Bob Woodward steps in for the Kill

[Gouda]

Like arming both sides in a conflict, or funding two enemies, there's old Henry Kissinger ostensibly working the White House on sticking with Iraq policy <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>and</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> advising the Princeton Project on National Security (which is the ruling class antidote to the brief, but necessary, Bush Inc/Neocon plague, advising against current Iraq policy.) Sure, that's good for Kissinger's firm and his associates: The Firm; and Woodward is smart to cue Kissinger now. Kinda looks like Kissinger is arming both sides of a fake “debate,” diligently reported by Woodward: <br><br>(1) Bob Woodward reports that Henry Kissinger visits the white house often to egg on Bush & Cheney to stay the present course in Iraq:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Woodward: Kissinger advising Bush</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>NEW YORK - Henry Kissinger has been advising President Bush and Vice President Cheney about Iraq, telling them that "victory is the only meaningful exit strategy," author and journalist Bob Woodward said.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060929/ap_on_en_ot/books_woodward">news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060...s_woodward</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>(2) Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger, double-timer, also advised the Princeton Project on National Security report, which seems to be all post-PNAC and at odds with the present Iraq strategy (means, not ends). <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>“In addition…the report urges Washington to reduce its ambitions in Iraq from full democratization to PAR, to redeploy US troops in ways that would encourage Iraqis to take more responsibility, and, in the event of civil war, to contain its regional impact.” </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br>-- Jim Lobe, AT. <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HI29Aa01.html">www.atimes.com/atimes/Fro...9Aa01.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>...and the co-directors of the project would like to thank:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"We owe a special debt to Leslie Gelb, whose early support of the project and active participation in our conferences was inspiring and invaluable. Candid conversations with Zbigniew Brzezinski and Madeleine Albright were critical to shaping the final report. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Finally, we benefited greatly from the wisdom and insights imparted by Henry Kissinger during two visits to Princeton.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/report/FinalReport.pdf">www.wws.princeton.edu/ppn...Report.pdf</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Great theatre, but it raises some questions. Is Kissinger purposely pushing Bush/Cheney over the edge re: Iraq? Yet why would Cheney/Bush need more encouragement from Kissinger on Iraq? As if they need it. And surely Cheney and his spies know that Kissinger is also advising the Princeton Project on National Security, which will be taking the baton from the PNAC, righting all its wrongs, eh-hem, redeploying troops out of Iraq and all. They are all on the same team in the end - Kissinger, HW, Baker III, Schultz, Scrowcroft, Cheney, Rice....Maybe they are all in on it except Bush. But does W really not talk to his father anymore? Is HW really sacrificing his own son on the imperial altar? <br><br>The White house does not need Kissinger to tell them to stay the course in Iraq (in fact, they were probably discussing quite a few other things.) But the Public needs to see kissinger telling them so. <br><br>This latest Woodward production seems like more frivolous political theatre for us while real power is brokered behind the scenes. Nothing new about that, but sometimes we forget and get too caught up in the spectacle. Fitzmas anyone? <br><br>(By the way, has anyone gone back and documented the ruling elite policy successes carried about by the Bush administration and Congress during the Fitzmas distraction?) <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 10/2/06 4:37 am<br></i>

[robertdreed]

"However, there may be things going to happen sooner that will make my perspective more convincing.<br><br>Like if we actually DO have a military coup."<br><br>Ain't gonna happen. It would be conceivable to me if there was a military leader on the scene with the name recognition and popularity that Dwight Eisenhower or Douglas MacArthur had in the aftermath of the Allied victory in WW2. But Wesley Clark is no Doug MacArthur. Neither is Colin Powell, the only general I can think of with anything like the expertise to administer the executive branch of the Federal government of the USA. And somehow, I don't feature the entire general staff of the armed forces swinging behind retired General Powell to pull off a military coup. Even if Powell was up for it, which I seriously doubt. Powell could probably already have gotten the presidency in 2004 without any need for having the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to grab it for him- simply by the expedient of changing his party registration to Democrat and campaigning for the presidential nomination. <br><br>"Or if Dems take over and there actually IS a very significant roll back of anti-Constitutional laws."<br><br>Not sure of your point here...that would be bad exactly how?<br><br>"But the Dems I see in my own state and some of the dem leaders...Hillary, kerry...they talk "tougher" on Iraq than Bush does..."<br><br>Entirely different question than the notion of CIA interference with the Bush administration. The notion that the DLC Democrats are covertly on the same page as Bush has a lot more evidence for it than the idea that Bush is a wind-up toy purposely meant to chart a course so extreme that whatever follows looks moderate in comparison. <br><br>Most of all, I discount the notion of the Bush dynasty having a shaky status within the American elite political power circles. If he falls as the result of a scandal- a prospect I consider unlikely- it will be the real thing. They won't be manuevered off of the board by some larger elite machination. George W. Bush isn't Richard Nixon, a man from an ordinary background who gained the presidency by decades of plugging away and being a loyal henchman rather than having the office handed to him on a velvet pillow. And the Bush-Walker-Pierce extended family is much more tightly wired in to the American power elite than the Kennedys, who are parvenus in comparison. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/2/06 7:15 am<br></i>

[Dreams End]

No, it would be good if Dems rolled things back. I'm saying that the idea is that they pull the rug out from under Bush, as they are doing now and in come the Dems to the rescue. If it's all kinda fake, as I think it is, then I do NOT expect the Dems to do the right thing. However, since they are Dems, many will feel relief and a sense of victory, while, meanwhile, very little changes.<br><br>Also, I want to be clear...I do NOT claim insider knowledge. It looks like CIA types are turning against Bush, but the whole thing could be choreographed as well. Well, the opposition to Bush is definitely choreographed...look at how much is coming out at once, but I mean staged, I guess...as in good cop, bad cop. The fact that Bush's daddy was the head of CIA for awhile and definitely moves in those circles would support that idea. But I don't think Sr. would have a single second thought about throwing Jr. to the wolves. <br><br>As for military coups...I guess I'm not up on my military coup procedures. I see no reason there needs to be a popular figure. If it should happen, the very first thing that would go on is that they would announce why the coup had happened (Bush is out of control, ordering illegal actions, fixing elections, whatever) and then announce that this coup is very temporary. New elections will be called as soon as......insert b.s. here.<br><br>To be real honest, I sort of assumed they might grab that General Honore, the guy who "rode to the rescue" in New Orleans after Katrina. Who showed how much more "efficient" the military government was in a crisis than the civilian. Obviously, that didn't happen and he's not in the news anymore.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

Yep, I think Condi is being set up for the sacrifice. Or is it Rummy? Get the alter ready.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.theleftcoaster.com/">www.theleftcoaster.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>White House Throws Condi Under The Bus<br><br>by Steve Soto <br>This morning, Condi told the media traveling with her to the Middle East that she had no recollection of a meeting with George Tenet and Cofer Black on July 10th, 2001, as reported by Bob Woodward:<br><br>Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she cannot recall then-CIA chief George Tenet warning her of an impending al-Qaida attack in the United States, as a new book claims he did two months before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.<br>“What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible,” Rice said.<br>[snip]<br>“I don’t know that this meeting took place, but what I really don’t know, what I’m quite certain of, is that it was not a meeting in which I was told there was an impending attack and I refused to respond,” Rice said.<br>[snip]<br>Rice referred to the session as “the supposed meeting” and noted that it is not part of the independent Sept. 11 Commission’s report.<br>This afternoon, while she was overseas, someone in the White House threw Condi under the bus:<br><br>A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did indeed brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001 about looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said on Monday evening.<br>The account by the spokesman, Sean McCormack, came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall such a meeting and said it was “incomprehensible” she ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. McCormack also said the Bush administration had determined that the Sept. 11 commission had been briefed about the meeting, even though no mention of it appears in the commission’s report.<br><br>Except, the commissioners don’t remember being told anything about a special meeting on July 10th, 2001. <br><br>Ms. Rice told reporters aboard her plane on Sunday evening, as she began a trip to the Middle East, that she regarded that account as “simply ludicrous.” <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Mr. McCormack, in confirming later that the meeting had taken place, said that the White House review had found that Ms. Rice had asked Mr. Tenet to provide the same briefing to Donald H. Rumsfeld, the defense secretary, and John Ashcroft, the attorney general. Among those who attended the meting, Mr. McCormack said, was Stephen Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>So she doesn’t remember a meeting in which her Number Two was in attendance and where she in fact asked Tenet to say the same things again to Rummy and Ashcroft?<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Who in the White House pulled the records to prove Condi a liar today? And how much fun did Cheney and Rumsfeld have in doing it?</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 10/2/06 8:36 pm<br></i>

[robertdreed]

"I don't think Sr. would have a single second thought about throwing Jr. to the wolves."<br><br>Yeah- if George Walker Bush, Jr. had decided to lend his name to the Dennis Kucinich campaign, or if he had dropped out to become a road man for the Peyote Way Church of God. But short of that, I'm fairly well assured that the standard tenets of dynastic primogeniture take precedence over anything else. George H.W. Bush is not about to give up his number one son to the fate of being deposed from power and disgraced. That would be a carbuncle on the family crest, so to speak. <br><br>"As for military coups...I guess I'm not up on my military coup procedures. I see no reason there needs to be a popular figure."<br><br>Well, it isn't a baseline requirement. But it would increase the chances of both domestic success and international recognition dramatically. Coups are a risky business. They're inherently conspiratorial plots. The military officers doing the plotting would have to know that they have the full support of a clear majority of the troops they would order to take such a dramatic action, all the way down the chain of command without interruption. <br><br>I've studied military coups. They're reactions of sudden national regime change that generally require a catalyst of severe instability of some sort- political, economic, and/or social. Severe instability- massive economic inflation and dislocation, civic revolt, mass work stoppages, street violence and lawlessness, political terror, breakdowns in basic social services. None of those preconditions apply to the USA at present. Simply being an unpopular elected president initiating unpopular policies doesn't rise to that level of chaos. The more stable the history and traditions of the country, the more necessary it is to have it be precipitated by a crisis.<br><br><br>"If it should happen, the very first thing that would go on is that they would announce why the coup had happened (Bush is out of control, ordering illegal actions, fixing elections, whatever) and then announce that this coup is very temporary. New elections will be called as soon as......insert b.s. here."<br><br>In the absence of actual social chaos, I can't imagine a military coup attempt. For one thing, it seems to be based on the idea that all military generals have a natural bent to want to be national dictators- that they're inherently political animals harboring megalomaniacal ambitions. But the military of the USA has always been integrated into a wider framework than the armed forces of coup-prone nations. It isn't a separate power sphere unto itself. It's never acted as a fourth branch of government with the ability to trump all of the others. The role historically played by American generals has more resembled that of bureaucratic managers content with their designated fiefdoms than an autonomous power unto itself. They're routinely replaced in their duties by civilian presidents without offering challenge, or even complaint. American presidents have almost never thought of active duty military officers as rivals vying for political power, much less as political threats. That's a stark contrast with coup-prone countries. <br><br>In the absence of the military acting like an autonomous power center, any coup scenario implicitly assumes the existence of powerful backers- like who? Is the civilian-led military-industrial complex yearning to turn on the Bush administration? He's given them a new lease on life. Or the oil industry? The oil industry is going to turn on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? Who's going to give them a better deal? Some general? <br><br>"To be real honest, I sort of assumed they might grab that General Honore, the guy who "rode to the rescue" in New Orleans after Katrina. Who showed how much more "efficient" the military government was in a crisis than the civilian. Obviously, that didn't happen and he's not in the news anymore."<br><br>Well, the military does do many things more efficiently in times of crisis than civilian institutions- or the lack of any institutions. The military is a socialistic collective that emphasizes order and efficiency, drawing on a large reserve of the common treasury that compensates for the local resources that have been overstressed or knocked out of action. Under conditions of disastrous civil breakdown, that regime works more effectively to re-balance a situation of social choas than any other system. Terrible as a permanent government, of course...inertia and entropy set in, and the all of the supervision and imposed rules become overbearing and tedious. But in the short term wake of a disaster, that sort of political structure can get the lights turned on and the pipes fixed faster than any other alternative I can think of. <br><br>Here's an ironic scenario for you, DE- imagine a military coup in response to the Bush regime's declaration of martial law and suspension of the Constitution. What would you think then? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/3/06 9:16 pm<br></i>

