Amanda Angelika wrote:

In news:pgdlb2ho6s3qefq3thlpq6ifae9cgq6q69@4ax.com,
www.peaceinspace.com <truth@r.us> typed:

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:56:23 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:u2sgb21kio6kvsmcuqqiv5isluugjuf2hk@4ax.com,
www.peaceinspace.com <truth@r.us> typed:

On 14 Jul 2006 20:15:17 -0700, wolfbat359a@mindspring.com wrote:

Sir Gilligan Horry wrote:

UNITED NATIONS - The United States blocked an Arab-backed
resolution Thursday that would have demanded Israel halt its
military offensive in the Gaza Strip, the first U.N. Security
Council veto in nearly two years.

The draft, sponsored by Qatar on behalf of other Arab nations,
accused Israel of a "disproportionate use of force" that
endangered Palestinian civilians, and demanded Israel withdraw
its troops from Gaza.

Qatar?  The great conservative ally of Bush!  Yet Iraq has no
comment on Israel = HMMM just another clog in American Empire I
guess!

Israel is a created state, owned, operated and manipulated by
European interests, specifically, the Rothschilds, who stole the
land from the Palestinians.

Is it any wonder why Israel controls the NSA?  It is really
Rothschild operating from the guise of Israel, who owns the US
intelligencia.

Sound's like you've been reading Mein Kampf.

Never read it, nor will I ever.  The pattern is the same, the names
have changed, but the pattern is still the same, and you still have
sociopaths who believe they're the gods of earth appointing a
schizophrenic, sadistic meglomaniac (Bush instead of Hitler) to
torture, maim and create world wars.

Different day, same shit.

It's just that you do tend to go on about the Rothschilds a lot. The thing
is whilst I don't think you would support Hitler or Fascism (from what you
are saying). He did have a tendency to go on about Rothschilds to and the
Jewish conspiracy thing. Obviously Nazism was extremely anti-Semitic,
Hitler's plan was to kill all Jews. Islamic terrorists and indeed many
ordinary Moslems are also extremely anti-Semitic and have similar
sentiments, and in fact in WWII many aligned themselves with the Nazis.

It surprises me therefore that you align yourself against Bush because
fundamentally the war against Terrorism is still a war against Nazism (or
Islamic Fascism) and anti-Semitism. On some levels nothing has changed.

Of course if the Rothschilds, and the Isrealies were behind 911 and have
manipulated all this surely one would have to come to the somewhat
unpleasant conclusion Hitler was right?

It strikes me therefore that a lot of the conspiracy theories are in reality
anti-Semitic, Islamo-Fascist neo-Nazi propaganda. I think there comes a
point where one has to decide where one's own political beliefs lay and
interpret the truth accordingly, regardless of doubts.
--
Amanda

The war as carried out by Bush, is a war by an idiot and an ideologue!:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/14/147205

headline:

Friday, July 14th, 2006
The One Percent Doctrine: Journalist Ron Suskind on the Deliberate U.S.
Bombing of Al Jazeera, Losing Bin Laden and More

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream       Watch 256k stream       Read Transcript
Help      Printer-friendly version       Email to a friend
Purchase Video/CD
Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind joins us to discuss his
new book, "The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of
Its Enemies Since 9/11." In it, Suskind writes that that the U.S
deliberately bombed the Kabul, Afghanistan offices of Al Jazeera in
2001. [includes rush transcript]
Earlier this week, Dima Tahboub - the widow of Al Jazeera correspondent
Tareq Ayyoub - filed a lawsuit against the Bush administration for her
husband's death. On April 8 2003, Ayyoub was reporting from Al
Jazeera's offices in Baghdad when he was killed by a US missile. He was
the first journalist to be killed in Iraq just hours before U.S. forces
seized the capital. At a press conference in Washington D.C earlier
this week, Dima's attorney said the case was being launched in part
because of the disclosure last year in London's Daily Mirror that
President Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair of his desire to
bomb Al Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar. The Mirror cited a secret memo
leaked from the British government.
In the new book, "The One Percent Doctrine," investigative journalist
Ron Suskind writes that that the U.S deliberately bombed the Kabul,
Afghanistan offices of Al Jazeera. He writes, "On November 13, 2001, a
hectic day when Kabul fell to the Northern Alliance and there were
celebrations in the streets of the city, a U.S. missile obliterated Al
Jazeera's office. Inside the CIA and White House there was satisfaction
that a message had been sent to Al Jazeera."

The "One Percent Doctrine" also examines how the Bush Adminstration's
philosophy of separating analysis from action and embracing suspicion
as a justification for the use of American power has shaped its
policies.

Ron Suskind, Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and author of "The One
Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since
9/11." His previous books include "The Price of Loyalty: George W Bush,
the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill" and "A Hope Unseen."

- Website: RonSuskind
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us
provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV
broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind joins us now
in our Firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!

RON SUSKIND: Thanks for having me.

AMY GOODMAN: Let's start on the issue of Al Jazeera and what happened
in Afghanistan.

RON SUSKIND: Well, you know, there are so many things that I found in
two years of investigation. This was one of the surprising things. The
United States denied this, of course. There's so much in the book they
have denied. Now, they can't. It was purposeful. There was great
animosity toward Al Jazeera at that point. It was felt inside the
administration they were the mouthpiece for bin Laden, and that was a
lot of what bin Laden was doing at that juncture. And they wanted to
send a message. They asked Al Jazeera to proscribe things it was doing.
Al Jazeera said we're a media organization, we don't do that sort of
thing. And the headquarters was bombed. It's part of a really secret
interchange between the U.S. government and Al Jazeera and the Emir of
Qatar, the owner of Al Jazeera, that you see throughout the book, which
is quite extraordinary.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, talk more about this. What evidence do you have?
Because this is ongoing. Of course, it didn't just happen in
Afghanistan, as we heard. Tareq Ayyoub, the offices in Baghdad were
attacked. A reporter was arrested on the way to the Putin-Bush summit
in Crawford, an Al Jazeera reporter. And then you have the whole issue
of the Daily Mirror, that secret memo, and Qatar's offices. How do you
know that Al Jazeera was deliberately targeted in Afghanistan?

RON SUSKIND: The sources for this book are senior officials within the
United States government, past and present, such that each one of the
disclosures in the book has been sourced with many impeccable sources.
Some of this occurs, you know, this is years after the event. Once you
pass a certain timeframe, I think folks say, "Well, what do we have
to fear about the truth?" Certain people do, and those folks
essentially are represented in this book. There's not a doubt about
this sort of thing, about the thing we're mentioning, as to the Kabul
bombing.

As well, I think what you see throughout the book is the
administration's belief in the value in almost the mystical kind of
power of the use of force. This is the key -- one of the key things
that's different here. There was hesitation about use of force with
other administrations, because often force creates backlash, creates
more problems than you solve. Not with this administration, certainly
not after 9/11.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, a key aspect in reading your book is just the
title, The One Percent Doctrine. Could you talk about what is the 1%
doctrine, who's behind it, and how it has effected this policy on the
war on terror.

RON SUSKIND: The book fixes finally accountability. Some things people
suspected but had been denied or they couldn't attach essentially
action with outcome, many of those are now over. It's in the book. It's
clear. The 1% doctrine comes from a meeting that the Vice President has
in November of 2001. And it's one in the White House in the situation
room, in which he receives a harrowing bit of intelligence. Pakistani
nuclear scientists had sat with bin Laden and Zawrahi a few weeks
before 9/11 to discuss the issues of nuclear feasibility for al-Qaeda.
This intelligence is delivered to the Vice President. Folks from the
CIA and NSC are there.

And the Vice President says two things. He says we need to think in a
new way about these low probability, high-impact type events, a
different way. And then, by the end of the briefing, he has that
different way. He says, "If there's even a 1% chance that WMDs have
been given to terrorists, we need to treat it as a certainty, not in
our analysis or the preponderance of evidence," he demurs, "but in
our response." At this moment the Vice President officially separates
analysis from action, allows for an evidence-free model to move
forward, and says suspicion may be all we have to use the awesome
powers of the United States.

This defines events, episodes, incidents all the way to now, moving
forward from that point -- Iraq, Afghanistan, the global war on terror.
What's fascinating about it is that people have different names for it
inside of the upper reaches of the government -- the 1% rule, the
Cheney doctrine -- but it allowed the United States to essentially
operate in an evidence-free realm, using the extraordinary forces at
our disposal. And we all know the countless outcomes of that, which the
U.S. now is embarrassed by.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the justification being that the catastrophic
potential of underestimating an even suspicious threat was so great
that you have to act as if even your suspicions are facts.

RON SUSKIND: Right. Look, Cheney basically says, you know, evidence is
going to be too much here. Cheney is feeling frustration after all of
his years in government with the sort of search-and-find model.
Evidence often is tricky. It leads you in directions you don't want to
go. At this point, he's saying, "Enough. We're not going to have it.
We can't expect it. It's too high a threshold. We're going to have to
act for good reason, bad reason or no reason. Action itself is an
inherent good." And that really guides events from that moment
forward.

