 when the CIA began funding the rebel organization that were trying to destabilize the communist government that ruled Afghanistan. By December 1979, the Soviet-backed regime was on the verge of collapse, so the USSR invaded Afghanistan to keep their puppet government in power.[1]

   Saudi Arabia, Pakistani Intelligence (the ISI), and the CIA recruited Moslem soldiers from Islamic countries, and paid them to fight the Soviet invasion. The men were trained in terrorist tactics, they were given copies of the Koran and they were told about the importance of Islamic Jihad.[2] In an effort to insure the success of the effort to promote radical Islam, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) paid $51 million to have Islamic text books printed that stressed the importance of Jihad, and killing Infidels. If you find that difficult to believe, I suggest you obtain a copy of the article titled "Teaching ABCs and Jihad" that appeared in the April 1-7, 2002 issue of The Washington Post National Weekly Edition.[3]

   Zbigniew Brzezinski, (CFR-TC) controlled U.S. Foreign policy at that time, and was responsible for the CIA's effort to foment the resurgence of "radical Islam". Initially he denied the charge that he orchestrated the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but nineteen years later, in 1998, Brzezinsky admitted he intentionally precipitated the Afghan war because he wanted to bankrupt the USSR, and end the Cold War.[4]

   Robert Dreyfuss's book, Devil's Game, traces the history of rebirth of the Islamic fundamentalist movement, and quotes Zbigniew Brzezinski's admission that:

   "‘Containing Soviet Communism,' said Brzezinski, ‘dictated an avoidance of anything that might split Islamic opposition to the Soviets, especially a U.S.-Iranian military confrontation. It now seemed to me more important to forge an anti-Soviet Islamic coalition'. As in the 1950s and 1960s, the United States hoped to use Islam against radical, secular forces and their atheist ally, the Soviet Union. Carter administration officials now recognized the new possibilities for cooperation with Islamic resurgence and hoped to harness its ideological and material resources against Communist expansionism."[5]

   When Zbigniew Brzezinski was interviewed by Nouvel Observateur in 1998 he admitted his intention was to provoke a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and when he was asked if he regretted supporting the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, he replied:

   "What is more important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"[6]

   Is that true? I don't believe Zbigniew Brzezinski was concerned about the Soviet threat because he understands the conflict between the US and the USSR is contrived to divert attention from our true enemy, the CFR and TC Globalists who want to end the sovereignty of our nation. I believe Brzezinski planned the current conflict in the Middle East because he wants to bankrupt the United States, and create a world government. If you find that view difficult to believe, I suggest you read my book, Brotherhood of Darkness, check my documentation, watch my interview with Professor Antony Sutton, (The Best Enemies Money Can Buy), read Professor Suttons's book, National Suicide, and obtain a copy of the "Aid and Trade Documents" that Congressman Larry McDonald published before he disappeared in 1983.[7]

   In the Introduction to his book, Devil's Game, Robert Dreyfuss wrote:

   "After 2001, the Bush administration appeared to sign on to the neoconservative declaration that the world was defined by a 'clash of civilizations,' and launched its global war on terrorism, targeting Al Qaeda - the most virulent strain of the very virus that the United States had helped create."[8]

   Did the CFR - TC create the Islamic terrorist movement to justify their effort to monitor and control the American people?

   The World Future Society is one of many front organizations that the Trilateral Commission uses to promote world government. The November-December 1994 issue of their magazine (WFS), The Futurist, contains an article titled "The Future Face of Terrorism" that states:

   "The next 15 years may well be the age of superterrorism, when they (the Islamic terrorist-ed) gain access to weapons of mass destruction and show a new willingness to use them . . . . Terrorists in the early years of the twenty-first century will reflect the causes that excite passion and move people to violence . . . conflict will increase until a new stasis or 'world order' is established."[9]

   How did the author of the article know what lay ahead? At that time the World Future Society's logo was a circle that contained three sixes – 666, similar to the Trilateral Commission's logo that contains three 6's--666.

   Advertisement

   Most people are distressed by the long lines they encounter at airports, and the fact that the government began monitoring private phone calls after the attack on the World Trade Center. Were those things planned before the terrorist attack? On August 4, 1996, five years before the 9/11 attack, Richard Haass, the current Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the TC, wrote an article that was published in The Palm Beach Post titled: "Land of The Free Makes a Tempting Target". Richard Haass wrote:

   "The war against terrorism is a war with an unlimited number of battles, none of them decisive . . . . What price are we prepared to pay? The price will be financial and personal. People will have to accept longer lines before entering buildings, longer delays at airports, more intrusive searches of belongings and our persons, and higher ticket prices to pay for all of this . . . . Greater vigilance will also involve a willingness to compromise some of our civil liberties, including accepting more frequent phone taps and surveillance . . . .Those who would resist paying such a price should keep in mind that terrorism could well get worse in the coming years . . . there is evidence that the terrorist challenge is entering a new phase." [10]

   Over 300 million people live in the U.S. at the present time, yet almost all of the important posts in industry, banking, academia, the military, and government are held by members of the CFR and the North American Group of the Trilateral Commission. Is that an accident?

   Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR - TC) contends the Middle East is the center of the world, and the U.S. must dominate that region. He wrote:

   "As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War. It was rooted . . . in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms. In the absence of a comparable external challenge, American society may find it much more difficult to reach agreement regarding foreign policies . . . ." (underlining added-ed)[11]

   Zbigniew Brzezinski believes the public must believe they face an "external challenge."

   Members of the "Project For the New American Century" (PNAC), primarily made up of members of the CFR and the TC, contend there must be a "widely perceived direct external threat" to justify U.S. control of the world. Their publication, Rebuilding America's Defenses, (2000) states:

   "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." (underlining added)[12]

   Thomas Kean (CFR), and Lee Hamilton's (CFR-TC) book, "Without Precedent" described Condaleezza Rice's (CFR) testimony before the 9/11 Commission. When Rice was asked "why more had not been done to take defensive measures in response to the threat reporting over the spring and summer:'

   "she told the Commission the public wasn't prepared to support President Bush's effort to take drastic action against Al Qaeda. There had to be a catastrophic event that forced people to think differently….Rice pointed out that the nation simply wasn't prepared to take dramatic action against al Qaeda before 9/11 - either abroad or in reforming government at home - and said, 'Until there is a catastrophic event that forces people to think differently, that forces people to overcome all customs and old culture and old fears about domestic intelligence . . . you don't get that kind of change.'" (underlining added)[13]

   The 9/11 attack forced the public to overcame their "customs and old culture and old fears about intelligence," and justified the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

   When the 9/11 Commission asked Donald Rumsfeld why the Bush administration didn't try to prevent the terrorist attack:

   "Rumsfeld acknowledged the spike in reports of possible al Qaeda attacks in the spring and summer of 2001, saying, 'There was a good deal of concern. It was certainly not business an usual.' In response, he said the Bush administration was putting together a more 'comprehensive policy' to go after al Qaeda than the Clinton administration's, a process that did not conclude until September 10, 2001."[14]

   Donald Rumsfeld claims President Bush's plan to destroy al Qaeda was completed the day before the 9/11 attack. Twenty-six days later the U.S. deployed military forces in Afghanistan, but failed to capture Osama bin Laden or destroy al Qaeda. Why did that happen?

   H.L. Mencken wrote:

   "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."[15]

   There is much more to this story, but it will have to wait until the next article.

   Millions of Americans know something is seriously wrong. We must help them understand the spiritual force that is orchestrating the current war in the Middle East.

   Click here for part -----> 1, 2, 3,

   Footnotes:

   1, How the CIA created Osama bin Laden 2, Ibid. 3, Joe Stephens et al, "Teaching ABCs and Jihad," The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, April 1-7, 2002, p. 14. 4, John Cooley, Unholy Wars, Pluto Press, Virginia, 1999, p. 19. 5, Robert Dreyfuss, Devil's Game, Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2005, p. 265 . 6, Ibid., p. 5 7, Available from Radio Liberty, 800-544-8927. 8, Robert Dreyfuss, op cit, p. 265. 9, Marvin Cetron et al, "The Future Face of Terrorism", The Futurist, November-December 1994, pp 10 and 15. 10, Richard Haass, op. cit. 11, Zbigniew Brzezinski, op. cit. 12, Rebuilding America's Defenses, p. 51, 13, Thomas Kean et al, Without Precedent, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2006, p. 180. 14, Ibid., p. 161. 15, H.L. Mencken, The Patriot Post, July 26, 2006.

   © 2005 Stanley Monteith - All Rights Reserved

   Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

   E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

   ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------

   Dr. Stanley Monteith has been studying the movement to create a world government for almost 40 years. During his 35-year career as an orthopedic surgeon he traveled to Europe, lived in South Africa, and researched the records of the men and the organizations that are working to bring our nation under the control of a corporate elite.

   Dr. Monteith currently spends five hours daily on talk radio across the nation. He writes extensively, and lectures on geopolitics. He is the author of AIDS: The Unnecessary Epidemic and his most recent book Brotherhood of Darkness is in its 8th printing.

   RADIO LIBERTY, P.O. BOX 969, SOQUEL, CA. 95073 -- 800-544-8927

   Web-Site: www.radioliberty.com

   E-Mail: DoctorStanRadio@aol.com

   Posted by Rese at 07/26/2008 @ 09:21am

10. http://newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley7.htm

    Posted by Rese at 07/26/2008 @ 09:30am