"George Bush isn't in control . . . the country's been hijacked"

Get these charlatans OUT of the White House before we all go down in flames.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Cheney's Hawks 'Hijacking Policy'"

George Bush isn't in control . . . the country's been hijacked

<snip>

(A former Pentagon officer, Karen Kwiatkowski, ) described "a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress", adding that "in order to take that first step -- Iraq -- lies had to be told to Congress to bring them onboard".

<snip>

In a separate interview, Chalmers Johnson, an authority on US policy, said that the Administration's neo-conservatives had in effect seized power from Mr. Bush.

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

Read this at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/29/1067233251576.html


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

Read excerpts from the controversial 1992 Defence Planning Guidance, at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/050903I.shtml

Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies, ''some are fit to lead, and others to be led'', according to Drury. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that ''those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior''.

this is now out... lets keep this one alive

but Bush* was never in power to begin with. We knew as soon as Cheney decared himself fratboys running mate that Dick, Mr. Neo-Convict extrodinarre was in charge. Hell, most of the sad folks who voted Bush-Cheney WANTED Cheney in charge because they knew there was a learning curve for the little guy and that it would be all right for Unc Dickie to be in charge.

But, yes, this a good article and it deserves the kick.

the story you cite is the tip of her iceberg.

she's been writing about this for quite some time:

A year ago, we saw torrential efforts by Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Perle to get everyone on board with an invasion and takeover of Iraq. That was surely a time of urgency, a time where unconfirmed data bits from the odd interview with an even odder contact brought to the Pentagon by the widely discredited Ahmed Chalabi drove our policy on Iraq faster and faster.

Like gerbils on wheels, the Pentagon spun the information. With a little help from Dick Cheney, the American Enterprise Institute, and those special people represented by Benador Associates, an exceptionally fine cloth was woven. We would wage war in Iraq to protect Americans from mushroom clouds, reshape the Middle East, and perfect our military basing strategy for optimal security of oil flows, the petrodollar, and Israel and other client states.

The cloth, so carefully designed, is turning out to be fragile and diaphanous. It is a tapestry designed for static display on a subtly lighted wall, the better to admire the genius of its creators. If this cloth were used as an escape mechanism from, say a window of the third floor E-ring of the Pentagon, Mall side, it might just rip, and rip badly. While the Pentagon isn’t Folsom Prison, one predicts an upcoming ungraceful exit, and the blues for some of its most senior and scary inhabitants.

Last fall, neo-con political appointees spun, raced back and forth to the Vice President’s office, feverishly worked to increase war fever, and to knock down all barriers in their way. And the neo-conservative vision for the Middle East was partially achieved.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski39.html

go here for 40+ articles from her.......many of which are exactly on point for neocon/PNAC/OSP discussions

oops.....here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html

They are always worse than my nightmares.

:kick: