| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:58 am Post subject: WOODWARD BLOWS LID OFF NEOCON CONSPIRACY FOR IRAQ WAR |
| The interview with B Woodward on Bush. Read the excerpts and visit the link_ Here is a man disconnected from reality.
CBS- 60 Minutes- “Plan of Attack,” ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml )
the first detailed, behind-the-scenes account of how and why the president decided to wage war in Iraq.
Woodward permitted 60 Minutes to listen to tapes he recorded of his most important interviews, to read the transcripts, and to verify that the quotes he uses are based on recollections from participants in the key meetings. Both CBS News and Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Woodward's book, are units of Viacom.
Woodward says that many of the quotes came directly from the president: “When I interviewed him for the first time several months ago up in the residence of the White House, he just kind of out of the blue said, ‘It's the story of the 21st Century,’ his decision to undertake this war and start a preemptive attack on another country."
Another EXcerpt:
Woodward reports that just five days after Sept. 11, President Bush indicated to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that while he had to do Afghanistan first, he was also determined to do something about Saddam Hussein.
”There's some pressure to go after Saddam Hussein. Don Rumsfeld has said, ‘This is an opportunity to take out Saddam Hussein, perhaps. We should consider it.’ And the president says to Condi Rice meeting head to head, ‘We won't do Iraq now.’ But it is a question we're gonna have to return to,’” says Woodward.
“And there's this low boil on Iraq until the day before Thanksgiving, Nov. 21, 2001. This is 72 days after 9/11. This is part of this secret history. President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically, and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, ‘What have yo!
u got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.’"
Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam -- and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
”Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war possible,” says Woodward.
“Gets to a point where in July, the end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn't know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved. …Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodward says there was a lot happening that only key Bush people knew about.
”A year before the war started, three things are going on. Franks is secretly developing this war plan that he's briefing the president in detail on,” says Woodward. “Franks simultaneously is publicly denying that he's ever been asked to do any plan.”
Another Excerpt:
“That decision was first conveyed to Condi Rice in early January 2003 when he said, ‘We're gonna have to go. It's war.’ He was frustrated with the weapons inspections. He had promised the United Nations and the world and the country that either the UN would disarm Saddam or he, George Bush, would do it and do it alone if necessary,” says Woodward. “So he told Condi Rice. He told Rumsfeld. He knew Cheney wanted to do this. And they realized they haven’t told Colin Powell, the secretary of state.”
Excerpt on Saudi Amb!
assador Prince Bandar:
But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador.
”Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, ‘Top secret. No foreign.’ No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this,” says Woodward.
Excerpt on Saudi Oil & Bush Election:
Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election -- to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.
Woodward says that Bandar understood that economic conditions were key before a presidential election: “They’re [oil prices] high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.”
Last Excerpt---Chilling
The president still believes with some conviction, that this was absolutely the right thing, that he has the duty to free people, to liberate people. And this was his moment,” says Woodward.
But who gave President Bush the duty to free people around the world? “That's a really good question. The Constitution doesn't say that's part of the commander in chief's duties,” says Woodward. “That’s his stated purpose. It is far reaching, and ambitious, and I think will cause many people to tremble.”
How deep a man is President George W. Bush? “He’s not an intellectual. He is not what I guess would be called a deep thinker,” says Woodward. “He chastised me at one point because I said people were concerned about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. And he said,
Well you travel in elite circles.’ I think he feels there is an intellectual world and he's indicated he's not a part of it … the fancy pants intellectual world. What he calls the elite.”
How does the president think history will judge him for going to war in Iraq?
“After the second interview with him on Dec. 11, we got up and walked over to one of the doors. There are all of these doors in the Oval Office that lead outside. And he had his hands in his pocket, and I just asked, ‘Well, how is history likely to judge your Iraq war,’” says Woodward.
“And he said, ‘History,’ and then he took his hands out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if this is a way off. And then he said, ‘History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.’” | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:00 am Post subject: MORE ON THE JINSA/PNAC NEOCON WARMONGERS |
| Excellent post which is absolutely right on..
AMERICANS WAKE UP BEFORE WE LOSE EVEN MORE SOLDIERS FOR ISRAEL IN IRAQ AND BEYOND. SEE THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ON HOW WAR WITH SYRIA IS BEING DRUMMED UP BY THE NEOCONS AND THEIR ISRAEL FIRSTER SUPPORTERS IN THE US PRESS/MEDIA:
HERE IS THE JINSA/PNAC EXCUSE TO GO INTO SYRIA:
http://www.rense.com/general51/sixh.htm
UPRISING IN IRAQ: ATTACK IRAN:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/04/19/uprising-in-iraq-attack-iran.php
Also see how this JINSA/PNAC Zionist hack Dick Cheney pushed Bush to get us into Iraq for Israel (and Halliburton/Bechtel as Cheney used to be the CEO of Halliburton as well):
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk0910.html
Here is the 'Men from JINSA and CSP' article from 'The Nation' which Fisk mentions in the above article about Cheney's association with JINSA/PNAC (now you know why Cheney pushed so hard for the Iraq invasion as Woodward mentions in his new book which was discussed on '60 Minutes' earlier tonight):
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
Also, be sure to read the 'War Conceived in Israel' article which is linked under the map of 'greater Israel' after scrolling down to it on the left side at www.nowarforisrael.com
ALL FOR ISRAEL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/04/17/all-for-israel.php
MORE ON THE JINSA/PNAC NEOCONS AND THEIR CONSPIRACY AT THE WHITEHOUSE TO GO TO WAR (FOR ISRAEL) AS CONVEYED BY BOB WOODWARD ON '60 MINUTES' EARLIER TONIGHT (AS WOODWARD WILL BE ON WITH 'LARRY KING' TOMORROW ON CNN):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/03/10/jinsa-pnac-zionist-neocon-spy-unit-skirted-cia-on-iraq.php
Scroll down to where it mentions www.warwithoutend.co.uk and Richard Perle at this URL for the full story of how we invaded Iraq for Israel:
http://expatsagainstbush.typepad.com/home/2003/10/political_leani.html
NO US SOLDIER SHOULD HAVE TO DIE IN IRAQ FOR ISRAEL TO GET OIL:
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
INSIDE THE JINSA/PNAC NEOCON PENTAGON:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/04/18/inside-the-neocon-pentagon.php
READ (VIA THE FOLLOWING URL) HOW AMERICAN JEW JACK BERNSTEIN WARNED US (IN HIS 'LIFE OF AN AMERICAN JEW IN RACIST/MARXIST ISRAEL') THAT ZIONISTS IN ISRAEL AND IN THE USA WOULD TRICK US INTO FIGHTING MIDDLE WARS FOR ISRAEL (LIKE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN IRAQ) AS YOU CAN SEE THE COFFINS RETURNING HOME FROM IRAQ IN THE PICTURE AT THE TOP OF WWW.WHATREALLYHAPPENED.COM as the JINSA/PNAC Necon cabal in the current Bush regime doesn't want US to see that picture as they are quite content to continue to have US soldiers dying in Iraq for Israel:
http://www.rense.com/general31/lifeof.htm
Bin Laden warned us in 1998 that we would be attacked if our government continued to support Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinian people (but the 'protect Israel first' US press/media did not report this to Americans to the extent that it should have):
http://www.investigate911.com/binladensez.htm
>Subject: Re: 700 US TROOPS DEAD FOR ISRAEL IN IRAQ
>Date: 4/18/04 7:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>From: Ewe n0 who
>MsgId: <20040418224511.00704.00007827@mbs-m03.aol.com>
>
>
>>Subject: 700 US TROOPS DEAD FOR ISRAEL IN IRAQ
>>Date: 4/18/2004 1:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>From: MORRIS434
>>MsgId: <20040418132417.28898.00045974@mbs-m05.aol.com>
>>
>>
>>ALL FOR ISRAEL:
>>
>>http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/04/17/hamas-rantisi-assassinated.php
>
>
>> news:20030414152137.00107.00000575@mb-fs.aol.com...
>> > No War 4 Israel
>> >
>> > The spies who came in from the art sale - Some reporters have said what
>U.S.
>> > and Israeli officials don't want to hear
>> > http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-13/fishwrapper.html
>> >
>> > Israel to kill on U.S., allies' soil
>> >
>http://whatreallyhappened.com/ARCHIVE/United%20Press%20International%20Isr
>> > ael%20to%20kill%20on%20U_S_,%20allies''%20soil.htm
>> >
>> > THE ISRAELI SPY RING SCANDAL
>> > http://whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
>> >
>> > Massive Israeli Spy Ring Connected to 9/11
>> >
>http://www.americanfreepress.net/03_10_02/Massive_Spy_Ring/massive_spy_rin
>> > g.html
>> >
>> > Israeli Spying on US
>> >
>http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/9-11/FoxNewsIsraeliSpyin
>> > g.html
>> >
>> > The Israeli Connection to 9/11
>> > http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j072602.html
>> >
>> > 9-11, Mossad, the CIA and "False Flag Operations"
>> >
>http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/9-11/911MossadCIAffr.html
>> >
>> > Was 911 A Mossad 'False Flag' Operation?
>> > http://www.rense.com/general21/was911mossad.htm
>> >
>> > American Media Censorship and Israel
>> > http://www.ccmep.org/ccmep/american031902.html
>> >
>> > I have been sitting on the fence for a long time, but now I'll take a
>stand --
>> > Israel is the motivating force for our invasion of Iraq. Israel now wants
>us to
>> > go after Syria. While the Zionist news media plays 24/7 coverage of
>"Operation
>> > Iraqi Chaos", Israel is busily murdering Palestinians and American
>citizens in
>> > the territories it illegally occupies. All this with absolutely NO
>coverage on
>> > FOX, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, or any other major American news outlet.
>> >
>> > Unless and until the US drastically changes its severely lopsided foreign
>> > policy in the Middle East, Americans are in danger both at home and
>abroad.
>> >
>> > Things have gotten so bad that any criticism of the Israeli government by
>US
>> > citizens is now considered "unpatriotic" and "anti-American"!
>> >
>> > It has to stop. Now. Down with radical Zionism!
>> >
>> > "Every time we do something, you [Shimon Peres] tell me America will do
>this
>> > and will do that... I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry
>> > about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control
>America, and
>> > the Americans know it."
>> >
>> > - Ariel Sharon
>> > Israeli Prime Minister
>> > Knesset, Tel Aviv, October 3, 2001
>
>
>
>Odigo Says Israeli Workers Were Warned of 911 Attack 2 Hours Before
>http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/
>
>Rice: Israel's Security is Key to Security of Rest of World | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:46 am Post subject: GENE WARS: Neo-cons maniuplated Bush into this war for Israe |
| Subj: GENE WARS: Neo-cons maniuplated Bush into this war for Israel's interests not America's...
Date: 4/19/04 4:21:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: RePorterNoteBook
GENE WARS
by H. Millard (c) 2004
http://www.newnation.org/Millard/Gene-Wars.html
It wasn't a good week for America. The killing in Iraq continued. American bodies were dragged through the streets and strung up on a bridge like bloody slabs of beef. Mogadishu all over again, they said. I thought Il Duce. Elsewhere, our military people seemed to be sitting ducks to an ever more confident and effective Iraqi resistance. The Iraqis now have move than 600 American notches on their guns. There'll be more. Maybe a lot more.
Many Iraqis, and most of the rest of the world look at us as the bad guys. The equation is simple. Iraq didn't attack the U.S. The U.S. attacked Iraq. Therefore, the U.S. is the aggressor. The neocons with their neoconspeak try to spin the Iraq mess as though we're doing something noble. They say we're bringing freedom and liberty to the Iraqis. More and more Americans aren't buying it. In fact, the neocons maniuplated Bush into this war which is really about Israel's interests not America's.
One has to believe that even some of the Stepfordized among us must be wondering about the disparity between neocon propaganda that says we're loved by the Iraqis, and pictures of a ten year old kid gleefully mutilating American bodies. Which is it? Are we loved or are we hated? As I've written before about this Bush neocon crowd, ignore their words and trust your eyes. The truth (something that isn't very common in the White House) is that the Iraqis are treating us as though we are invaders who attacked their nation for no good reason. Don't they know we're bringing them freedom? Maybe not. We closed down one of their newspapers this week because we didn't like what the newspaper was printing. Maybe that is keeping the Iraqis from reading that we're bringing them freedom.
We're caught on a merry go round of history. Our troops have become the Red Coats to the Iraqi Minutemen. The Iraqis strike and melt away. President George plays the part of King George. I predicted this would happen. I claim no prescience, just common sense. That, like truth, is something that seems to be missing in Washington.
Some think that Fallujah may become the Lexington and Concord of Iraq. The big mouth neocon shills on the Bush News Network and neocon talk radio--you know the ones, the soft skinned, manicured fingernails, styled hair guys who never served in the military--are talking tough again and saying that we should move into Fallujah and hit the Iraqis hard. Bad advice, but attractive to the knee jerk crowd. If we do that, we'll just make the situation worse. Fallujah is a city. It is not a military base. It is full of women and children. Even hitting a civilian population easy brings many atrocities that are hard to hide and lie about. Hitting them hard is the stuff of Time magazine covers and world condemnation. Our military needs to handle this right.
This Iraq nonsense may be increasing the quiet but subtle despair and sickness of the soul that seems to have taken hold in post-American America. We are not an ebullient nation anymore. We have become the empty eyed unsmiling people seen in Great Depression photos. Most Americans probably know that we're in the wrong in Iraq, but most don't want to admit it yet. They just shuffle their feet and look at the ground. It's that old propaganda line about not criticizing the president when we're at war. Of course, Bush's war looks as though it's going to be forever, so I guess no one will ever be able to criticize him.
Whether most Americans admit it or not, we are the aggressors. We have no moral foundation for that aggression. There was no Peal Harbor. No Alamo. No Maine. The 9/11 attack in New York isn't the same thing. The Iraqis weren't the Japanese, the Mexicans, or the Spanish. It wasn't Iraqis who flew those planes into those towers, and most Americans know that.The Iraqis did nothing to us. Nevertheless, the neocon shills pushed us to war and are now trying to convince Americans that we're in the right. Call it the present Big Lie. But, it's not flying. Listen to the silly Bush News Network just about any night and you'll hear one of the shallow hosts say something like this: "We may not have found any weapons of mass destruction, but Saddam was a bad guy and the world is a better place without him." This opiate-like line is supposed to assuage our collective guilt and make us feel good as a nation and make us think we did the right thing. But, most of us know right from wrong. And, we know that we're wrong no matter what the phony neocon propagandists say.
Noble cause? We're ants. There's much more to this Iraq mess and all similar messes. The war in Iraq and all other wars and conflicts past and present aren't ultimately about ideology or religion or nations or terrorism. They're not about right and wrong, good and bad. Those are just some of the reasons humans think there are wars and conflicts. All of these concepts are too small.
Wars and conflicts are about one thing and one thing only: Gene dominance.
Iraq is a gene war. All wars are gene wars. Most humans may never be able to really understand this, because humans are as blind as ants to the gene directed actions we take. Humans are also philosophically blinded by the false belief that they have an almost unfettered ability to chose what they do. Few humans realize that they are manipulated seven ways from Sunday every day of their lives, and that much of the manipulation comes from their genes.
Some adults will smile that smug knowing smile when they see children acting and speaking in the same manner as their parents. These adults know that the children have been influenced into the things they do and say by the parents, but the children are often unaware of this fact. The adults needn't be smug. They too are as children and are being influenced not only by their own genetic programming but also by external propaganda. All the while, these humans--these ants with two legs--are thinking that they are making choices based on their reason alone.
Twin studies tend to offer evidence of this. The literature is full of seemingly odd but real life stories of identical twins separated at birth and raised by different adults, who end up later in life making the same choices right down to some of the smallest details. Some of these twins, many of whom didn't even know they had a twin, end up buying the same makes and colors of cars, wear the same types and color clothes, cut their hair the same way, take the same types of jobs, give their kids the same names, vacation at the same places and much more. Where did all of these decisions come from? Their free will? A psychic connection? Nonsense. It came from their genes. They were programmed with certain likes and dislikes and their so-called "free will" choices simply did what the genes had influenced them to do. Now, they could have made different choices--free will--but when left to their own devices, they didn't. "They" chose what they chose because they liked this or that. If asked, they would probably tell you that they made conscious decisions to do whatever they did. Sure they did. In fact, their genes influenced them in their choices and they only thought that they had used unencumbered free will.
The Bush administration keeps saying that most Iraqis welcome us and that we're wining. We heard that same sort of talk during the Vietnam war. In fact, such lies kept coming right up to the end when we jumped on helicopters and planes and got out of that country. The real result of the Vietnam gene war is that it helped make America less white.
Approximately 50,000 white Americans died in Vietnam. This is a far higher number than for any other race in our armed forces, and represents more than 80% of all Americans killed in that war. What did they die for? Nothing. Actually, less than nothing. Their deaths diminished the white gene pool. Today, we're friends with our former enemies in Vietnam. Wouldn't it have been better to have let the Vietnamese handle their own squabble? What about all the white children who weren't born because their white fathers died before they became fathers? Suppose, just to speak in generalities, that those 50,000 dead white Americans hadn't died. Further suppose that each had two children apiece. That would mean 100,000 more white Americans in addition to the 50,000. Many of those 100,000 children of the 50,000 would now be having their own children. This would mean another 200,000 white Americans in addition to the 100,000 and the 50,000 who would be in our cities and towns. And, the 350,000 would grow and grow.
