Wednesday, May 14, 2008

The Fall of the House of Bush

Anyway having just finished reading The Fall of The House of Bush by Craig Unger pub. 2007 it would appear odd if anyone still is under the Bush /Cheney spell.

Here's a vieo of Bush & Co. lying

US War Criminals :The Bush Lies Montage
Saddam " reconstituted nuclear weapons "/ " Colin Powell did not lie"
Al Qaeda financed and helped by Saddam
the WMDs are east, west , north , south

Neoconservative Policy Makers and the Christian Right

January 08, 2008
Craig Unger discuses content from his new book "The Fall Of The House Of Bush"

The presidency of George W. Bush has led to the worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States -- the bloody, unwinnable war in Iraq. How did this happen? Bush's fateful decision was rooted in events that began decades ago, and until now this story has never been fully told.

From Craig Unger, the author of the bestseller House of Bush, House of Saud, comes a comprehensive, deeply sourced, and chilling account of the secret relationship between neoconservative policy makers and the Christian Right, and how they assaulted the most vital safeguards of America's constitutional democracy while pushing the country into the catastrophic quagmire in the Middle East that is getting worse day by day.

Bill Moyers on the rise of Neocons
to see full video go to Buying the War, Bill Moyers at PBS

Note even the Washington Post and Media in general were quite happy to support the Neocons and sending America to War.
They even thought that the invasion and the destruction and killing were suitable subjects to crack jokes over. Nothing funnier than a few dead soldiers and a few thousand dead Iraqi children. These people have no shame , no conscience or souls to bother them . They believe in " creative destruction" or Creative Chaos " believing themselves to be the new Machiavellians out to teach the world about the meaning of raw power and the Will to Power. After Iraq no country they believed would dare stand up against America. The Americans would show that they were as ruthless as any of the terrorists or other enemies of America.

also see: Battle of the Bushes by Craig Unger at Salon.Com

The battle lines between father and son were drawn. In the balance hung policies that would kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people and change the global balance of power for years to come.

Editor's note: This is Part 1 of an excerpt from "The Fall of the House of Bush: The Untold Story of How a Band of True Believers Seized the Executive Branch, Started the Iraq War, and Still Imperils America's Future." Parts 2 and 3 will follow on Nov. 8 and 9. For more information on the book, visit

Bush / Cheney and the Neocons argue that it is not their policies and blunders which created the Fiasco in Iraq but is rather a matter of the 'Hidden Hand of Iran" which has undermined their policies and tactics in Iraq. So what's the plan another War. And after that will they blame Syria or Pakistan or North Korea or Russia or China. The Neocons have constructed a world view which is in essence conspiratorial since they accuse Iran and other Arab and Islamic nations as out to destroy America at whatever cost. So whatever overtures these countries make to the American's to resolve the tension must by definition actually be a means to distract and once again fool the American government , the American people and the United Nations etc.

and from Vanity Fair.Com The White House
From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq by Craig Unger , March 2007

The same neocon ideologues behind the Iraq war have been using the same tactics—alliances with shady exiles, dubious intelligence on W.M.D.—to push for the bombing of Iran. As President Bush ups the pressure on Tehran, is he planning to double his Middle East bet?

...What's less understood is that the same tactics have been in play with Iran. Once again, neocon ideologues have been flogging questionable intelligence about W.M.D. Once again, dubious Middle East exile groups are making the rounds in Washington—this time urging regime change in Syria and Iran. Once again, heroic new exile leaders are promising freedom.

Meanwhile, a series of recent moves by the military have lent credence to widespread reports that the U.S. is secretly preparing for a massive air attack against Iran. (No one is suggesting a ground invasion.) First came the deployment order of U.S. Navy ships to the Persian Gulf. Then came high-level personnel shifts signaling a new focus on naval and air operations rather than the ground combat that predominates in Iraq. In his January 10 speech, Bush announced that he was sending Patriot missiles to the Middle East to defend U.S. allies—presumably from Iran. And he pointedly asserted that Iran was "providing material support for attacks on American troops," a charge that could easily evolve into a casus belli.

"It is absolutely parallel," says Philip Giraldi, a former C.I.A. counterterrorism specialist. "They're using the same dance steps—demonize the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux."

The neoconservatives have had Iran in their sights for more than a decade. On July 8, 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's newly elected prime minister and the leader of its right-wing Likud Party, paid a visit to the neoconservative luminary Richard Perle in Washington, D.C. The subject of their meeting was a policy paper that Perle and other analysts had written for an Israeli-American think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic Political Studies. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the paper contained the kernel of a breathtakingly radical vision for a new Middle East. By waging wars against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, the paper asserted, Israel and the U.S. could stabilize the region. Later, the neoconservatives argued that this policy could democratize the Middle East.

...As they see it, the Iraqi debacle is not the product of their failed policies. Rather, it is the result of America's failure to think big. "It's a mess, isn't it?" says Meyrav Wurmser, who now serves as director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute. "My argument has always been that this war is senseless if you don't give it a regional context."

...More recently, Netanyahu himself, who may yet return to power in Israel, went as far as to frame the issue in terms of the Holocaust. "Iran is Germany, and it's 1938," he said during a CNN interview in November. "Except that this Nazi regime that is in Iran … wants to dominate the world, annihilate the Jews, but also annihilate America."

Like the campaign to overthrow Saddam, the crusade for regime change in Iran got under way in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. One of the first shots came in The Wall Street Journal in November 2001, when Eliot Cohen, a member of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), declared, "The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state [Iran] and its replacement by a moderate or secular government … would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden."

Then, as now, the U.S. had no official diplomatic communications with Iran, but a series of back-channel meetings from 2001 to 2003 put unofficial policy initiatives into action. The man who initiated these meetings was Michael Ledeen, an Iran specialist, neocon firebrand, and Freedom Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. During the Iran-contra investigations of the late 80s, Ledeen won notoriety for having introduced President Ronald Reagan's chief intriguer, Oliver North, to Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms dealer and con man.

and for more on Neocon Michael Ledeen Who is Michael Ledeen? at AlterNet : By William O. Beeman, Pacific News Service.May 8, 2003.

No comments: