posted 02-25-2004 10:00 PM            

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Investigation/perle_resignation_040225.html

posted 02-25-2004 10:10 PM            

Wow...a leading Neo-Con !

You watch... the rats are going to jump ship REAL quick now.

As Al Bore once said.."You aint seen nothin' yet."

Things are going to be EXTREMELY interesting over the next couple of months.

(Mech rubbing hands together!)

posted 02-25-2004 10:23 PM            

"As a man who's honesty and integrity is being questioned"

"You don't have Dick Perle to kick around anymore"

posted 02-25-2004 10:27 PM            

Thought you might like this article as it'll make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside!

The Coming Implosion of the American Empire

See: A readers note on this article

by Gary North

02/23/04: (LewRockwell.com) The American Empire is scheduled to depart from Iraq in June. The unofficial word is out in Washington: Karl Rove has told President Bush that the body count, however much reduced by strange definitions of what constitutes a battlefield death, is going to cost him the election if it continues through the summer. Dutifully, the Commander-in-Chief has announced a June deadline for the transfer of Iraq's sovereignty to "the Iraqis," meaning whichever remnants of the coalition of the suppressed will still officially deal with him on his terms.

If you want a mental image of what is taking place in the White House today, picture Dorothy and her three companions walking through the forest of Oz. They are chanting, over and over, "Shi'ites and Sunnis and Kurds."

The United States government started a pre-emptory war last year. Patriotic couch potatoes marveled at televised shock and awe: flash, boom, smoke. "Wow! Neat! Cool!" President Bush, Sr., said in 1991, "This shall not stand." That is what his son said about the Baghdad skyline. But Americans are now being asked to pick up the pieces, or at least to pay Halliburton to pick up the pieces. Karl Rove has heard the rumblings. The departure date is now set.

Of course, all of the troops will not depart. Reserves are being called up to serve as car-bomb fodder. But, officially, the United States will become an invited observer, probably sharing authority with the United Nations. (This assumes – safely – that no elections will be held prior to June 30; otherwise, the United States will be asked to leave on July 1.). That will please liberals, who will chant, "Bush should have done it this way from the beginning." Meanwhile, conservatives will conveniently overlook the fact that (1) the U.S. military is in retreat mode and (2) the Administration had to beg the United Nations Organization to come to Iraq and bail out Mr. Bush politically. Rush Limbaugh will not remind his listeners of this embarrassing fact. He will not sing the praises of "those courageous and dedicated representatives of the United Nations, the world's legitimizer of last resort." He will, instead, do his Winston Smith imitation, for which he is deservedly famous.

Americans thoroughly enjoy seeing American troops bang heads around the world, but only on these assumptions: (1) the victims can't or won't fight back; (2) the military's adventures do not visibly tap into Americans' pocketbooks; (3) our troops can pull out at any time without visibly putting their tails between their legs. When there are helicopter retreats from Saigon, American voters react in a hostile fashion. Americans like war, but they like it cheap.

The war in Iraq has been costly in every sense, yet Americans still are paying higher prices at the gasoline pump. The price of oil has risen. The flow of oil out of Iraq today barely trickles. The pipelines cannot be defended by our troops. They are being blown up, although the media rarely report this. The Iraq adventure has now become a vast foreign aid program, and Americans do not like foreign aid programs. The do not like to share the wealth. They want to get their hands on the wealth confiscated politically from their neighbors. They resent foreign interlopers who tap into the flow of stolen goods.

When the regular troops pull out, news from Iraq will peter out, just as Iraqi oil has. There will be stories of this or that car bombing, this or that assassination, this or that break-off tribe. But Iraq will become Afghanistan in the perception of most Americans: out of sight, out of mind. If you want it packaged in a convenient slogan, however incorrect politically, I suggest this one: "When wogs are killing only wogs, the West loses interest."

This will mark the reversal of the American empire. It has taken a long time.

"WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"

George W. Bush invoked weapons of mass destruction, just as Lyndon Johnson invoked the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It was never quite clear exactly what had happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, but it is clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Johnson was never successfully exposed publicly as a liar regarding the Gulf of Tonkin. Bush has been exposed, and will continue to be exposed, as either completely misled or a liar, either a nincompoop or a deceiver. He is never going to get back his image as a reliable leader in a time of war, which is the only positive image he ever enjoyed, brief as it was. He will be on the defensive from now on. The phrase, "weapons of mass destruction," will be pinned on his backside the same way "trust me" was pinned on Carter, "read my lips: no new taxes" was pinned on Bush's father, and "I feel your pain" was pinned on Clinton, barely leaving enough room for "I did not have sex with that woman."

It will become extremely difficult from now on for any American President to invoke a looming military threat in order to justify military intervention by the United States. Clearly, President Bush will never be able to do this again, but I think it goes beyond him. His enduring legacy will be the conversion of "weapons of mass destruction" into the equivalent of Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time." The phrase will become a laughingstock. Every President from now on who attempts to justify anything comparable to the Iraq war will be greeted with Congressional hoots of "weapons of mass destruction." Any Congressman with an eye to being re-elected (but I repeat myself) will remember seeing John Kerry's verbal tap-dancing around his support of launching a war against Iraq. No Congressman wants to be sucked into a retroactive quagmire.

Iraq is a sandy quagmire, just as the war's critics predicted it would be. It is Vietnam without a comparable body count. It is a continuing disaster, and as soon as the troops leave, Rush Limbaugh will cease trying to defend the disaster. When the troops depart, the Republican faithful will become afflicted with what I call Rushheimer's disease: selective amnesia. Saddam Hussein will get a trial, but media coverage will match the coverage given to Slobodan Milosevic's trial.

The war was a bipartisan effort, but because of the President's rhetoric, he will deservedly get blamed. The Democrats will not push too hard, however, because voters might make the connection between the President's unsubstantiated claims and Congress's willingness to roll over and play dead, or whatever it was playing when it rolled over. ("Will you still respect me in the morning?" "Sure I will, baby.") The next time a President calls for an invasion, Congress will be far less supine.

LOSING THE WAR

Our troops won a minor battle in March, 2003. That battle was called a war, but it was only one battle in a very long war. This war has been going on for about 14 centuries. The war's main theater today is the Middle East. When it becomes apparent to America's enemies, which are also the State of Israel's enemies, that the United States did not win its phase of the ancient war, they will be emboldened. Winning the battle in the Middle East requires permanent military occupation by the victors. American voters will not pay the price required. When it comes to wars, American voters are great believers in hit and run. For them, a war is a one-night stand. They prefer to get on with business. Americans want a commercial empire, not a military empire. They view a military empire as justified only because it promotes business. Iraq is not promoting business.

Americans have no intention of becoming surrogate Israelis. The State of Israel is now permanently on the defensive. When Israeli troops fled from Lebanon – "fled" is the correct word to describe their literally overnight departure – it was clear who is winning the war.

This war is deeply religious. This makes it a demographic war. Israelis are losing this war in the bedroom. It is only a matter of time, which is why they are building the wall: a very large prophylactic to deal with the effects of smaller prophylactics. But the comparative birth rates inside the wall's confines tell the story. The Arabs are winning. They know it. Only if the government imposes a new diaspora and forces all Arabs outside the wall can the Israelis even pretend to be winning. This would be a policy of democracy by removal – what the Afrikaners were unwilling to attempt. In gentile countries, this process is called ethnic cleansing. It is very popular in areas where Muslims and Christians seek territorial hegemony.

In Europe the same war is in progress. Muslims are winning it in the same place: the bedroom. If the trend continues – and there is little evidence that it won't – the result is inevitable. Christian Europe, which is in fact secular Europe, is going to be replaced. Tours and Lepanto will prove to have been minor skirmishes in a very long war. I can think of only one event that might reverse this process. No one ever mentions it in polite company. It is officially unthinkable. Yet it is being thought in high places. It could take place within 30 minutes from now. It would change everything geopolitically. The Israelis could launch a pre-emptory nuclear strike against Mecca and Medina. The primary symbols of Islam would be reduced to radioactive dust. If the Israelis used a cobalt-tipped bomb, Muslims could not visit Mecca for millennia. Yet Muslims are told to do so at least once in a lifetime.

This tactic is Israel's trump card strategically. Everyone in power in the Middle East knows it, but no one ever mentions it publicly. Muslims venerate Mecca and Medina and their monuments. When veneration becomes superstition, monuments become primary military targets for the enemy. If the Jews blast Mecca's rock into radioactive dust, the fallout will be more than radioactive dust. It could be the end of Islam.

Do I think this attack will ever happen? Yes. The Israelis know they are in a fight to the death. They know they will never be accepted by Arabs as lawful residents in the region. Over time, they will be overcome demographically. They know it. Their enemies know it. So, when push comes to shove, Mecca and Medina will disappear.

The United States government is not about to play this trump card. So, the United States is going to lose the war in the Middle East. If you hold back in the Middle East, you are perceived as a loser. The United States has no ace in the hole. Voters here are impatient.

President Bush used to talk tough. Rumsfeld talked about a war lasting for decades. But the Bush Administration will not last for decades. It may not last another twelve months. This is why all the tough talk has ended. The war that matters here is politics, and Iraq has become a political liability. We see and hear little from Rumsfeld these days. Rove appears to have put a gag on him.

The neo-cons are finished. They said the Iraq war would be a cakewalk. It wasn't. They said we had to establish a presence in the Middle East. We couldn't. The Republican Party, once Bush leaves office, will not listen to them again. They will publish their subsidized magazines and pretend that the public is listening, but the public has had enough. The neo-cons are visibly losers. They got their shot at power, and they squandered it in the streets of Baghdad. Straussians do not need to read between the lines in order to discern this traditional message: "Americans do not listen to losers."

Bobos in paradise are uninterested in the Middle East. Trust me.

CONCLUSION

The contraction of the American empire will begin in June. It has already lost considerable legitimacy in the eyes of the voters, not because of some great alteration of their principles, but because we are being car-bombed out of the place. The oil is not flowing. Sand isn't worth the price.

This will be an historic event. Historians will be able to establish a date on which to hang their narratives. Historians will do anything to find such a dated event. December 7, 1941 marks the beginning of the empire in the textbooks, although the Spanish-American War was the more obvious birthplace, assuming that the Louisiana Purchase wasn't – a major assumption. But Pearl Harbor gets all the attention because of the unarguable transformation of American foreign policy that it produced. Sporadic intervention prior to Pearl Harbor became permanent intervention after.

The troops' departure from Iraq will mark the day that Johnny comes marching home. There will be no parades, any more than there were when Israeli troops pulled out of Lebanon.

The implosion of the American empire is about to begin – not just the military one but also the commercial one. An empire that can no longer afford to keep its troops on active duty in occupied areas is not a good credit risk.

Mark the date on your calendar: June 30, 2004.

Gary North [garynorth@garynorth.com] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.freebooks.com.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5758.htm

____________________

posted 02-25-2004 10:34 PM            

Millions 'n millions of dollars...
Much as he might need...
He could open up a chain of motels, people
On the highway, yes indeed!

Quadrafonic desperation!
Just might be some confinement loaf all up under your bed
If you just might pinch a little loaf in your slumber.
The FBI's gonna get your number.

Gonna getchya..
Gonna getchya...
Gonna jump right out of the subcomittee and get ya'..

GONNA GET YOUR NUMBER...
THE FBI
GONNA GET YOUR NUMBER....
THE FBI
GONNA GET YOUR NUMBER...

GONNNA..GET..YOUR..NUMBER
GONNA..GET..YOUR..NUMBER

Tryin' not to worry
Tryin' not to care
But you know, I get delighted
When that soup goes over there

Can't have no private conversations
NOWHERE
In the USA
Can't wait 'til the rest of the people all over the the world
Find out their government
Is just the same ol' way
Every day...

The gangster stepped right up,
'N kissed him on the lips good-bye
Made him a c**sucker by proxy, yes he did,
An' he didn't even bat an eye!

The man in the White House -- oooh!
He's got a conscience black as sin!
There's just one thing I wanna know --
How'd that a**hole ever manage to get in?

Dickies' such an a**hole!

Woooooo ooooo!!!

posted 02-25-2004 10:47 PM            

Hmmmm..He's been HIDING a lot lately.

posted 02-25-2004 11:02 PM            

I'd go with him, slightly favored over Cheney.

posted 02-26-2004 09:24 AM            

"Dump the Neo-Con"

Rove has the Valerie Plame situation hanging over his head.

Cheney has Haliburton and his heart.

Should be interesting.

posted 02-26-2004 10:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Thought you might like this article as it'll make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside!

---

quote:

---

Gary North:
Johnson was never successfully exposed publicly as a liar regarding the Gulf of Tonkin.

---

quote:

---

Gary North:
"read my lips: no new taxes" was pinned on Bush's father,

---

quote:

---

Gary North:
The war was a bipartisan effort, but because of the President's rhetoric, he will deservedly get blamed.

---

quote:

---

Gary North:
Any Congressman with an eye to being re-elected (but I repeat myself) will remember seeing John Kerry's verbal tap-dancing around his support of launching a war against Iraq.

---

quote:

---

Gary North:
the Republican faithful will become afflicted with what I call Rushheimer's disease: selective amnesia.

---

quote:

---

Gary North:
The Republican Party, once Bush leaves office, will not listen to them again. They will publish their subsidized magazines and pretend that the public is listening,

---

quote:

---

Gary North:
The contraction of the American empire will begin in June. It has already lost considerable legitimacy in the eyes of the voters,

---

-They will, as usual, accuse everyone who exposed the truth of "rewriting history", declare victory, and continue to follow Orwell's manual.
they have learned that, if the lies are repeated often enough by enough voices,
many people will begin to believe those lies.

eg: "Third rate burglary" lie about Watergate, when Nixon actually resigned to cover-up murder.
when HR Haldeman says in his book "The Ends of Power"
(why did Nixon obstruct justice in ordering the FBI to stop investigating the Watergate burglary?
answer: "this leads directly to the bay of pigs."- Nixon smoking gun tape
Haldeman finally realized that "in all those Nixon references to the bay of pigs, he was referring to the Kennedy assassination."
despite hearing Nixon suggest repeatedly that "Dean could have an accident" Haldeman did not want to believe Nixon, or any Republican could be involved in murder.
That same "desire to not believe" will carry the neo-cons through.
They will believe the lies from the RNC, Rush and the thousands of other parrots of the RNC 'talking points':

Gary North et; who would have us believe the neo-cons now will relinquish the Republican Party, back to the control of Conservatives.
this is IMHO just another RNC 'talking point' intended for damage control.
This is just a minor bump in the road to those who singlemindedly pursue "the Conservative Vision":
One Party Rule, by an elite minority.
(sounds like Communism, Nazism and fascism, -actual practice not rosy rhetoric)
The neo-cons hold the reigns of power and will not surrender overnight what they have spent half a centruy winning.
Control of the Republican party and inroads into the Democratic party.
(Democratic Leadership Council is seen by many Democrats as an RNC trojan horse)

posted 02-26-2004 10:52 AM            

OREOS:
Colin Powell (black vote/ veterans' vote)
Condi Rice (black vote/ womens' vote)
JC Watts (black vote/ evangelicals' vote)

They know that most Republicans will vote for Bush (even if he had just been convicted of child molesting)

It's the blacks, and women they want to sucker into voting Republican next time around.
If Kerry can be "gored" (taking him out of context and lying) via media attack dogs,
Powell will drop from first on the list.

Bush/Powell 2004
Bush/Rice 2004
Bush/Watts 2004

Corporations have been hiring token blacks for half a century.
Only the fact that the majority, on the right, are rascists, is seen as a problem.

Strom Thurmond's black daughter was a trial balloon.
There should be others,
floated to gauge how bigots in the party would react to an integrated ticket.

posted 02-26-2004 11:07 AM            

Most Afro-Americans I speak too know the scoop on Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and Powell. Snake has bitten them too many times.

Guiliani is my guess for VP. His only "smear" was parading his mistress around while still married, and having her sleep over while the kids and wife were at home in Gracie Mansion.

posted 02-26-2004 11:50 AM            

They only hope to make the election closer.
92% of black Americans voted Democratic in 2000.
Drop that by ten percent, and it becomes possible to "fix" the election again.

Subtle propaganda like:
"There is no difference between the two sides."
and a minority VP for Bush is intended to reduce turnout by Democrats.

History shows:
Heavy turnout: Democrats win.
Light turnout: Republicans win.

If evangelicals fail to be enthusiastic about the wedge issues like 'gay marriage'
and school prayer, JC Watts looks best.

Look for many wedge issues and trial balloons.

Evangelicals are beginning to notice they have been lied to;
Bush never proposed the promised anti-abortion amendment.
American lives were sacrificed to replace the Taliban's Muslim state with another Muslim state (Afghanistan)
Evangelicals were promised that Christian missionaries would be allowed to swarm over Afghanistan and Iraq.
(my source: Pat Robertson)

Shoring up the rightwing base (by instigating wedge issues)
and bringing in crossover votes are mutually exclusive.

An empty gesture, like a token/minority VP
IS under serious consideration.

posted 02-26-2004 06:57 PM            

Thanks for clarifyling the Snow article! It was obviously an opinion piece and maybe he's not as thoughtful as you!

Please read the thread and articles on Dominionism. If I was not so tired tonight, I'd write about that aspect of the administration including Pat Robertson!

Actually this administration and the majority of Republicans now desire a theocracy in which public schools are dismantled, the poor and elderly ignored, and Biblical dogma (including the Old Testament) overpowering the Constitution! Other agendas, too! Please read that thread!

The neocon aspect is just one of the power arms of this sickening movement!

posted 02-27-2004 08:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:

Actually this administration and the majority of Republicans now desire a [b]theocracy in which public schools are dismantled, the poor and elderly ignored, and Biblical dogma (including the Old Testament) overpowering the Constitution! Other agendas, too! Please read that thread!

The neocon aspect is just one of the power arms of this sickening movement!

[/B]

---

BC,

I'll read that thread.
I believe that those (so called)"Christian Conservatives"
are neither Christians nor Conservatives.
I also believe they are not representative of "most Republicans";
Just a vocal active minority faction which has excessive power in that party.

"Many fine decent people are Republicans"--President Bill Clinton (televised Town Hall Meeting 1996)

Unfortunately,
It fits my view of who the neo-cons really are.
It was a similar "Christian" Faction in the Reichstag that gave Hitler the necessary votes for the legislation that made him absolute dictator of Germany.
He was to have repaid them with a United Europe.
A newer version of "the Holy Roman Empire";
A "theological State".

Different names/ same goal.
Even the words are little changed between then and now.

IMHO
The parallels in rhetoric are unmistakable:

"I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise.
There needs to be some kind of protection
for the minority which the white people represent now,
and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights."
--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 3/18/92

"Die Deutschen Leute verlangen Schutz!"--
(The German people demand protection!) Adolph Hitler

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens,
nor should they be considered patriots.
This is one nation under God."-- George Bush

"Jews should not be considered citizens of Germany."-- Adolph Hitler

What's wrong with the right will not be cured quickly.

Republicans will have to stop trusting anyone with an (R) next to their' name;

and just because someone calls himself a "Conservative" does not make him a Conservative.

Democrats are in danger of the same.
Their common goal to save America from Bush,
and stop the 'one-party-rule' neo-cons;
can lead to trusting 'any Democrat' to be preferable to 'any Republican'.

There is both good and bad on all sides.

IMHO
Time for true conservatives to have a close look at the Libertarian Party.

Mostly former Republicans who were outraged at the increasing socialism in the Republican Party as neo-cons took over.