When you kill someone, you kill their genes--their very unique combination of genes--and this removes some cards from the hand of the Cosmic Shuffler. When you kill the best and healthiest among us--usually young military personnel--you may limit our future as a people and you may help with our extinction.
So, the brave, young, active white youths went and died. They became dead ends in their family lines. Those who got various deferments, or who otherwise didn't serve, were left behind to breed. It's almost as though we had taken 50,000 fit race horses from a herd and turned them into glue while leaving a bunch of broken down lame horses behind to breed. What would the herd look like with such a plan? Look around you at the human herd for a clue.
But, there's more. Because of the Vietnam war, there are now approximately 990,000 Vietnamese in the U.S. who have entered the gene pool. With fewer whites and more Vietnamese there are fewer white breeding choices left to white Americans.
Thanks to Bush, get ready for trillions of Iraqi genes to be resettled in the U.S. once that war is over. Add in the millions and millions of Mexican mestizos and their trillions of genes and the Africans with theirs and the Chinese and Koreans and all the other people coming to America with their genes and you begin to see that the gene wars aren't just over there anymore. They're right here at home in post-American America. The gene pool is getting murky.
Will the gene wars ever end? Nope. Genes are programmed to struggle to dominate. They even struggle against each other in our own bodies. To understand that struggle is eternal is to find peace in the chaos of existence.
+++++++
Chinese Axiom:
When things are investigated, knowledge is extended. When knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere. When the will is sincere, the mind is correct. When the mind is correct, the self is cultivated.
--Confucius
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace is patriotic!
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
253 West 72nd street #1711
New York, NY 10023
http://www.RePortersNoteBook.com
Available for Talk-Radio interviews 24hours 212-787-7891
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The QUESTION:
To subscribe and grow with knowledge or
to unsubscribe and Die Stupid?
Send an E-mail to:
RePorterNoteBook@aol.com | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:53 pm Post subject: Neo-Cons, Fundies, Feddies, and Con-Artists |
| Subj: Neo-Cons, Fundies, Feddies, and Con-Artists
Date: 4/19/04 5:23:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Neo-Cons, Fundies, Feddies, and Con-Artists
By Francis A. Boyle
September 18, 2003: It is now a matter of public record that immediately after the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, U.S. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld and his pro-Israeli "Neoconservative" Deputy Paul Wolfowitz began to plot, plan, scheme and conspire to wage a war of aggression against Iraq by manipulating the tragic events of September 11th in order to provide a pretext for doing so.(1) Of course Iraq had nothing at all to do with September 11th or supporting Al-Qaeda. But that made no difference to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, their Undersecretary of War Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, and the numerous other pro-Israeli Neo-Cons inhabiting the Bush Jr. administration.
These pro-Israeli Neo-Cons had been schooled in the Machiavellian/Nietzschean theories of Professor Leo Strauss who taught political philosophy at the University of Chicago in its Department of Political Science. The best exposé of Strauss's pernicious theories on law, politics, government, for elitism, and against democracy can be found in two scholarly books by the Canadian Professor of Political Philosophy Shadia B. Drury.(2) I entered the University of Chicago in September of 1968 shortly after Strauss had retired. But I was trained in Chicago's Political Science Department by Strauss's foremost protégé, co-author, and later literary executor Joseph Cropsey. Based upon my personal experience as an alumnus of Chicago's Political Science Department (A.B., 1971, in Political Science), I concur completely with Professor Drury's devastating critique of Strauss. I also agree with her penetrating analysis of the degradation of the American political process that has been inflicted by Chicago's Straussian Neo-Con cabal. (3)
The University of Chicago routinely trained me and innumerable other students to become ruthless and unprincipled Machiavellians. That is precisely why so many neophyte Neo-Con students gravitated towards the University of Chicago or towards Chicago Alumni at other universities. Years later, the University of Chicago became the "brains" behind the Bush Jr. Empire and his Ashcroft Police State. Attorney General John Ashcroft received his law degree from the University of Chicago in 1967. Many of his lawyers at the Bush Jr. Department of Injustice are members of the right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, and totalitarian Federalist Society (aka "Feddies"), (4) which originated in part at the University of Chicago. Feddies wrote the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) I and the draft for USAPA II, which constitute the blueprint for establishing an American Police State. (5) Meanwhile, the Department of Injustice's own F.B.I. is still covering up the U.S. governmental origins of the post 11 September 2001 anthrax attack on Washington D.C. that enabled Ashcroft and his Feddies to stampede the U.S. Congress into passing USAPA I into law. (6)
Integrally related to and overlapping with the Feddies are members of the University of Chicago "School" of Law-and-Kick-Them-in-the-Groin-Economics (e.g., Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, Richard Epstein,etc.), which in turn was founded upon the Market Fundamentalism of Milton Friedman, now retired but long-time Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. Friedman and his "Chicago Boys" have raped, robbed, looted, plundered, and pillaged economies and their respective peoples all over the developing world. (7) This Chicago gang of academic con-artists and charlatans are proponents of the Nazi Doctrine of "useless eaters." Pursuant to Friedman's philosophy of Market Fundamentalism, the "privatization" of Iraq and its Oil Industry are already underway for the primary benefit of the U.S. energy companies (e.g., Halliburton, formerly under Vice President Dick Cheney) that had already interpenetrated the Bush Jr. administration as well as the Bush Family itself. Enron.
Although miseducated (8) at Yale and Harvard Business School, the "Ivies" proved to be too liberal for Bush Jr. and his fundamentalist Christian supporters, whose pointman and spearcarrier in the Bush Jr. administration was Ashcroft, a Fundie himself. The Neo-Cons and the Fundies contracted an "unholy alliance" in support of Bush Jr. For their own different reasons, both gangs also worked hand-in-hand to support Israel's genocidal Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, an internationally acknowledged war criminal. (9)
According to his own public estimate and boast before the American Enterprise Institute, President Bush Jr. hired about 20 Straussians to occupy key positions in his administration, intentionally taking offices where they could push American foreign policy in favor of Israel and against its chosen enemies such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians. (10) Most of the Straussian Neo-Cons in the Bush Jr. administration and elsewhere are Israel-firsters: What is "good" for Israel is by definition "good" for the United States. Dual loyalties indeed. (11)
In addition, it was the Chicago Straussian cabal of pro-Israeli Neo-Cons who set up a special "intelligence" unit within the Pentagon that was responsible for manufacturing many of the bald-faced lies, deceptions, half-truths, and sheer propaganda that the Bush Jr. administration then disseminated to the lap-dog U.S. news media (12) in order to generate public support for a war of aggression against Iraq for the benefit of Israel and in order to steal Iraq's oil. (13) To paraphrase advice Machiavelli once rendered to his Prince in Chapter XVIII of that book: Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived. (14) As I can attest from my personal experience as an alumnus of the University of Chicago Department of Political Science, the Bible of Chicago's Neo-Con Straussian cabal is Machiavelli's The Prince. We students had to know our Machiavelli by heart and rote at the University of Chicago.
As for the University of Chicago overall, its biblical Gospel is Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind (1987). (15) Of course Bloom was another protégé of Strauss, as well as a mentor to Wolfowitz. In his Bloom-biographical novel Ravelstein (2000) Saul Bellow, formerly on the University of Chicago Faculty, outed his self-styled friend Bloom as a hedonist, pederast, and most promiscuous homosexual who died of AIDS. All this was common knowledge at the University of Chicago, where Bloom is still worshiped and his elitist screed against American higher-education still revered on a pedestal.
In Ravelstein Wolfowitz appeared as Bloom's protégé Philip Gorman, leaking national security secrets to his mentor during the Bush Sr. war against Iraq. Strauss hovered around the novel as Bloom's mentor and guru Professor Davarr. Strauss/Davarr is really the éminence grise of Ravelstein. With friends like Bellow, Bloom did not need enemies. On the basis of Ravelstein alone, Wolfowitz warrants investigation by the F.B.I.
Just recently the University of Chicago officially celebrated its Bush Jr. Straussian Neo-Con cabal, highlighting Wolfowitz Ph.D. '72, Ahmad Chalabi, Ph.D. '69 (the CIA's Iraqi puppet), Abram Shulsky, A.M. '68, Ph.D. '72 (head of the Pentagon's special "intelligence" unit), Zalmay Khalilzad, Ph.D. '79 (Bush Jr's roving pro-consul for Afghanistan and then Iraq), as well as faculty members Bellow, X '39, and Bloom, A.B. '49, A.M. '53, Ph.D. '55, together with Strauss. According to the University of Chicago Magazine, Bloom's rant "helped popularize Straussian ideals of democracy." (16) It is correct to assert that Bloom's book helped to popularize Straussian "ideas," but they were blatantly anti-democratic, Machiavellian, Nietzschean, and elitist to begin with. Only the University of Chicago would have the unmitigated Orwellian gall to publicly assert that Strauss and Bloom cared one whit about democracy, let alone comprehended the "ideals of democracy."
Does anyone seriously believe that a pro-Israeli Chicago/Strauss/Bloom product such as Wolfowitz could care less about democracy in Iraq? Or for that matter anyone in the Bush Jr. administration? After they stole the 2000 presidential election from the American People in Florida and before the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court, some of whom were Feddies? (17) Justice Clarence Thomas is a Straussian to boot. (18)
At the behest of its Straussian Neo-Con Political Science Department, in 1979 the entire University of Chicago went out of its way to grant the "first Albert Pick Jr. Award for Outstanding Contributions to International Understanding" to Robert "Mad Bomber" McNamara. (19) In other words, the University of Chicago itself maliciously strove to rehabilitate one of the greatest international war criminals in the post-World War II era. (20) Do not send your children to the University of Chicago where they will grow up to become warmongers like Wolfowitz or totalitarians like Ashcroft! The University of Chicago is an intellectual and moral cesspool.
Endnotes
1. See, e.g., Rahul Mahajan, Full Spectrum Dominance 108 (2003).
2. Shadia B. Drury, The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988); Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999). See also Alain Frachon & Daniel Vernet, The Strategist and the Philosopher: Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter, Le Monde, April 16, 2003, translated into English by Norman Madarasz on Counterpunch.org., June 2, 2003.
3. See also David Brock, Blinded by the Right (2002).
4. George E. Curry & Trevor W. Coleman, Hijacking Justice, Emerge, October 1999, at 42; Jerry M. Landay, The Conservative Cabal That's Transforming American Law, Washington Monthly, March 2000, at 19; People for the American Way, The Federalist Society (August 2001); Institute for Democracy Studies, The Federalist Society and the Challenge to a Democratic Jurisprudence (January 2001).
5. Francis A. Boyle, Bush's Banana Republic, Counterpunch.org, Oct. 11, 2002.
6. Francis A. Boyle, Biowarfare, Terror Weapons and the U.S.: Home Brew?, Counterpunch.org, April 25, 2002.
7. See Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (2003), at 5 et seq.
8. See Chomsky on Miseducation (Donald Macedo ed. 2000).
9. Francis A. Boyle, Take Sharon to The Hague, Counterpunch.org, June 6, 2002.
10. White House Press Release, President Discusses the Future of Iraq, Washington Hilton Hotel, Feb. 26, 2003.
11. Nasser H. Aruri, Dishonest Broker, 193-216 (2003). See also Tanya Reinhart, Israel/Palestine (2002); Cheryl A. Rubenberg, The Palestinians (2003).
12. Norman Solomon, The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media (1999); Noam Chomsky, Media Control (1997).
13. Seymour M. Hersh, Selective Intelligence, New Yorker, May 8, 2003; Michael Lind, The Weird Men Behind George W. Bush's War, New Statesman - London, April 7, 2003; Julian Borger, The Spies Who Pushed for War, The Guardian, July 17, 2003.
14. Machiavelli, The Prince 147 (M. Musa trans. & ed. 1964): ". . . and men are so simple-minded and so dominated by their present needs that one who deceives will always find one who will allow himself to be deceived." This Bilingual Edition of The Prince by Mark Musa was the one preferred by Joseph Cropsey to teach us students.
15. But see Lawrence W. Levine, The Opening of the American Mind (1996).
16. Between the Lines, University of Chicago Magazine, June 2003, at 54
17. Vincent Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America (2001); Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy 11-81 (2003).
18. Gerhard Sporl, The Leo-Conservatives, Der Spiegel, Aug. 4, 2003.
19. McNamara Receives Pick Award Amid Protests, University of Chicago Magazine, Summer 1979, at 4.
20. Noam Chomsky, Rethinking Camelot (1993); Robert S. McNamara, In Retrospect (1995).
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6050.htm | | | | foppe37 | | Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:21 pm Post subject: end of dialogue |
| My idea is that with now the larger part of Iraq rising against the occupiers, Spain withdrawing its troops, Sharon having assassinated the new Hamas leader within four weeks, with USA consent, talking time is over.
From now on WW III is in full swing.
El Quaida wants Bush as the next USA president, a fool as USA dictator helps to rid the Muslim world of the USA, and thus of Israel.
So no new attacks in the USA until the november elections.
Also attacks against Sapin have been called off.
So mainly Britain and the Netherlands, with, of course, the USA/ Britain in Iraq, and Israel, are targets, for the time being.
What follows is what I sent this morning to the editor of LewRockwell, and some USA bureaucrats in Midland, Texas.
Former senator Findley is not the only one who is worried, on the future of the USA: http://www.wrmea.com/archives/April_2004/0404020.html
EU commissar Patten said two days ago 'the comparison between Iraq and Vietnam is wrong: Iraq is far worse'.
French TV5 just now broadcast a report on Texas, Midland and the bible belt christians.
One Texan said: 'anyone who followed what Bush did when he was governor knows that Bush does not know anything about anything'.
Yet the Texas bible belters radiate divine happiness when they talk about Bush.
Another person said 'this country is going backwards intellectually, and forward religiously, and Bush fits therein'.
The statement 'he could not even manage a baseball team, and now he's president' also was an interesting one.
So Bush in all probabilty, if he's re-elected, as El Quaida hopes, will lead the USA to destruction.
El Quaida promised that the USA will not be attacked again before the November elections, because they need Bush to rid themselves of the USA, and Israel.
The TV5 report was an eye opener for me, if USA citizens indeed are as dumb and ignorant, and patriotic at the same time, as the people shown by TV5, then I can understand how a few neocon imperialists succeeded in USA soldiers giving their lives in Iraq for their sinister purposes.
If it would not, in all probability, end with Israel using its 200 nuclear warheads one might regard it just as one of mankind's bloody follies.
After the USA has been routed from Iraq Israel of course is lost.
The Israeli university lecturer on the history of war Martin Van Crefeld understands this perfectly.
'Israel will not go down alone', he said in an interview with the Dutch magazine Elsevier, and on Dutch public radio VPRO Ochtenden. | | | | foppe37 | | Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:28 pm Post subject: an Israeli Jewish view on Chicago University |
| Maybe you’re interested in this view on Libertarianism.
S.N.Eisenstadt is an Israeli sociologist, Foreign Honorary Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and Foreign Member of the American Philosophical Society.
He is emeritus professor at the Hebrew University of Jeruzalem.
He wrote many books, I will quote from ‘Fundamentalism, Sectarianism and Revolution’, Cambridge UK 1999.
On page 172 he writes about the American right, and I quote:
‘usually members of fundamentalist or evangelical religions, and radical individualists, including “libertarian” businessmen, speculators and their journalistic and academic apologists in departments of economics, particularly at the University of Chicago. …
What binds the two is their hostility to federal regulatory and taxing power or, in a larger sense, their shared conviction that the USA ought to be a largely homogeneous culture, a fairy tale version of its disheveled self, a Disneyland whose brave citizens are free to make their fortunes no matter what the damage to competing interests, where women sing in church when they are not at their stoves incubating embryos, where overt non-conformists are not welcome and the income tax has been repealed’. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:23 pm Post subject: Woodward: Neocons' Separate Government |
| Subj: Woodward: Neocons' Separate Government
Date: 4/18/04 12:19:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: hectorpv@comcast.net
To: hectorpv@comcast.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Friends,
Woodward: Neocons' Separate Government
Bob Woodward’s new book _Plan of Attack_, which will be out next week, has many revelations, or rather confirmations, of the neocon dominance of the Bush administration. Woodward emphasizes Powell’s opposition to the neocon war juggernaut. He presents Powell as having continually cautioned Bush and other administration figures about the likely dangers of invading Iraq.
Woodward describes Cheney as a "powerful, steamrolling force" for war. Powell saw Cheney as being preoccupied with reports of links between Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda. Moreover, Powell believed that Cheney exaggerated intelligence about the Iraqi WMD threat and the alleged terrorist ties. "Powell thought Cheney and his allies — his chief aide, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; and what Powell called Feith's ‘Gestapo’ office — had established what amounted to a separate government." The term "separate government" is not actually accurate. The fact of the matter is that Cheney and the neocons were the actual government. Their ideas and plans became the official plans for the Bush government.
Of course, as far as I can tell, Woodward does not point out that Feith and his group (Abraham Shulsky, etc), Libby, and Wolfowitz are neocons with close ties to Israel. In short, Woodward has illustrated the neocon control of the Bush administration, without actually mentioning neocons, Israel, and especially not the taboo "J" word. But one would not expect the mainstream Woodward to do anything like this. Nevertheless, his work appears very useful.
It is assumed that Woodward got much of the hot information from Powell. Now, of course, the question is what is Powell’s angle here. Powell refers to all his private reservations regarding Bush policy, but he never made any public protest. It would seem that Powell is an opportunist. He went along with the Bush administration when it was riding high. But his fall back position was to point out his differences, if things deteriorated in Iraq. It can be seen as a brilliant move. For in the Woodward book Powell can be seen as a wise figure who had nothing to do with the debacle that Cheney and his people created. At the same time, he did not anger the Republican party by breaking with the Bush administration. Powell can now return to being regarded as a wise sage in the mainstream media. The Powell quasi-defection, I think, underscores how the mainstream, respectable elite has turned against Bush and the neocons.
WOODWARD WILL TALK ON "60 MINUTES" TODAY, SUNDAY AT 8PM!
____________________
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/international/middleeast/17BOOK.html?ei=1&en=64efaf198735ab04&ex=1083168125&pagewanted=print&position=
April 17, 2004
Powell Said to Have Warned Bush Before the War, a New Book Says
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, April 16 — Two months before the invasion of Iraq, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell warned President Bush about the potential negative consequences of a war, citing what Mr. Powell privately called the "you break it, you own it" rule of military action, according to a new book.
"You're sure?" Mr. Powell is quoted as asking Mr. Bush in the Oval Office on Jan. 13, 2003, as the president told him he had made the decision to go forward. "You understand the consequences," he is said to have stated in a half-question. "You know you're going to be owning this place?"
The book, "Plan of Attack," by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, reconstructs that and other private conversations between senior Bush administration officials during the 16-month period of planning and preparation that ended with the attack on Iraq last March.
It has been well known that Mr. Powell was the most skeptical among Mr. Bush's senior advisers about the wisdom of invading Iraq. But the new details described in the book, at a time when the American occupation has met with new perils, add considerably to a portrait of a secretary of state who expressed private reservations about the administration's policy but never issued a public protest about the administration's course.
"Force should always be a last resort; I have preached this for most of my professional life as a soldier and as a diplomat; but it must be a resort," Mr. Powell told the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 14, 2003. "We cannot allow this process to be endlessly strung out, as Iraq is trying to do now."
Mr. Powell is described as having clashed in particular with Vice President Dick Cheney, whom Mr. Woodward describes as a "powerful, steamrolling force" advocating the war who was preoccupied with reports of links between Saddam Hussein and the Qaeda terrorist network. Mr. Powell regarded Mr. Cheney's intense focus on Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda as a "fever," the book says, and he believed that the vice president misread and exaggerated intelligence about the Iraq threat and supposed terrorist ties.
Mr. Woodward's account quickly provoked speculation in Washington that Mr. Powell might have cooperated with Mr. Woodward as the book was being prepared in an effort to distance himself from the Iraq war.
A spokesman for Mr. Powell said Friday night that he could not determine whether the secretary had spoken with Mr. Woodward.
Mr. Powell has made no secret in the past that he has helped Mr. Woodward with other books. Only Mr. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld are identified by the author as having given on-the-record interviews for the book. But conversations between Mr. Powell and Mr. Bush are quoted verbatim in the book, and in the account of the January 2003 conversation, Mr. Bush is identified only as a corroborating source.
Richard A. Boucher, Mr. Powell's spokesman, declined to comment on the book, saying he had not read it and adding: `We won't do book reviews. I promise." Asked if it were true that Mr. Powell and Mr. Cheney were barely on speaking terms, Mr. Boucher said, "I think that's not true."
An official in Mr. Cheney's office said Friday that the vice president and his spokesman were flying back to the United States from a weeklong trip to Asia and would not be available for comment on Friday evening.
The 443-page book, published by Simon & Schuster and to be available in bookstores next week, provides the most detailed account to date of debate and tension within the administration before the war, but it does not add any broad new story lines. The Associated Press published an account of the book's contents on Friday morning; The New York Times also obtained a copy.
In a note to readers, Mr. Woodward writes that he based the book on information "from more than 75 key people directly involved in the events," a model he has used in other books. Following that model, the book does not include footnotes or otherwise identify the source of specific information. When he attributed thoughts, judgments or feelings to participants, Mr. Woodward writes, he obtained them from the person, a colleague with firsthand knowledge, or the written record.
In Mr. Woodward's account of the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell in January 2003, the president is described as having simply informed the secretary of state of his decision to go to war in Iraq, as part of a 12-minute meeting in which Mr. Bush made a conscious decision not to ask Mr. Powell for advice.
But, according to the book, Mr. Bush did ask Mr. Powell "Are you with me on this?" and told him, "I want you with me." Mr. Powell is quoted as having replied: "I'll do the best I can. Yes sir, I will support you. I'm with you, Mr. President."
The book discloses that Mr. Bush privately asked Mr. Rumsfeld in November 2001, just 72 days after the Sept. 11 attacks, to direct his commanders to begin planning for a possible war against Iraq. But it says that Mr. Bush did not make his final decision to start the war until January 2003. (In a televised news conference on March 6, Mr. Bush said, "I've not made up our mind about military action.")
Asked about the account on Friday at a joint appearance with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Mr. Bush said it was difficult for him to recall specific dates that far back. But he called attention to a meeting at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, on Sept. 15, 2001, the Saturday after the attacks.
