RobsRealNews

Stalin asked FDR what he planned to give Ibn Saud. FDR joked that he might offer to give the king the six
million jews in the United States. Now was that a nice thing to say. I do believe that most jews are genetically
programed to steal everything they can get there hands on. Wonona Ryder was not an aberation. In my case it
was an unecessary back operation. Then they dare you to sue them knowing they have the system fixed so
they can get away with murder. That's why they get there man in office who will appoint judges who will allow
them to steal whatever they want. That's why they got Ronald Reagan to get rid of public legal aid.
Did you ever see an article in the press saying it was too conservative. No, its always accusing it of being
liberal. Thats conservative (actually Jew because they have hyjacked the conservative party-I think I first got
indications of this from a book by Gore Vidal) disinformation. They have been using morons like the Bushs' to
impliment their agenda. Bill Clinton knew what was going on. I haven't really followed the news since pre-Clinton
and when I might pick up a paper or watch a political program its mostly the same stupid propaganda ministers.
If I start following politics again I'll start a list of propaganda ministers on this web page.

(They also give themselves the best jobs. When I went to Hollywood to try acting I was told I needed to convert
to Judaism. When I finally agreed i was told it was to late. They had already heard my jewish comments)

There is enough information out there to have impeached a democrat a hundred times but since Watergate
conservatives have taken over all the institutions that could impeach a Republican. In fact, the Washington Post
that first broke the Watergate strory was even bought out. They now controll whats reported in every
publication in this country and Europe.

The media can't address certain questions but I can. During the week of the Palistinain elections Israel started
shelling people near where the new Palistinian president was campaigning killing a half dozen for no reason.
Israeli leadership and the US puppets said they would require new Palistinian leadership before it would
negotiate a settlement. The shelling wasn't in reponse to an attack on Israel. The attack was near the new
president to be. It was a state sponsored military attack for no reason. They sought provoke a conflict. Shern
destroyed peace years ago right before it was in their grasp by marching into an area he knew would provoke a
Palestinain response. In this case one might ask why the non provoked shelling after they said they wanted new
leadership in order to negotiate a peace settlement. So the Palestinains did respond after the election and
Sheron used it as a pretext to halt negotiations. So what else is new. Hitler grew tired of jew bull-shit and just
nearly exterminated them. They don't want peace. They jews want conflict. They want american money to keep
flowing to their people and military and to do that they need to perpetuate conflict. They want their military in a
perpetual state of war because they want to rule the world financially and know at any time there could be a
backlash to their business ethics as there was in the 1940s and this time they want to be prepared to defend
themselves so they have even got the US military to fight their wars for them in Iraq and the american taxpayer
is paying for their military and giving them billions of dollars of aid every year.. I think the people of Isael should
move to a big island somewhere and rewrite the old testimate like the mormans did the bible to make it their
new promised land. And I'd cut off all US aid to Israel.

Page 58 from Dean's book worse than Watergate has the following paragraph:
"Bush, once a leak chaser (and discipline enforcer) for his father's campaigns and presidency, understood how
leaks had hurt his father's vice presidency, implicating him in the Iran-Contra scandal, and his presidency, with
rumors of extramarital infidelity. Bush's distaste for leaks and need for information control, while great, was
surpassed only by Cheney's, who had been burned badly by leaks when he first became Ford's chief of staff-
His scars were deep. Surely it had to have been exceedingly unpleasant when charges of his incompetence
erupted in the New York Times, accusing him of running an "inept" White House. operation, with a personal
staff that was characterized for its "political naivete" by other Ford White House insiders. Then another leak to
the Times reported that while life at the White House was more relaxed and pleasant under Ford and Cheney
than under Nixon and Haldeman, the unidentified source said, "Sometimes I wish that we had some of the old
Halderman discipline back. These days things are hardly ever ready on time and the staff work IS often sloppy
and incomplete. There are Just too _many mistakes." Even more serious public charges reported that Cheney
and Ford had no control over the National Security Council or Secretary of State Henry Kissenger, who was
making foreign policy without informing the presiden forming the president."

I find the fore mentioned sentence where Cheney and Ford had no control over foreign policy of the jew Henry
Kissinger-what has changed, the jews are still making foreign policy under Cheney. From a letter to the editor
of Financial Times a few weeks ago, referring to the US backed assassination of the democratically elected
Allende in Chile, “ Henry Kissinger was determined to make the economy scream so as to teach other
countries (including European democracies, which at the time were toying with euro-comminism) (can't permit
euro-communism because the jews won't make much money) that the US would not stand by idly simply
because the electorate of a small country had been foolish enough to elect a marxist president. The US not
only failed to defend democracy, it instigated the coup. After the coup it did nothing to encourage Pinochet to
hand back power to civilians. Why does it seem the jews are always getting the US to overthrow countries. So
they can make money off them. The invasion of Iraq and now they are looking for targets in Iran. After the
invasion of Iraq the previous leader of Malasia was deposed a week after publically expressing his amazement
at the jews capacity to get the US to fight its battles for them. The jews were even able to get rid of the best
leader in SE Asia simply for telling the truth. While I’m on the subject of the jews controlling our country. Let me
say they have destroyed our democracy. The jew media praises the jew Karl Rove for destroying American
democracy with his campaign tactics. Besides rigging the vote with new voting machines, the various methods
he devised to prevent various ethnic groups from having their vote counted, intentional vote miscounts, the
assassination of two democratic senators right before two previous elections that was never presented in the
jew press as a possible policical assasination to assure conservative control of congress, and indoctrination of
all the brain dead voters in all the redneck states achieved through absolute media control and the intimidation
of reporters like the firing of all those responsible for telling the American public the truth regarding Bushs
military record. Not to mention the manner in which Rove had Bush slandered John McCain in the primary and
the redistricting in Texas. Instead of praising Rove for destroying our democracy he should be systematically
exterminated in a manner befitting a pathetic sleezy Jew.
Here is a page from page 99, it discusses the plan of the neocons for world domination in order to force free
markets on the world. "To encourage continuing debate on the Cheney Wolfowitz ideas, William Kristol (who
had been Vice President' Dan Quayle'_ chief ofstaff and then founder of the Weekly Standard, the voice of the
neocons) and Robert Kagan (a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, a columnist for the
Washington Post,. and a' contributing editor at the Weekly Standard)* wrote about these policy plans in the
July/August 1996 issue of Foreign Affairs, explaining them as America's opportunity to exercise a "benevolent
hegemony" of the world while promoting democracy and free Markets abroad (nice Orwellian double speak for
Orwellian world domination). By the spring of 1997; Kristol -and.Kagan had created the Project for the _New
American Century, a well-funded, "non-profit, educational organization'_ to_:promote the Cheney Wolf plans.
Joining this effort were 'Wolfowitz and a who"s who of a growing neoconservative establishment. In 1998,
eighteen prominent associates of the New American Century wrote President Clinton urging him to remove
Saddam Hussein. Although Cheney did not sign the letter, his former mentor Don Rumsfeld did, as well as
many of his close associates. * (Maybe Cheney refrained from signing because Halliburton was doing such a
nice business with Saddam.)"

I should comment on a story in todays Financial Times. Putin, Americas enforcer in Russia, has cut pensions
for the Russian elderly, he’s cut free transportation passes, medicine, subsidized housing, electric, heating, and
water. What makes me believe some sick WASPs from Chicago (who are worse than the sleezy jew-im obligated
to insult everyone on my own web page) told Putin to do these things and originally put Gaidar in power and
told him to force shock therapy on Russia. Obviously the US is forcing their economic dictatorship on the
Russian people. Isn't it interesting that the jew, Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's assistant, has a PhD from the
Univeristy of Chicago. 1972, which means he knows Milton Friedman, the sick fuck, and he works for Cheneys
former boss from Chicago, Donalds Rumsfeld.
It is theoretically impossible for a democracy to elect a conservative government. If John D. Rockefellor were
alive today he would be considered a communist. Saddam Huessain was right. He said something to the effect
that America couldn’t have a democracy because Americans were smart people and they would never elect
someone as stupid as Bush. That’s why the jews had Bush take Saddam out. The jews are control freaks. They
want to take out anyone they can't use and control. It's OK for them to own half the world financially but
Saddam wasn't allowed to take Kuwait. After the invasion Saddam said he would leave Kuwait if Israel left
Palistinain territories. I thought that sounded reasonable. But G H Bush needed to defend the Kuwait ruling
parasites in order to maintain the status quo over US domination of middle east oil. If he had balls he would
have told Irael to leave the Palestinaian territories and the conflict would have ended. But US conservative
leadership refuses to do the right thing always preferring to kiss up to corrupt power. Saddam was standing in
the way of the jews to do what they wanted to whom ever they wanted, whenever they wanted.
Now it is possible that everything I just said is wrong and the problem in the middle east lies with the fact that
the powers that be in this country blindly feel obligated to support the party in Israel that doesn't want peace,
the conservative party and that the majority of Jews in Israel actually do want peace. This reminds me of a
Shaw quote I mention before GHW Bush. "A modern gentleman is necessrily an enemy of his country. Even in
war he does not fight to defend it, but to defend his power of preying upon it from passing to a foreigner. Such
combatants are patriotic in the same sense as two dogs fighting for a bone are lovers of animals." If Bush had a
little more intelligence and integrity he would have known he wasn’t presidential material and stayed home with
his mom. I havn't really followed this issue because it seems a brain drain that never ends.

I would just like to mention one other comment from Chapter 3 that I found interesting and that is the manner in
which Bush holds press conferences. The tradition is to take the first question from the most senior member of
the Washington press corp, Helen Thomas. Bush refused to do this because she had made the public
statement that she thought Bush was the worst president in american history.

Here is a good quote from Paul ONiel from page 73 in the book Worse than Watergate
.*Paul O'Neill- who was a member of the National Security Council as was being in charge of fiscal 'policy -
made a shocking revelation to Ron Suskind that not only are public events scripted, but even cabinet (and
other)meetings within the White House with this president are scripted, where
everyone but Bush has speaking parts. Bush's role is merely to nod or listen expressionlessly, aside from his
occasional cryptic (or cynical) comments. For example, at a meeting of Bush's war cabinet on Iraq, "each
cabinet member spoke in an order and on a subject that had been designated in advance. At one point Bush
asked [Secretary of Defense] Rumsfeld to comment on something [Sec
retary of State] Powell had just said, but that was the extent of the interaction."
O'Neill's wife told Suskind, "Paul just seemed to leave meetings with the President and shake his head. It was
like, 'I'm not sure if this guy's got what it takes to pull this off.'" Suskind, The Price of Loyalty, 1_7, 160, 188.

Naom Chomsky might say the conservative concept of freedom is the Latin America model where one percent
of the population have all the wealth and everyone else lives in or near poverty. In 1991 I sited Kevin Phillips
book “The Politics of Rich and Poor.” This is what it is all about. Since then he has written more books on the
subject. The policies implemented in this country since Jimmy Carter have simply promoted inequality and
brought us back to the gross inequalities of the 1920s. Their concept of freedom is the elimination of any
government policy that may benefit the people, whether it be welfare, aid to families with dependant children, all
the way to corporate regulation. Phillips sites thousands of examples. Instead, conservatives believe any policy
which helps them better exploit labor promotes freedom, removing wage supports such as minimum wages,
eliminating the power of unions with right to work laws and making the national labor relations board powerless.
Driving down wages with foreign competition, removing regulation on industries like the savings and loans
industry which cost taxpayers 300 to 500 billion. (The head of the Federal Reserve, Allan Greenspan signed off
on the health of Lincoln Savings and loan before it went under. (the only reason the jew got the job because
he knows which asses to kiss) He is revered because he rewards the criminal class and fucks over everyone
else. He led the team that restructured social security. His scheme gave the government the revenue it needed
to pay for tax cuts for the rich by increasing payroll taxes on the working poor and enabling social security taxes
paid be applied to general revenue, he persistently throws the economy into recession to keep wages low-
Lester Thurow has written about his monetary policy. See Wlliam Greiders book “The Secrets of the Temple”

The conservative god is the Jew Milton Friedman from the U of Chicago. He believes the democratically elected
government should not be allowed to do anything for the people. The fact that conservatives have successfully
achieved his desire proves democracy is dead. He believes the only role of government in a democracy is to
protect property right with the military and the police state. His grand design is that any benefits one derives in
life is to be attained in the free market controlled by the Jews. Subsequently jews, who are often sadistic, will
control who lives or dies and the quality of life for everyone. When there is a great depression they say, “its not
our fault.” In fact the grand plan is for the whole world population to be used in a manner that best suits jewish
rule. Subsequently neo-conservative desire to privatize and force free markets on the world as Bush has
recently declared.

Donald Rumsfeld’s assistant, Paul Wolfowitz, the jewish architecht of the Iraq war is also from the U of Chicago.
And Rumsfelt, Dick Cheneys former boss, is from Chicago. Chomsky explains how what he calls these “Chicago
boys” have impoverished most of Latin America and any other country that lets them have their way. Ken Star,
from Chicago, had Clinton by the balls for eight years so these sick fuckers could force him to finish their
agenda in this country. They got him to eliminate welfare and aid to women with dependant children and cut
capital gain for the rich. They prevented him from doing anything for the benefit of the people. They told Bush’s
father to take the fool Dan Quayle, from Indiana on as his VP. Dan Rostenkowski, from Chicago, pushed
through their agenda under Reagan. Reagan’s chief of staff was from Chicago.

Didn't Bush just give the Tobacco industry eighteen billion of tax payers money and now he says he must
eliminate all social programs. Chomsky described why people like Bush and Greenspan get their jobs. He said
they "Comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted."

This is what I would do:
Mario Cuomo will actually be president and tell Bush what to say and do. Bill Clinton will dictate US foreign
policy. Hillary Clinton will dictate a national health plan. Robert Reich and Kuttner will dictate the government
agenda for any and all things having economic implications. Bill Clinton will approve all judicial nominees.

Bush invited Ted Kennedy to watch the movie 13 Days. He indicated to Kennedy that the Bush's were also a
political dynasty. So Bush wants to be thought of like the Kennedys. That means papa Bush will have to be
scrapin the kids bodies off the sidewalk. But some sick fuckers from Texas killed the KENNEDY clan. There are
plenty of sick fuckers IN TEXAS to do away with the Bushs also. G. H. W. Bush hired the white trash Lee
Atwater to run his campaign. Anyone who hires the likes of Atwater and Rove deserves a fate worse than the
Kennedies. Bush expressed a desire to be like the Kennedies. So be it.