[chiggerbit]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>that sort of political structure can get the lights turned on and the pipes fixed faster than any other alternative I can think of.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br>Only problem with that is that most of those services and skills have been privatized.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Here's an ironic scenario for you, DE- imagine a military coup in response to the Bush regime's declaration of martial law and suspension of the Constitution. What would you think then?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>Jeez, man...don't say that stuff out loud.... <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>a military coup in response to the Bush regime's declaration of martial law and suspension of the Constitution.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>The Constitution has been suspended and more Americans are only just beginning to realize it.<br><br>So maintaining the illusion of a constitutional republic for decorum's sake doesn't justify allowing murdering torturing looting planet-destroying fascists to continue their rampage.<br><br>Dreams End raised his blog eyebrows over comments by Wayne Madsen on this topic but didn't really come to terms with the reality of the oath that our soldiers take, to defend the Constitution from enemies "foreign and domestic."<br><br>So does that mean we shouldn't want them to do just that?<br>Things are bad enough to consider if that's really worse than where we are now. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Yeah they are doing a bang up job making democracy in Iraq, I'm sure they'll do just as well here. <br><br>Don't feed the beast.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

"Don't feed the beast."<br><br>Remember, it was General Smedley Butler who saved FDR from a corporate coup in 1934.<br><br>But yeah, I agree. I don't welcome kids with guns "fixing things," either. Just pointing out that the pilot government is a hijacker and taking back the cockpit wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to this country. Civilian government has been weaponized pretty badly.<br><br>It seems to now be the norm for Pentagon, CIA, and Council on Foreign Relations to tussle over who is going to be the Hood Ornament in Chief.<br><br>Presidential elections have been controlled since atleast 1964 to prevent the 'Kennedy problem' from recurring. When Nixon got too independent he was character assassinated for months to avoid the ballistic incongrueties of the coup against JFK. Then Gerald Ford was installed, a Warren Commission eyes-wide-shut loyalist to that 1963 coup.<br><br>Funny, I still have some residual outrage from knowing there is principally elite internecine gang warfare for power and the American people don't have much to do with the election of presidents beyond being the mob spirit whipped up for 'mandates.'<br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Remember, it was General Smedley Butler who saved FDR from a corporate coup in 1934.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>1. By NOT participating in it.<br><br>2. By reporting it.<br><br>3. By speaking AGAINST US Military intervention. <p></p><i></i>

[MASONIC PLOT]

I stated on another thread that I believe the republican establishment wants the democrats to take over congress. Since this election campaign is going to be ALL about WHICH PARTY is tougher on terror it would serve the neocon fascists well to have the democrats be the ones to take over congress and pass all the new draconian police state martial law legislation after the next big 9-11 false flag psy op thats coming soon, while they, the neocons, sit back and cry foul over the taking of our civil liberties. This is exactly the kind of sick and twisted mind Karl Rove has, he will sit back and watch the democrats take the heat and chuckle at the wonderful succcess of his hegelian masterpiece. <p></p><i></i>