Why Obama is Keeping Gates

[autorank]

Why Obama is Keeping Gates

Put your :tinfoilhat:'s on but I've got evidence.

Zbig Brzezinski testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Feb 1, 2007 and said these amazing words:

Brzezinski on the Path to War with Iran, Feb. 11, 2007

Bush was making serious waves about the Kuds Force and Iranian leaders selling weapons to Iraq. It was a classic excuse to attack. Zbig Brzezinski blew Bush's cover at a Senate hearing, Gates, in Europe, gave the most tepid support imaginable (which was to dismiss the Bush urgency), and General Peter Pace, then head of the joint chiefs, was found by Voice of America in some obscure hideaway. He flat out undermined Bush's claim about the sale of weapons the day before Bush's press conference. Clearly Gates didn't go along with the lies.

From the article:

The National Security Adviser to former President Carter testified before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 1 Feb 2007. Dr.Zbigniew Brzezinski delivered a scathing assessment of the core mistakes made by the Bush administration in the Middle East. Just before describing what he termed the mythical historical narrative of the policy, he offered a scenario that the Bush administration might use as a convenient invitation to attack Iran.

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.. (.pdf of Brzezinski’s testimony)

Note: The emphasis by underlining and the use of quotation marks around defensive is found in the original copy and presumed to be that of Dr. Brzezinski.

The remarkable wording is that Iran is “blamed.”

"…blamed on Iran…" Does that mean that they did it?

Snip

Just a week after Brzezinski outlined the modus operandi for the Bush crew, the supposed voice of reason at the Pentagon is selling a story of Iranian subversion. Trying it out on the road in Munich, Germany before the homeland premier, Gates indicated that weapons were found with Iranian serial numbers.

"I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found" that point to Iran, he said.

Gates' remarks left unclear how the U.S. knows the serial numbers are traceable to Iran and whether such weapons would have been sent to Iraq by the Iranian government or by private arms dealers.

Compare Gates’ tentative assertion to this whopper used to justify Gulf War I: “They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die” said the Kuwaiti Ambassador’s daughter, who, by the way, had never seen anything of the sort. Gates’ tentative serial number claim is no way to whip up war fever. Even the AP reporter bluntly questioned his ability to know just what it is about those serial numbers that gives them that tell-tale Iranian look.

-------------
Then this. When the nukes went missing, there was huge outrage in the USAF and by Gates. He appointed uber smart guy James Schleschinger to head a small group to investigate. The results are below. The Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief were unceremoniously sacked and replaced as described in this article. It was a coup getting rid of those who had been behind the missing nukes and a purge of an extreme faction within the Air Force, all initiated and carried out by Gates. The gravity of the situation was choosing Schlesinger to do it, a true heavyweight. Also note, last paragraph of the article below. The new Chief of the Air Force shut down the "Cyber Command," probably because it was a neocon special.

New Air Force leaders lay out top priorities

By Erik Holmes - Staff Writer
Posted : Friday Aug 15, 2008 5:49:24 EDT

In their first briefing with reporters as the Air Force’s new leadership team on Tuesday, acting Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz preached accountability and attention to detail, and pledged to get the Air Force back on track.

“My pledge to all today is that the Air Force will keep the promise to our teammates and to our families and to all our partners that rely on us every day,” said Schwartz, who took over as chief Tuesday morning. “Precision and reliability is our standard regardless of job or specialty, and we will return the vigor and the rigor to all the processes and missions for which we have been entrusted.”

Donley said he and Schwartz’s top priorities in the months ahead will be supporting the war on terror; fixing the nuclear enterprise; placing a greater focus on getting more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to the war zone; fixing the Air Force acquisition system; and modernizing and recapitalizing the aging fleet.

The acting secretary also said senior officers fingered in a report by Navy Adm. Kirkland Donald on the Air Force’s nuclear problems could be fired or otherwise disciplined within weeks. He said a review of senior leader accountability is due to him during the next couple weeks, and that he will decide how to proceed shortly thereafter.

snip

Schwartz appeared to backtrack on the Air Force’s plan to stand up its new Cyber Command by Oct. 1. He said the mission will go forward, but that the organizational structure of the mission and how it will integrate with the Defense Department and U.S. Strategic Command are still being considered.

-------------
This is why Gates is staying on. Despite his prior record (and I'm no fan of his), he came through by working the Pace to stop the Bush march to war in Feb 2007 by giving Bush no support for his "smoking gun" on the Kuds Force and a rationale for attack. He also cleaned up the Air Force after the nuke incident and fired no only the top dogs but went into the ranks, as the article says, to clean out the neocon supporters.

This saved a lot of lives and kept the neocons and Bush from totally ruining the country.

That allows Gates to stay for a year, avoid the awful taint of service for Bush, and help Obama do what he wants to do with someone who performs well under pressure and resisted the worst insanity of the Bush neocon administration.

[jody]

1. Presidents cannot just vote "Present" & it will be interesting to see how many decisions Obama makes

that are primarily his rather than that of special interest groups as is common in the Oval Office.

[autorank]

2. It will.

This one makes sense. The others, I'll wait to comment (e.g. Geithner). But there's one amazing
story around the Gates deal.

[formercia]

36. We debunked the Iranian supplied IED story on DU

I also discussed it on John Kerry's old message board. Having first-hand knowledge of the facts didn't help their bullshit story to fly. Bush gang knew their story wouldn't wash on close examination.
Specialists were sent to examine the 'so called' Iranian supplied weapons and they debunked it as well.

It was the US that supplied the EFP weapons technology to the insurgents in Afghanistan in the 80's.

Since Bin Laden was on the US and Saudi payroll at the time....How many degrees of separation does it take?

I would imagine that people were telling Junior to shut the fuck up before Americans find out that it was US and not Iranian technology that was killing GI's in Iraq.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. Ooooh, good one

Truly, he's the biggest cipher to have achieved this office in many decades. Maybe he really is the wily character that we've been scolded he is and he'll finally break with habit and make forthright stands; there's no hiding now.

[The Backlash Cometh]

35. Maybe he's playing the role of Gary Sinese in the movie Ransom?

[tabatha]

5. If, after the campaign he ran, you think that Obama is not in charge

and will be the leader, then I think you are blinded by false meme that Obama avoids making decisions.

I am impressed by Obama's bravery in the face of the unadulterated crap that was thrown him - not only to not reply in kind, but to overcome and win.

[autorank]

19. Where does it say he's not in charge or that this is even a bad move.

Obviously Obama made the decision to keep him on. He indicated as much during the campaign
when he complimented Gates. That was around the Air Force change announcements on 8/15.

Where's the criticism of Obama?

Gates has a pretty rough record in the past but clearly was no flunky for Bush and probably kept the
lid on. That's a real service, if I'm right, and would make him a logical choice.

[stillcool]

8. "present" votes are "no" votes..

and are often used when a bill is a good bill, but there is language in it, or parts of it that a lawmaker has problems with. I'm surprised that people are still using the use of 'present' votes in the Illinois State Senate, as well as elsewhere, against Obama, implying that a 'present' vote is not a vote at all.

[jody]

9. If as you assert, "'Present' votes are 'no' votes" then the person should have voted "Nay". Also if

you are correct, then Obama has voted "Nay" on an issue that he tried to avoid being classified as opposing.

All that doesn't matter anymore because President Obama will not be allowed to vote "Present" meaning that he either signs a bill or vetoes it.

I'm confident he will do just fine with the experienced people he is choosing and the legions of special interest lobbyists eager to help him make the right decision in signing or vetoing a bill.

[stillcool]

13. Why is it so hard to understand?

A "Present" vote IS a "No" vote, but with an explanation. You don't think a legislator should be able to vote that he/she has a problem with the bill in it's current form, but in favor of the spirit of the bill? Why do you think the 'land of Lincoln' uses the "Present" vote in it's legislature?

edit to add...

"There's a saying in Springfield that there's a reason why the present button is yellow," Miller says.

But Miller says that not all "present" votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama.

"After having put some thought into it, I don't think that Barack Obama was necessarily a coward for voting present on those bills. In fact, I think he believed that he was doing the right thing, because something, in his mind, might have been unconstitutional," Miller says.

Miller points out that, at times, Obama was the only lawmaker voting "present" on bills winning near unanimous support, even on issues he supported and on one he sponsored.

Chris Mooney is a political science professor at the University of Illinois, Springfield.

"A person as cerebral as Sen. Obama might be prone to such a thing, thinking things through a little too carefully," Mooney says.

Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote "present" as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy.

Pam Sutherland is the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. She says Obama voted "present" at least seven times to provide cover to other abortion-rights supporters on such bills as the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437

An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.

In more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy.

For a juvenile-justice bill, lobbyists and fellow lawmakers say, a political calculus could have been behind Mr. Obama’s present vote. On other measures like the anti-abortion bills, which Republicans proposed, Mr. Obama voted present to help more vulnerable Democrats under pressure to cast “no” votes.

In other cases, Mr. Obama’s present votes stood out among widespread support as he tried to use them to register legal and other objections to parts of the bills.

[Dis Pater]

24. Present on a bill he co-sponsored?

That's a good one.

[stillcool]

25. Yeah it is, isn't it?

however who knows what was in the final language of the bill? Do you?

[Dis Pater]

27. doesn't matter

still funny, don't you think?

[stillcool]

28. well..at least he didn't write it..

[AmyCamus]

15. "present" votes are gutless cop-outs.

Period.

[stillcool]

22. Are you familiar with the State Senate?

‘Present’ Perfect

By ABNER J. MIKVA
Published: February 16, 2008

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON should probably be forgiven for not remembering the course on the state Constitution that she would have had to take as an eighth grader in Illinois. But had she remembered it, she would have known that Senator Barack Obama was not ducking his responsibility in the Illinois Senate when he voted “present” on many issues.

Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a “constitutional majority” to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a “present” vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote “present,” it fails.
-------------------------------
In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.

I recall voting “present” on many bills when I was in the Illinois Legislature. In the 1960s, for instance, I voted “present” on the annual highway appropriations bill. Like many of my fellow senators, I thought some of the money being allocated should have gone to public transportation. Still, I didn’t want to vote no, because I did not want to stand against the basic principle of maintaining our public roads. So I voted “present.”

It never occurred to me or to any of my critics that I was ducking responsibility for a making a decision. Mr. Obama was an outspoken member of the Illinois Senate, and not someone known for dodging questions, whether they were on ethics, police responsibility, women’s choice or any other hot-button issue.

Even if Senator Clinton does not remember the constitutional majority requirement in Illinois, one of her advisers might have explained it to her. When I was White House counsel, President Clinton frequently reminded me that he had taught constitutional law before he ran for public office. I would hope that he would assume that another constitutional scholar — Barack Obama — would be aware of his voting responsibilities as a state legislator.

Abner J. Mikva has been an Illinois state legislator, a United States congressman, a federal judge and, from 1994 to 1995, White House counsel. He now directs the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html?ex=1360818000&en=1417ee63155d4086&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[Lisa0825]

29. I would bet she is familiar with the explanation....

as are most people. Those who choose to accept the meme that it was a dodge are being disingenuous. Their motive is to discredit Obama. I won't elaborate further on why. There are a few glaring options.

[AmyCamus]

34. The Illinios State Senate has a built-in Gutless Cop Out.

"Because everyone else was doing it," is a simple minded excuse.

[stillcool]

43. Where do you live?

and on what basis do you make that statement? Seeing as how a 'present' vote is a "NO" vote, but with an explanation, why do you find it problematic? Is it too difficult to understand?


Illinois legislators have been casting "present" votes since at least 1931, according to the House clerk's office.

A recent survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri and Texas allow similar options in at least one chamber.

[quiet.american]

17. It will be much more interesting to see how many you actually give him credit for. nt

[jody]

32. I'm confident history will give credit where credit is due. n/t

[quiet.american]

38. Interesting answer. nt

[autorank]

40. "Credit crisis"

The issue of credit I'm concerned about is giving Bush and Co. credit for all the crimes that they've
committed. In that case, I think the public insistence will drive policy. We've got teens going to
jail on felonies for stealing a $200 radio or a bag of pot, but Bush and Co. can steal, like,
conspire, and kill on a massive scale and they're about to take a walk.

Credit where credit is due, I agree.

[AtomicKitten]

3. The best thing I can say about Gates is that he wears a Bush Countdown watch.

I can understand Obama seeking the road of least resistance, but I was hoping for real change in foreign policy. Stacking the deck with hawks, some more innocuous than others, provides little relief from the growing anxiety about where we're headed. However, hearing that Samantha Power is still in the mix is good news today.

Happy T-giving, Mike!

[lin_e65]

6. Following Obama

AtomicKitty,
Maybe he needs to settle the big mess that's going to be dumped in his lap pretty soon and needs a more "hawkish" group to do that. Also, just because he has good intentions, doesn't mean everyone else in this world is going to play nice. Let's see where this leads and what we'll need to do is let Obama know where we stand.

[AtomicKitten]

7. The good news is that Obama has made it clear the appointment is temporary.

Perhaps it will make implementing his draw-down of troops in Iraq more palatable if it is done under the helm of hawks. It's only fair that they clean up their mess.

[trollybob]

12. I know it seems far-fetched to think that anyone Bush appointed

is anything other than a complete asswipe, but I think we have to trust Obama until evidence to the contrary. Besides, can you think of anyone who would be in charge of the military who wouldn't be a hawk?

[AtomicKitten]

14. he is probably the least egregious of the hawks, plus it's temporary n/t

[autorank]

20. Right, I read one year in the past couple of days.

Nobody is talking about the Zbig testimiony form 2/2007. That's a block buster, totally wild.

He's threatening to expose the whole game if Bush goes ahead and attacks Iran.

He talks about a fake terrorist attack to justify the war, etc. It's almost like he's going to
blow the whistle on PNAC. Wow!

[goclark]

31. I sure trust Obama more than McPain and Co.

We were damn lucky that the Democrats fought like hell and won this time.

Damn lucky.

Every time I see Obama's face on my screen I recall the bad dream that would have been "My Friend" over and over and over and over.

[truedelphi]

10. This is very good news if true.

I am sure that many in our military have done about Bush what the frustrated German military used to do about Hitler "we put our hands in our pockets, but curled them in fists."

Hoping you can also explain away my Geithner and Summers concerns, but heck, for now, I am pretty happy with my bowl of Miso soup and turkey and ranberries on the side.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.

[bleever]

11. Excellent background, and analysis.

I think in retrospect, Gates will be a prime example of Obama taking charge of the levers of government by using the best (non-crazy) technocrats and masters of byzantine governmental structures, and using them to implement his own vision.


And Happy Thanksgiving, autorank! We have much to be thankful for this year. :toast:

[autorank]

21. Well, Gate knows power.

He's a real Mandarin of the highest order. Invading Iraq was over the top and he didn't cooperate.

I think much of the hysteria about Iran after that time was just a waste. That pdf of Zbig's
testimony is amazing. He's threatening them big time - like he'll tell if they do it. And
Pace undermining Bush the day before the press conference, damn. Not many noticed, like 7 Days in
May or whatever;)

Happy New Year to you and lets pray for divine intervention to retire Al Davis!!!

:toast: to you!!! and the Golden State = 78% turnout, 61% Dem President. It looks like a fair
vote count (MN also had 79% or more) and the SoS web site reeks of transparency!

[AmyCamus]

16. No young, smart, Democrats were available?

Spinning Obama's choice to keep a Bush owned warmonger on board is a fool's game.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

18. No matter how you slice it

Gates is a criminal of the highest order. No getting around that fact.

[autorank]

23. Keepin GITMO open, other torture, etc.

He's got a rotten history. This is an explanation of how this happened, imho.

I was amazed when that whole series of events went down - Brzezinski's testimony, Gates "fumbling"
the ball when he was supposed to endorse Bush's madness, and Pace sinking Bush by saying the Kuds
Force was not selling weapons in Iraq. May not like any of them but in this capacity, the represented
the "sane party" - the people who don't want total self destruction. In this case, the enemy of
my enemy was a friend, case specific.

At the time, I wrote about it and asked someone WTF Brzezinski was up to stopping a war. He said,
"It's just not his war." That's how I feel.

I'd like a clean sweep and criminal action for anyone who broke the law but that doesn't change this
bit of history.

Read Zbig's pdf, it's a total threat to PNAC, a game of chicken. The WWW Socialist paper covered it
right from the start and even interviewed Brzezinski right after the testimony. AP had a decent story
that was pulled in a hurry, then I wrote about it. Great story, but we don't get people linking the
dots...ever! That's why there's even a Gates to stay on.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

26. Gates is the quintessential

embodiment of the imperial Washington Consensus.

Are you familiar with Roger Morris' three part series on Robert Gates?

If not I highly recommend it.

[autorank]

39. Thanks for the tip

Morris is highly credible. Loved his Clinton piece;)

I will look at it. Yep, Gates is that man. Scary stuff day in and day out. Unlike Rice, Gates
actually gets stuff done, which is not so good for those done in. It shows how completely out
of control Bush was, delusional almost, when the three -- Gates, Brzezinski, and Pace had to
stop him (I'm assuming Brzezinski was a knowing participant with the other two, who certainly knew
what they were doing.

Have you noticed these articles, "We Should be Ashamed" etc.* They all should be changed to "THEY" etc
"WE" didn't do a damn thing. These are usually the authors who claim that the citizens are a buch
of rubes, which is not the case. No more Bush or Bushismo ...

(* "Us" versus "Them" -- http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00402.htm )

[Bucky]

30. I just don't think the Bushies ever really had a plan to go to war with Iran

They had talk & ambitions & probably wet dreams about invading Iran. They egged each other own from their own little safe fiefdoms in the federal bureaucracy, but no one was willing to stick his head out and take point on bringing about a new war. So they had all their little immature chatter--like with the Quds Force business--and the general drift toward some reckless incident that comes with macho posturing in the Middle East. But like with Kristina & organizing the occupation of Iraq, they were pretty much flat-footed as far as actual preparations were concerned.

So, yeah, Zbig Brzezinski popped their cork on that one track toward a show down with Iran, but what he did was not blow the whistle on a false casus belli, just show that the emperor had no clothes where this one reckless rumor was concerned. I don't think they have anything so simple to "pay off" Gates over. I think they just want to keep some other powerful faction quiet and compliant--possibly big defense contractors.

Obama is certainly paying off some big debts with his string of mainstream appointments and Gates never seemed to be anything but a shoe in--which pisses off everyone who want a Democrat in that slot. I just hope Obama got a good deal for whatever he traded in that chip for. If it helps get us real heathcare reform and a second Obama, he can appoint the ghost of Jesse Helms to oversee the withdrawal for all I care. The president says they'll be out in 16 month---and I'm certain that in 21 months it'll be a done deal.

[autorank]

41. I agree in part but this was real

I think a lot of the preoccupation with an Iran attack after this time was non productive.

But Zbig didn't go before Congress to debunk a storyline. This was serious stuff. The actions of
Gates, deliberately fumbling the ball on the "Kuds Force" was telling and then Pace, interviewed
by VOA in the South Pacific, totally undermining Bush's arguments and certainty was a huge clue.
Had Bush disagreed with him, Pace would have been honor bound to resign. It was quite something
and, imho, quite real. The rest of the war talk was an afterthought. If one doesn't agree on
Gates actions of non support and Pace's defiance, then Brzezinski's actions don't connect but
it's compelling to me. We may know some day.