Chapter Four
Secret Government
The voters aren't going to buy the sanctimonious argument that the Bush Administration has some sort of duty
to protect the power of the presidency. . . . The American people do not and should not tolerate government by
secrecy.
-        Phyllis Schlafly, conservative commentator
-
"Vice President Dick Cheney was in his West Wing office on the morning of September 11, 2001, talking with a
speechwriter, when his secretary interrupted to tell him that an unidentified
airplane had crashed into one of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. Cheney turned on his television
in time to witness the second plane crash into the other tower. Cheney summoned his staff straightaway, and
as they were discussing possible responses, Secret Service agents arrived at his office, telling Cheney that the
White House appeared to be the target of another hijacked flight. They evacuated him by his armpits and belt
(with toes barely touching ground) to the White House bunker under the East Wing. Condi Rice joined Cheney
in the shelter. After being hijacked out of Dulles Airport, American Airlines flight 77 had initially headed west,
then circled back east and
headed directly for the White House (or the Capitol, both were, in the flight pattern). Barbara Olson, wife of
Solicitor General Ted Olson, was on the flight, talking on her cell phone with her husband, who in turn relayed
information to a government command center; then at the last minute, the plane unexpectedly turned south and
crashed into the Pentagon. Cheney knew what to do and how to do it. This was why he had been placed on the
ticket as Bush's running mate. In Cheney's nine months on the job, his role had evolved to something between
that of superchief of staff and co-president, depending on the issue. For Cheney, the 9/11 attack was not a
transforming event; rather, it was further confirmation of his long-held Hobbesian perception of the world's likely
state of perpetual war. Those close to Cheney say of 9’11, "It wasn't an epiphany, it wasn't a sudden eureka
moment; it was an evolution, but one that was primed by what he had done and seen at the end of the Cold
War," back in 1991 and 1992, as secretary of defense.! Indeed, it was not only an evolution but an opportunity.
"One of the American people's most cherished notions about the presidency is that the office somehow
ennobles the occupant and renders him fit to meet any crisis," George Reedy wrote many years ago in his "let
me tell you how it really is at the White House" classic, The Twilight of the Presidency/ In fact, crisis doesn't
make a president, it merely provides a. chance to judge how a president responds to such an event. Bush's
initial public responses, while shaky in the first hours, grew increasingly reassuring. He appeared measured,
and within days it was evident he could actually read his teleprompter quite nicely when he tried. These were,
without question, the finest days of his presidency. For a fleeting moment (and I was not alone), I thought we
might have another Abraham Lincoln, whose formidable skills became more apparent because of the Civil War.
But presidential leadership scholar Michael Genovese says that 9/11 also created something of an illusion.
"The public needed to believe that [Bush] had grown," so "we chose to see him - because we need[ed] to see
him - as bigger, better and different than he was. In fact, Bush was in over his head, and soon it was obvious
that the world was a far "more complex and nuanced" place than he seemed to understand and that true
leadership required "a more sophisticated, complex and multidimensional view than he seemed capable of
accepting." Bush appeared unable to comprehend and envision the implications of many of his actions, a
circumstance that his astute supporters appreciated and used to their advantage. Bush's initial responses to
terrorism (appropriately and understandably) were developed behind closed doors. Information, provided by
Bush and others to Washington Post reporter and author Bob Woodward portray Bush as a decisive "I've got
my act
together" commander in chief. Yet as one looks beyond the spin and more closely at the furtive figures in the
shadows, catching occasional glimpses of the players and picking up published and
unpublished information here and there, it becomes obvious that it was Cheney (and Rumsfeld) who was more
engaged in what military experts call "supreme command" than was the commander in chief himself. It was
Cheney and his staff who began gathering and assimilating vast quantities of information they believed critical
and who were asking the CIA and the intelligence community the tough questions about what they were doing
and why. Yet Cheney's key role (and unusual power) is, as always, made to appear - both internally (to the
degree possible) and externally - only incidental (and subsidiary) to Bush's command. When anyone asks
about the vice president's level of influence, the official White House mantra is repeated: "The vice president
has no personal or political agenda other than advising President Bush." No doubt this is broadly true, for by
advising Bush, Cheney understands that he can' implement his vision for America and its role in the world.
For Cheney and his like-minded associates, 9/11 was a perfect storm, a moment they had even anticipated
when looking earlier for a catalyst necessary to accomplish their broader goals. Cheney's persuasiveness
behind closed doors, particularly one-on one, is legendary, and with a rookie in national security matters like
Bush, Cheney can be both a Svengali and a Rasputin. By way of comparison, Nixon and Kissinger had a
partnership in national security, but Nixon was the senior partner. With Bush and Cheney, not only is Cheney
the senior partner, he is prime minister sub silenzio. Cheney's enveloping influence on Bush and national
security policy has been noted within the Beltway, even if it is largely unnoticed beyond. For example, by the
end of the third year of the Bush-Cheney administration, the American Conservative (Feb. 2, 2004) declared
Cheney the American Richelieu, "the hand behind the throne." In describing the Bush II White House,
Washington-based journalist Georgie Anne Geyer has written that Cheney is "the most important vice president
in history - some say the most influential man in America." She reported that "George W [Bush] most resembles
the many French dauphins come suddenly to the throne - the young, inexperienced prince, with a defense chief
who has definite Napoleonic tendencies, and a flowing group of courtiers with their own agendas and loyalties,
some to foreign countries and some to secret societies outside the realm. With this court, Dick Cheney has
become George Bush's Cardinal Richelieu."* The comparison is, indeed, fitting.
During the 2000 campaign, Cheney kept his dogs of war caged, and not until 9/11 did he set them free.
However, the "'policies Cheney has now put into practice have been quietly in the making for over a decade.
Only the tip of the iceberg is presently visible.

*The American Conservative also provided a brief history refresher to make its
point: "You do remember Cardinal Richelieu? It was the time of the religious
wars in Europe in the 16th century and the era of a weak king, Louis XIII. In
1585, Armand-Jean du Plessis, Cardinal and Duke de Richelieu, was born to a
minor noble family and became a priest, a bishop, a cardinal, then France's
Secretary of State for foreign affairs in 1616, and, finally, the prime minister of
France in 1624. He would go down in history as a man obsessed with bringing
order to France under royal authority, and he believed in the divine right of
the king and the obedience of the people. Yet, even as he believed in the 'light
of natural reason,' still he remained always the pessimist with regard to human nature and believed fully that
the ends justify the means." The magazine further noted Richelieu's "horrible overspending for France on war
he fostered" as he "committed war expenditure with little regard for the difficulties of raising revenue and he was
given to economic improvisation that was often unsound."
*Today, Paul Wolfowitz is undersecretary of defense.
Cheney/Wolfowitz World Dominance Philosophy
      As secretary of defense (1989-93), Cheney accepted the decision not to march to Baghdad in 1991 and
remove Saddam. Yet before he left the government, he'd had serious second thoughts. Iraq became a part of a
far larger picture and vision. In late 1991, recognizing that the United States' military needs had changed with
the end of the Cold War, Cheney formed a group at the Department of Defense to develop "forward leaning"
military plans for the future. No secretary of defense had ever done more for the care and feeding of the
military-industrial complex than Cheney, and his forward-looking plans would follow that pattern, Paul Wolfowitz,
a mathematician turned political scientist (PhD University of Chicago, 1972) then serving as Cheneys
undersecretary of defense for policy (with some 700 policy wonks at his command) took charge of the study.
Cheney and Wolfowitz decided to use the use the departments Defense Policy Guidance report, a top-secret
internal document to assist when preparing long-term budgets and plans, as the vehicle to rethink foreign and
military policy. Wolfowitz gathered his brightest stars to "think out of the box," with Cheney often joining the
group on Saturdays, as they looked for answers to questions about America's appropriate post-Cold War
position. It was at this time that Dick Cheney's radical strategic thinking took shape.
When the new Defense Policy Guidance plan was being circulated for comment in the spring of 1992, it was
leaked to the New York Times by a Pentagon "official who believed this strategy debate should be carried out in
the public domain."? Public debate, however, quickly killed Cheney's plans for the United States' "ruling the
world," as one commentator described it. The plans, which were "conspicuously devoid of references to
collective action through the United Nations" or other multinational organizations, anticipated "future coalitions
to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted." Even then, the United States
would "act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated," or if necessary to respond quickly.
The proposed plans further contemplated the need "to take military steps to prevent the development of
weapons of mass destruction" by "pre-empting [such] an impending attack."
President George H. W Bush's Democratic and Republican opponents, seeking the 1992 presidential
nomination, went after the far-reaching new plans. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Paul Tsongas
(from the left) opposed the Pax Americana nature of the plan and called for continued collective security;
Democratic governor Bill Clinton (from the center) was appalled at the expense of the plans; and Republican
Patrick Buchanan (from the right) lashed out at not only we expense but the concept of America serving as the
ultimate guarantor of world security. As a result, "Cheneys forced to revise then document, sanding down its
edges considerably." But this didnt change Cheney's thinking one scrap, nor did it result in the plan being
shelved. On the contrary, these concepts became the basic tenets of neoconservative foreign policy. Cheney's
departure _from the _government with Bush senior's defeat was not the end of this radical planning, only just
the beginning.
To encourage continuing debate on the Cheney Wolfowitz ideas, William Kristol (who had been Vice President'
Dan Quayle'_ chief ofstaff and then founder of the Weekly Standard, the voice of the neocons) and Robert
Kagan (a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, a columnist for the Washington Post,. and a'
contributing editor at the Weekly Standard)* wrote about these policy plans in the July/August 1996 issue of
Foreign Affairs, explaining them as America's opportunity to exercise a "benevolent hegemony" of the world
while promoting democracy and free Markets abroad (nice Orwellian double speak for Orwellian world
domination). By the spring of 1997; Kristol -and.Kagan had created the Project for the _New American
Century, a well-funded, "non-profit, educational organization'_ to_:promote the Cheney Wolf plans. Joining this
effort were 'Wolfowitz and a who"s who of a growing neoconservative establishment. In 1998, eighteen
prominent associates of the New American Century wrote President Clinton urging him to remove Saddam
Hussein. Although Cheney did not sign the letter, his former mentor Don Rumsfeld did, as well as many of his
close associates. * (Maybe Cheney refrained from signing because Halliburton was doing such a nice business
with Saddam.)

*The signators were Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula
Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W
Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, , RJames Woolsey, and Robert B.
Zoellick

*Robert Kagan's wife, Victoria, a former U.S. deputy chief of mission at NATO, is Cheney's deputy national
security advisor; she replaced Eric Edelman, who is serving in Turkey as U.S. ambassador.

By September 2000, the Project for the New American Century had published a report further refining and
expanding one Cheney Wolfowitz ideas, titled Rebuilding America's Defenses:
strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. The study lamented the lack of effort to "preserve
American military preeminence in the coming decades" and acknowledged that to do so
was going to be difficult. The study criticized Clinton for squandering his opportunity and explained that what
was needed was a transformation strategy. Such a transformation process was
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing bent -like a new Pearl Harbor." (Emphasis
added.)
Before the actual catalyzing event occurred, Kagan and Kristol, in their ongoing advocacy, sought to create
such a compelling event. Accordingly, they edited and wrote the introduction to a collection of essays published
in early 2001 - Present Danger.: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy - making the
case for the latest iteration of the Cheney/Wolfowitz concepts. Their provocative "present danger" 'title - a term
presumably taken from a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Schenck v. United States) discussing the type of
grave and immediate danger necessary to justify setting aside the_ First Amendment, which the Court called "a
clear and present danger" - referred to their concern that "the United States, the world's dominant power on
whom the maintenance of' international peace and the support of liberal democratic principles depends, will
shirk its responsibilities and allow the international order that it created and sustains to collapse." (It is worth
noting that Present Danger hardly deals with the threat of terrorism and concludes that Iraq would "be able to
reconstitute viable WMD and missile capabilities within six months" but only after "it emerges from the current
sanctions.") They offered neither a "clear" nor "present" danger, but with 9/11 the neoconservatives had their
catalyzing event, and they were positioned at the top of the Bush II administration to make the most of the
opportunity.
Cheney's Shadow National Security Council
From the outset of the administration, Cheney focused on national security. Look, for example, at I. Lewis
"Scooter" Libby, an attorney who served" at the Pentagon (1989-93) while Cheney was in charge.* Scooter
Libby not only carries the designation of Cheney's Chief of staff but also has the title national security advisor
to the vice president, and he is an assistant to the president (the highest title on the White House staff). Libby’s
foreign-policy background (and title) clearly reflects Cheney's perception of, if not his preoccupation with, his
war role in the Bush II administration. But Libby was just the beginning. To support his national security work,
rather than relying on the National Security Council (NSC) - a statutory creation, which is part of the Executive
Office of the President (and where Condi Rice as national security advisor to Bush was, cutting back on staff) -
Cheney formed what is, in effect, a shadow NSC. Indeed, it - was actually Bush's NSC staff who first called
Cheney's operation a "shadow" government. This shadow operation, while 'informally integrated, actually has
its own agenda as well as the power to realize it through the vice president's clout. It is a secret government -
beyond the reach of Congress, and everyone else as well.

_*Ironically, Scooter Libby represented fugitive financier Marc Rich and told Congress, after he had become
Cheney's chief of staff, that he believed the prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office had "misconstrued the
facts and the law" when they went after Rich on tax-evasion charges. This, of course, was one of the principal
reasons Clinton pardoned Rich.

Cheney has under him some fifteen experienced national security experts - aides such as Eric Edelman, a
foreign service officer and former ambassador to Finland who was with Cheney at the Defense Department
(and who he later sent to Turkey as ambassador, not to mention the eyes and ears for the vice president), and
John Hannah, who had been at Bush senior's State Department and is an expert on the Middle East. To serve
as Hannah's top assistant, William Luti, a former adviser to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, was hired (and later
dispatched to the Defense Department when Cheney's shadow operation increased its outsourcing).* Cheney's
academic and scholarly bent (he
holds a master's degree in political science from the University Wyoming) explains his reliance on others with
advanced degrees. Not only is Cheney's 'staff smart, they know how_ Washington works. And running through
this staff is the common thread of a shared neoconservative political philosophy. As the 'New Republic noted,
"Cheney's. office came to be viewed as the administration's neocons sanctuary.
*Investigative journalist Sy Hersh has reported at some length in the NewYorker- for example, "Who Lied to
Whom" (Mar. 3, 2003) and "The Stovepipe" (Oct. 27, 2003) - about Cheney's out-of-channels intelligence
gathering operations. In addition, the information about Cheney's hidden
intelligence-collection operations has been further puzzled together by Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest for
Mother Jones (in "The Lie Factory," Jan.! Feb. 2004). Dreyfuss and Vest reported that dubious and untested
intelligence was assembled by the Office of Special Plans, set up in the Pentagon (a "shadow agency within an
agency") and composed largely of neoconservative ideologues, assembled to make the case for war in Iraq,
and did so when others in the government's intelligence community had no information justifying the case that
Cheney and Bush wanted to make.

A Cliffs Notes-level analysis of neoconservatism is found in a widely circulated floor speech by Congressman
Ron Paul (R- Tex'.), a libertarian (thus no fan of neoconservatism). "Modern neoconservatives are not
necessarily monolithic in their views," the congressman says, "but they generally can be described as follows":

. They agree with Trotsky's idea of a permanent revolution.
. They identify strongly with the writings of_Leo Straus_
. They express no opposition to the welfare state and will expand it to win votes and power.
. They believe 'In a powerful federal government.
. They believe the ends justify the means in politics - that
hardball [in] politics is a moral necessity.
. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
. They believe certain facts should be known only by the political elite, and withheld from the    general public.
They believe in preemptive war and the naked use of military force to achieve any desired ends.
. They openly endorse the idea of an American empire, and-hence unapologetically call for            imperialism.
. They are very willing to use force to impose American ideals.
. They scoff at the Founding Fathers' belief in neutrality in
      foreign affairs.
. They believe 9/11 resulted from a lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
. They are willing to redraw the map of the Middle East by' force, while unconditionally supporting     Israel and
the Likud Party.*
_ They view civil liberties with suspicion, as unnecessary restrictions on the federal government.
. They despise libertarians, and dismiss any arguments based on constitutional grounds.

Also revealing is how neocons see themselves. Irving Kristol, putative godfather of the "persuasion" (he says it
is not a "movement"), explained their thinking broadly in "The Neoconservative Persuasion: 'What It Was and
'What It Is." He wrote that the "disillusioned liberal intellectuals" of the 1970s, who became the initial
neoconservatives, sought to convert the Republican Party - and American conservatives - to their thinking.
That, however, did not occur; neoconservatism has not become mainstream American conservatism. "It is
hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic.
Its 20th-century, heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan (but not Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover,
Dwight Eisenhower, or Barry Goldwater)." As for foreign policy, Irving Kristol has been surprised by the recent
attention to neocons, "since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of
attitudes derived from historical experience." Neoconservatives' favored "text on foreign affairs . . . is
Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War:"* And Kristol said that what unites them with traditional conservatives' is
a shared concern about the "steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity."

Apparently beside the point is the vulgarity of sleazy business deals bullying demeanor, and utter disregard for
norms of behavior honoring international laws respecting the sanctity of life.
      *Israe!i prime minister Ariel Sharon is the leader of the Likud Party, which is considered right of center in
Israeli politics.
Neoconservative Vulcanization of Bush

_"' Bush does not spend a lot of time reading_ Foreign: affairs. In fact. he does not spend _a"lot of time reading
anything: "Nobody needs to tell me what to believe. But I do need somebody to tell me where Kosovo is,” 'Bush
said as he prepared to run for president. For those national security experts working as tutors to the candidate,
it was an opportunity to mold the thinking of a man who had a good chance to become president, a man who
knew virtually nothing about the subject and had thought little about the world beyond the United States. He
was, for all practical purposes, a. blank slate to be written on.
The group of tutors was headed by Condoleezza Rice, and she named her team "the Vulcans" (after the
Roman blacksmith god of fire and metalworking) to honor her hometown, Birmingham; Alabama, where she had
first seen a Vulcan statue - a symbol of the city's steel industry. Perhaps there was an attempt at humor, too:
tutors in the mold of Star Trek's Mr. Spock, they hoped to be pleasant but utterly without emotion - coldly
viewing the universe without sympathy or empathy. '
*An ironic foreign-policy favorite, given that the democratic superpower Athens, whose expanding powers and
influence provoked a war with the despotic Spartans, who ultimately defeated the Athenians in the
Peloponnesian War, as recorded by Thucydides.
Condi Rice and Bush had become close friends earlier, particularly over their mutual love' of sports, and she
would become his closest aide on both a personal and professional level at the White House. The Vulcan tutors
represented two of three Republican philosophies in national security: those of the "realists" and those of the
"hard-liners." Realists look to the policies of the Bush I administration as exemplars for foreign policy, such as
not marching into Baghdad in 1991 or not roaming the planet looking for fights. The hard-liners seek to remake
American policy and want an aggressive, militarily muscular (if diplomacy fails) American global hegemony
(read: domination). The excluded "isolationists" reject all foreign entanglements. The Vulcans were
predominately neocons, or hard-liners.
Foreign policy was a nonissue in the 2000 campaign, yet to those who paid attention, the signs of war were
apparent. Nicolas Lemann, a Washington correspondent for the New Yorker, " had interviewed and profiled
Cheney during the campaign., Speaking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lemann told his
audience (less than fifty days into the new administration), given Cheney's rapid rise to that of co-president, to
"look for swashbuckling adventures, hawkish foreign policy and an active, interventionist military." So it would
be, but much more. Not unlike Nixon's decision decades earlier to depend on Kissinger and take a hard line on
almost everything after the
leak of the Pentagon, Papers, Bush has relied on his trusted vice president and taken his hard line. It is not
likely that Rice - who does not consider herself a hard-liner - would have encouraged Bush to embrace the
neoconservative philosophy. But, it is not difficult to understand the appeal to Bush of this kick ass approach,
for he likes bold moves, has no hesitation to gamble with his 'policies (and American lives), and has his
manhood tied up with his job as president . Former secretary of the treasury Pau1 O'Neill said war with Iraq was
on the agenda at the very first NSC meeting; the New Republic reported that Cheney got the commander in
chief marching toward Baghdad in early'
January 2002. Obviously, the success in Afghanistan (if it can truly be called that, given Bush's subsequent
near abandonment of die reconstruction efforts there, the return of the Taliban, and the inability to, shut down
al Qaeda) emboldened the president. But it is entirely possible that even had 9/11 not occurred,        Cheney
still would have convinced Bush of the wisdom his philosophy. In fact, the delay by Cheney and his national
security team addressing terrorism suggests that they might well have .been busy constructing plans (or
Cheney, who keeps his thoughts to himself, may have privately been mulling them) to be implemented when a
disaster like 9/11 occurred. Cheney knew that terrorism was the perfect excuse, an ideal raison d'etre, for his
"let's role the world" philosophy. Politically, it would be much easier to be seen as shooting back instead of
shooting first, given the caliber of weapon Cheney sought to wield. But he and his team did far worse than
simply waiting for an attack that would kill a sufficient number of Americans.
Cheney's Stall on Terrorism
The threat of terrorism, even of terrorists striking in the United States, was understood by both Bush and
Cheney long before they arrived in the White House. In his 1999 speech to the cadets at The Citadel, Bush had
warned of such domestic terrorism. In May 2000, Bush's speech on national security opened on this note: "The
emerging security threats to the United States, its' friends and allies and even to Russia now come from rogue
states, terrorist groups and other adversaries seeking weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver
them. Later in the 2000 campaign, following the terrorist attack on the USS Cole, Bush was vague about the
proper response, saying only, "It must have consequences. Bush similarly told Fox News, who asked if there
should be a military response to the Cole bombing, that he wanted to study the matter but thought the United
States should send a "swift, sure and a clear signal to terrorists around the world that we are not going to
tolerate terrorism."
During the transition period, Bush and Cheney learned more about the terrorism problem. Bill Clinton told Bush,
when he visited the White House as president-elect on December 19, 2000, that his "biggest [national] security
problem" would be "Osama bin Laden" and terrorism. Bush and Cheney were told in CIA briefings before
assuming office that the CIA "had been warn[ed] about bin Laden and al Qaeda." Clinton's national security
advisor, Sandy Berger, set up ten briefings for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her top deputy, Stephen
Hadley, with Berger personally attending the session on terrorism, which was presented by "terrorism czar"
Richard Clarke (who would remain on Bush's National Security Council staff). Berger attended the terrorism
session to underscore the importance of the subject. Berger told Rice, "I believe that the Bush Administration
will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al Qaeda specifically, than all other subject." Bush and
Cheney also learned that after the 1998 bombing incidents at U.S. embassies in Africa, CIA director George
Tenet had "declared war" (at least for the CIA) on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. In January 2001, after their
inauguration, Bush and Cheney received the report of a multiyear study of national security problems likely to
confront the United States during the next quarter century, Clinton's secretary of defense, William Cohen (a
Republican), initiated this blue-ribbon, bipartisan study by experts, co-chaired by two Washington insiders
familiar with military and foreign policy, former senator Warren Rudman (RN.H.) and former senator Gary Hart
(D-Col.). The fourteen member commission and its professional staff, with a, $10 million budget, sought
answers and found them. The final report was issued on January 31, 2001, and the highest recommendation
and first priority urged the president to focus on terrorism: "A direct attack against American citizens on