There are lots of folks who will look at this and say, "What choice
does the Vice President have? We're all in the state of panic at this
point. It's two months after 9/11. They're thinking about a second wave
attack." But what you see is that there has not been a fundamental
change in this policy or a correction in the five years since this
event and this moment, Cheney really running the foreign policy of the
U.S. -- the book shows that clearly -- is innovated by Dick Cheney.

AMY GOODMAN: Why does the CIA call Cheney "Edgar"?

RON SUSKIND: Well, that's one of the nicknames inside of CIA for the
Vice President, Edgar Bergen. I guess you all are old enough to know
who that is -- some younger listeners of yours may not be -- the famous
ventriloquist and his puppet Charlie McCarthy. Look, there are lots of
nicknames. This one is nasty and probably half-true. People inside of
CIA and inside of other parts of the government saw early on that the
way these two men worked, Cheney and Bush, is that Cheney essentially
is the global thinker of the pair. He's created an architecture, a
platform of sorts, in which George Bush can be George Bush and still be
president. He, inside of this framework, embraces his instinct, his
gut, acts as a man of action. But Cheney really is the designer of the
architecture and also the global thinker of the pair. That is made very
clear in the book through many, many incidents in which you're in the
Oval Office, in the room.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Ron Suskind, won the Pulitzer Prize while
working as a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book is
The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies
Since 9/11. We're going to go to break. When we come back, I want to
ask you about slam dunk comment. You say what Bob Woodward reported
actually wasn't true, one of the stories that led us into war. Stay
with us. .. (cont)

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2006/07/13/lessons_unlearned_why_bush_is_failing_in_iraq/

BOOK REVIEW
Lessons unlearned: Why Bush is failing in Iraq
By Steve Weinberg, Globe Correspondent  |  July 13, 2006

The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End,
By Peter W. Galbraith, Simon & Schuster, 260 pp., $26

Books criticizing the three-year-old presence in Iraq of US military
personnel and civilian contractors abound. Each of those books,
naturally, offers a somewhat unique perspective. Of all the books I
have read, Peter W. Galbraith's ``The End of Iraq" contains the most
useful information for readers across the bitterly divided spectrum:
readers who support George W. Bush's war policy and readers who oppose
it, readers who already know a lot about the history of Iraq and
readers who are mostly unschooled, readers who believe the United
States should serve as the world's police force and readers who believe
socioeconomic problems within American boundaries ought to receive
priority.

Before learning about the unalloyed virtues of Galbraith's book, know
this: It is a bitter book, an indictment of Bush, Vice President Dick
Cheney, and many others who serve the administration. Although
Galbraith is a Democrat , the indictment is based not so much on
partisan politics as on Galbraith's outrage at the administration's
failure to make decisions based on historical and contemporary fact .

Unlike many critics and supporters of the American presence in Iraq,
Galbraith has considerable firsthand experience in that part of the
world. As a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff member during
the 1980s and 1990s, he traveled there multiple times and also saw
reams of non-public information provided to Congress. Since leaving
government service, Galbraith has been to Iraq more than a dozen times,
as a freelance writer and as a consultant to ABC News. Furthermore,
Galbraith has watched another nation, Yugoslavia, atomize along ethnic
and religious lines much as Iraq has done. During the Clinton White
House years , Galbraith served as an ambassador to Croatia while
helping to mediate a ceasefire of sorts in the former Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia is especially relevant to a discussion of the book's
overarching messages: Neither Yugoslavia nor Iraq ever should be
considered a legitimate ``country" in semantic terms, with an easily
identifiable national interest. Instead, those locales served as
constructs convenient to outside powers like the United States, places
where traditionally warring populations became unwilling neighbors in
the interests of postwar geopolitical compromises.

In modern-day Iraq, the mix involves three primary group s: the Shiite
Persian branch of Islam, the numerical majority; the Sunni Arab branch
of Islam, a sometimes violent minority as exemplified by dictator
Saddam Hussein; and the Kurdish population, who considered themselves
worthy of a separate nation.

So, Galbraith wonders, given peoples who despise one another, why would
Bush or anybody else who understands the lessons of history invade
their territory under the guise of establishing a unified democratic
government?

In one of his more charitably worded criticisms, Galbraith writes,
``With regard to Iraq, President Bush and his top advisors have
consistently substituted wishful thinking for analysis and hope for
strategy."

The imperfect course of action, circa 2006 : Withdraw American troops
and advisers, Galbraith says . ``The conventional response to
discussions of Iraq's breakup is to say it would be destabilizing. This
is a misreading of Iraq's modern history. It is the holding of Iraq
together by force that has been destabilizing. This has led to big
armies, repressive governments, squandered oil revenues, genocide at
home, and aggression abroad. Today, America's failed effort to build a
unified and democratic Iraq has spawned a ferocious insurgency and a
Shiite theocracy."