"I sat down with my national security team to discuss the response, and the subject of Iraq came up," Mr. Bush told reporters. "And I said as plainly as I possibly could: `We'll focus on Afghanistan. That's where we'll focus."'
The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, confirmed on Friday that Mr. Bush had raised the issue of Iraq with Mr. Rumsfeld in November 2001, at a time when American forces were still heavily engaged in the war in Afghanistan. But Mr. McClellan sought to minimize the significance of those discussions, saying that "there is a difference between planning and making a decision."
The exact timing of Mr. Bush's request to Mr. Rumsfeld to begin war planning had not been publicly known, and it had not been known that, as the book reports, Mr. Bush kept that request secret from other top advisers, including Mr. Powell, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence.
But the general time line for war planning that is presented in the book is broadly consistent with other recent accounts, including public statements by Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the retired commander of the Iraq war. It generally upholds the insistence by Mr. Bush and his top advisers that they did not begin their war planning for Iraq until well after the Sept. 11 attacks, even if their attention was fixed on Iraq from early in the administration, as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has written in a recent book.
In an interview with Mr. Woodward in December 2003, Mr. Bush said he had kept the early war-planning directive secret because if news of it had leaked out, it would have caused "enormous international angst and domestic speculation," the book says.
The book also provides new details about the hurriedly arranged airstrike on March 19, 2003, in which the White House jump-started the war with a bomb and missile strike on the Dora Farms compound near Baghdad in a failed attempt to kill Mr. Hussein.
The air raid, advocated by Mr. Tenet, had initially been opposed by General Franks, the book says, but was approved by President Bush and Vice President Cheney after they asked other advisers to leave the Oval Office.
The strike was launched, the book says, on the basis of first-hand reports from Iraqi sources at Dora Farms enlisted by a network of 87 Iraqi spies, designated with the code name DB/ROCKSTARS, who had been recruited by a C.I.A. team that had infiltrated northern Iraq in the months before the war.
In calls by satellite phone to the C.I.A. team, the Iraqi sources reported that Mr. Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay were at the compound, and that Mr. Hussein himself would return there. After the strike, the book says, one Iraqi source reported Mr. Hussein's body had been removed from the wreckage, prompting Mr. Tenet to celebrate what he thought had been a success.
Even now, it is still not clear whether Mr. Hussein was at the site at all, though a C.I.A. official said on Friday that the agency maintained that Mr. Hussein was "probably" there and survived the American raid. Mr. Woodward's book reports that the Iraqi security guard who was the main source of the intelligence was killed in the American attack, but a C.I.A. official said that the Iraqi agents recruited by the agency had proved "extraordinarily productive."
Over a period that began in early 2002, Mr. Powell is depicted as having cautioned Mr. Bush and other advisers repeatedly about the potential drawbacks of military action in Iraq. The "you break it, you own it" principle he cited in delivering those warnings was privately known to Mr. Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, as "the Pottery Barn rule," the book says.
"You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people," Mr. Powell is said to have told Mr. Bush in the summer of 2002. "You will own all their hopes, aspirations and problems. You'll own it all."
Conservatives have long accused Mr. Powell of pursuing his own agenda, and of being more interested in depicting himself as right on the issues than as loyal to his president.
Among the previously unknown episodes presented in the book was a White House meeting in December 2002 in which Mr. Tenet and his deputy, John McLaughlin, met with Mr. Bush and his top advisers for what was intended as a dress rehearsal for a public presentation of the administration's claim that Iraq possessed illicit weapons.
Mr. Bush was not impressed by the presentation, the book reports, and urged that it be refined to make a stronger case to "Joe Public." He is said to have turned to Mr. Tenet and said, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D. and this is the best we've got?"
In response, Mr. Tenet is described in the book as having twice assured Mr. Bush that the intelligence information supporting the American claims meant that the case was a "slam dunk." A C.I.A. official said that Mr. Tenet was reflecting an assessment spelled out in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that declared unambiguously that Iraq possessed both chemical and biological weapons.
___________________________________________
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6047.htm
"Lunacy!" Said Powell On Wolfowitz Iraq Plan
17 April 2004 "PKJ" Bob Woodward’s new book, "Plan of Attack", to be released next week, could be the most damaging haymaker thrown yet at an administration reeling from a series of blows from former top insiders.
Woodward, famous for uncovering the Watergate Scandal, had written previously on President Bush following the events of 911, but this new book is set to shatter the last panes in the hall of mirrors at the Bush White House.
Quotes from Associated Press and the Washington Post:
Secretary of State Colin Powell believed Vice President Dick Cheney developed an "unhealthy fixation" on trying to find a connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Bush in mid-2002 secretly approved the diversion of hundreds of millions of dollars meant for Afghanistan to projects that would set the stage for a massive deployment of U.S. troops to the Persian Gulf region.
Woodward describes a relationship between Cheney and Powell that became so strained that they barely are on speaking terms. Powell believed Cheney was obsessed with trying to establish a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida and treated ambiguous intelligence as fact.
Powell thought Cheney and his allies — his chief aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; and what Powell called Feith's "Gestapo" office — had established what amounted to a separate government.
After being briefed by the CIA on Iraq’s WMDs: "Nice try," Bush said. "I don't think this quite — it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from."
"Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. ... I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for personal strength and for forgiveness."
Wolfowitz proposed seizing Iraq's southern oil fields to build a foothold from which opposition groups could overthrow Saddam.
Powell dismissed the plan as "lunacy."
WOODWARD WILL TALK ON "60 MINUTES" SUNDAY AND ON 'LARRY KING' TONIGHT ON CNN | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:29 pm Post subject: JINSA/PNAC Neocon Agenda Still Alive and Well |
| This Washington Times article seems to indicate that at least some in the US press/media are still pushing the JINSA/CSP/PNAC agenda of doing further regime change in the Middle East (Syria and beyond) for Israel:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040416-112543-3428r.htm | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