American soil is likely over the next quarter century," and "even excellent intelligence will not prevent all
surprises."
  Cheney, however, decided to put terrorism on' a back burner and closed down the Rudman-Hart commission.
Rather than relying on the bipartisan judgment of this uniquely qualified group, Cheney told Bush to turn the
matter over to him (since he was 'already' looking at everything else). Accordingly, on May 8 2001, Bush issued
a statement: "Some non-state terrorist groups have . . . demonstrated an interest in acquiring weapons of mass
destruction. . . . It is clear that the threat of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons being used against the
United States -while not immediate - is very real." (Emphasis added.)
He said that he had asked Cheney “to oversee the development of a coordinated national effort so that we may
do the best possible job of protecting our people of catastrophic harm.” In addition Bush would create an office
of national preparedness” in the Federal Emergency Management Agency to implement Cheneys
recommendations. This announcement killed the rudman Hart commission proposal to create a homeland
security department with cabinet rank. (a plan the white house would claim as its own). Later that morning (May
8) Secretary of State Colin Powell all but conceded that terrorism was a problem without solution. After
explaining what the State Department was (and had been) doing, which was not insubstantial, Powell
rhetorically asked, "Does that mean we are going to thwart or successfully defend against every terrorist act
possible? Of course not."        .        .
Only days before the 9/11 attack, on September 4, 2001, plans for dealing with al Qaeda arrived in the vice
president's office. Why had it taken so long to address what _Cheney had to know was a very serious threat?
To a, great extent ( the delay was due to Bush and Cheney's blanket rejection of any idea however good - that
had_come out of the,Clinton administration,. indeed, Richard...Clarke.,,--- who had served in high level
positions for ..three_Republican presidents as well as Clinton woud soon resign in frustration regarding Bush
and Cheney's discarding of numerous antiterror.programs. But not all of the Bush administration's actions were
about politics of the past, for 9/11 created its own political predicament for this presidency. Given the' effort to
prevent others from learning what they knew about such a threat, when they knew, and what they were
planning to do about it, it is reasonable to believe that they planned to exploit terrorism before 9/11 handed
them the issue ready-made for exploitation - a fact they obviously want to keep buried
Blocking 9/11 Investigations
Understandably, Americans (particularly the families of those who lost loved ones on 9/11) want to know how
nineteen foreign-born hijackers with box cutters could elude security, commander four fully fueled jumbo
airliners, and, with remarkable synchronism and accuracy, fly three of them as human guided missiles into
designated and highly symbolic targets in York and Washington. The fourth airliner, which crashed in a
Pennsylvania field, is believed to have been headed for the White House or the Capitol. If the plot were part of
a movie or novel, it might well be dismissed as wildly unrealistic. And yet it happened. Given the dimensions of
the government's failure, it was inevitable, that several congressional committees, in both the House and
Senate, quickly expressed plans. to investigate. But this was exactly what Cheney wanted to avoid. With the
Democrats in control of the Senate and the Republicans in control of the House, the White House had only
partial control over Congress. Working behind the scenes, however, Cheney was able to do what a White
House does when it does not want to be investigated - stop the process by jamming the gears of
government.        ,
.Both Bush and Cheney spoke with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in late January 2002 about the
probes. The Washington Post reported that the "president said the inquiry should be limited to the House and
Senate intelligence committees, whose proceedings are generally secret" and that Cheney told Daschle, "A
review of what happened on September 11 would. take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war
on        terrorism'.It was not a viable excuse to forestall an investigation. When they failed to block the
congressional inquiry, Bush and Cheney next used their political influence to control it.
      Cheney employed well-proven tactics - in fact, we used a variation of them during Watergate. First Daschle
and then the House Republican leadership agreed (out of concern for "national security") to permit 'Only the
intelligence committees to investigate 9/11. Then, to further limit those inquiries and prevent separate
investigations by the House and Senate intelligence committees, an "unprecedented" (only because Democrats
controlled one house of Congress, Republicans the other) joint committee was formed by combining the two,
committees. With thirty-seven meinbers constituting the joint inquiry, the impact of the investigation was
immediately weakened. Cheney understood that all members of _such a high-profile undertaking would
jealously seek to be involved; which dilutes the effort. f'or example, the time allotted to any single member for
questioning witnesses must be limited, so everyone gets his turn, and the staff cannot assist' three dozen-plus
members, as well as it can a few. And reaching agreement on anything is difficult with such expanded
membership, not to mention mixing the House and Senate together. In short, such large joint committees are
remarkably cumbersome and poor at investigations, and for that reason they are rarely used. Second, to keep
the focus off the Bush-Cheney White House, it was agreed that the congressional) inquiry would investigate the
roots of the terrorism problem, thus going back into the Clinton' administration, when Republicans hope to
dump the blame for 9/11. Finally, since all ' the information was controlled by the executive branch (i.e";_the
White House) and much of it subject to national security classification, Bush and Cheney could and did -
control, what would be provided to the joint inquiry. The committee _would get only what Bush and Cheney
wanted it to get.        ,
_Although the joint inquiry held a few public hearings for show (members of Congress like to be seen on
television), the real work took place behind closed doors. Running this investigation was no easy task, because
the Bush administration was determined to foil the effort - and succeeded. The staff director, who is important
to any such inquiry, was an able former federal prosecutor from Tampa, Eleanor Hill, who spent over a decade
as a Senate investigator before serving as inspector general at the Department of Defense. Whatever her
political affiliation, she has worked with, and for, both Democrats and Republicans, for years, appearing more
interested in doing the job well than in the' politics of it.
The white House took the unprecedented stance in refusing to permit either Donald Rumsfeld, as secretary of
defense, or Colin Powell, as secretary of State, from testifying about matters relating to pre 9/11counterterroism
activities.

You may contact Robert Jastrebski at:
Rjastrebski@peoplepc.com

This file is not intended to be viewed directly using a web browser. To create a viewable file, use the Preview in Browser or Publish to Yahoo! Web Hosting commands from within Yahoo! SiteBuilder.