Check this out. Barry Grey was the only reporter to vigorously pursue the story. Here are his
comments on the lack of coverage:

"Thus Brzezinski opined that a US military attack on Iran would be an aggressive action, presented as though it were a defensive response to alleged Iranian provocations, and came close to suggesting, without explicitly stating as much, that the White House was capable of manufacturing or allowing a terrorist attack within the US to provide a casus belli for war.

It is self-evident that such testimony at an open congressional hearing from someone with decades of experience in the US foreign policy establishment and the closest ties to the military and intelligence apparatus is not only newsworthy, but of the most immense and grave import. Any objective and conscientious newspaper or news channel would consider it an obligation to inform the public of such a development.

Yet neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post carried so much as a news brief on Brzezinski’s testimony in their Friday editions. Nor did USA Today or the Wall Street Journal. All of these publications, of course, have well-staffed Washington bureaus and regularly cover congressional hearings—especially those dealing with such burning political questions as the war in Iraq." http://wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f03.shtml

Why, indeed, didn't they cover it. Great story.

[Bucky]

33. I'm recovering from surgery so I'm posting while high here. So I get these odd reads at times...

and for a second there, you really got my attention with a subject line like... "Why Obama is keeping goats"

You can't begin to appreciate the images that just went rushing thru my mind just now.

The drug part comes in now, when I'm starting to actually see some advantages to a US president with African family raising goats at the White House.

Of course Woodrow Wilson kept these bleaters on his law in WW1....


                                  But that was just so he could have his yard men drafted...

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. I can't tell you how encouraging that sounds to me, Miguel. I always believed

there were patriots in high places, as well.

To paraphrase your hilarious valediction:
Next year in Byzantium!

[autorank]

44. If we can just find it!

We'll follow the Venetian fleet;)

In this case, we were helped by people who, for whatever reasons, stopped a suicidal attack by this
country. This is not an endorsement of Brzezinski's world view, which I find strange and dated, or
Gates CIA record, which promoted Soviet parity at a time when they were tanking. It's just
what very much appears to have happened.

Any port in a storm matey.

[judasdisney]

42. Gates is the gatekeeper of False Flag Terrorism.

Gotta keep him to keep an eye on him.

Gotta keep him to hold BLAME over his head, so there won't be a 9/11 while he's Defense Minister.

[autorank]

45. My compliments

Your'e deeper into this than I am;)

:hi:

[judasdisney]

48. Robert Gates claims to have "invented" Al Qaeda

Robert Gates, in his autobiography, claims to have had the "idea" for a multipurpose Sunni fundamentalist "loose cannon" organization that could be organized and funded for purposes of multiple geopolitical objectives of the CIA. According to Gates, however, the CIA never went through with the idea.

http://theforvm.org/diary/bill-white/robert-gates-and-the-creation-of-al-qaeda

[EFerrari]

46. An argument could be made that the War on Terra is just the Contra War

and the Salvador Option after globalization.

Of all of Obama's nominations, this one makes the most sense in practical terms.

[judasdisney]

47. the Salvador Option

The Salvador Option has many antecedents & corollaries.

Part of the Salvador Option bears a strong resemblance to Operation Phoenix (Vietnam), and one of the first operations in the early months (2003) of the Iraq War was an assassination program of Iraqi intelligensia -- so that they couldn't build a real democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/international/middleeast/07ASSA.html?ex=1391490000&en=1d4f662cec46b775&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Phase 2 of the Salvador Option is the Death Squads, which were a much earlier phenomena than El Salvador -- the Death Squads come from Operation Condor, the CIA/DINA international intelligence effort at exterminating "Leftists".

My opinion is that Operation Falcon is "Phase 3" of Operation Condor. This will be a U.S.-based but international program to hunt down and exterminate, once and for all, democracy (read: "Leftists").

You can find the early dress-rehearsal for Operation Falcon here:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/14/fugitive.arrests/index.html

More links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program