Nixon's "wage and price controls" in peacetime and Replacing Free China/Taiwan on the UN Security Council, with Communist China
was "the last straw"/pragmatism
that led to the founding of the Libertarian Party.

posted 02-27-2004 09:37 AM            

I thought all Republicans and Conservatives were "bad" ?

Shatoga: "Democrats common goal is to save America from Bush,
and stop the 'one-party-rule'

Baloney.

Shatoga: ...can lead to trusting 'any Democrat' to be preferable to 'any Republican'.

posted 02-27-2004 10:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
Trusting "any Democrat" without doing some research combined without rational thinking is stupid if you ask me.

---

With the odds that Kerry will be getting elected in November, we should be MORE cautious even than Bush in certain ways. I heard Kerry saying on NAFTA that he'd require companies 3 months to inform you they are outsourcing your job, and why they are doing it. Big Freakin' Deal!!! That is utter BS, and the companies could care less whether you know or not. As Hewlett Packard and Intel's CEO's said recently, "We are sending your jobs overseas. Get used to it"

I think a Kerry election is better than Bush on Civil Rights, Environment, and Economy, but on Free Trade, No!

posted 02-27-2004 10:12 AM            

Constitutional and fiscal conservatism with a socially liberal consciousness.

posted 02-27-2004 10:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
Id like to see a Ron Paul/Kucinich ticket.

Constitutional and fiscal conservatism with a socially liberal consciousness.

BOTH are in favor of dumping Nafta/Gatt.


[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 02-27-2004]

---

You got that right, Mech!

But there's one problem......Those two are too honest!

posted 02-27-2004 10:30 AM            

Can't have that.

posted 02-28-2004 11:00 PM            

Once upon a time there was an honest President.
He had a meeting with the former president's CIA chief who wanted to stay on the job.
He fired that corrupt cia chief.

He had a problem.

the former cia chief had spent billions in a faraway nation called iran.
that chief had the power, as a private citizen, to call in a few favors.
among those favors were:
The USMarines to NOT repel an attack on the embassy in Iran.
the cia financed Ayotallah to overthrow the cia financed Shah of Iran.
the american media to enact anti Carter programs such as "America Held Hostage" nightly to make the sitting President look bad.
the Reagan/Bush campaign to promise forbidden-byUS-law weapons and technology to Iran in return for a deal to NOT RELEASE the US hostages until Reagan (the puppet actor) and Bush (the actual person in control of the government) took power.

the same day Reagan took the oath of office,
Iran relseses the hostages.

anyone not intelligent enough to understand the manipulation and sacrifice of ordinary peoplesw' lives to achieve NWO ends,
is beyond discussion on this or any topic.

Kerry is better than Bush.

My neighbor's brindle dog is better than Bush.
the dog would not sacrifice ordinary innocent americans to achieve NWO goals;
Bush will send any one of us to death to achieve his daddy's ends.

Vote against all
Republicans in 2004!

Oppose the NWO.
(The NWO in Amerika is the Republican National Committee)

posted 02-28-2004 11:09 PM            

That's a foolish notion.

I'll say one thing about BUsh Co.

posted 02-28-2004 11:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
the same day Reagan took the oath of office,
Iran relseses the hostages.

---

Talk about the same day - wasn't it within MINUTES of his taking the oath?

posted 02-29-2004 12:32 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
Talk about the same day - wasn't it within MINUTES of his taking the oath?

I remember the day those hostages came home. I was at West Point, standing along side the road (in the embankment of trees) greeting them as they drove into the campus. You should have seen the masses of people that came out that day! Even the hostages were rendered speechless.

---

I'd refused a West Point (2nd year) appointment.

Mech should know;
a big broom went through the Democratic Party after Republicans took control in 1994.

all democrats who had any skeletons in their' closets got taken down.
only the lily clean survived.

If Republicans go through a similar cleansing,
I will then believe those left are almost all good guys and gals.

I know Democrats still sell-out on an individual basis.

that Republicans have sold their souls to the NWO on a collective basis colors my opinions and that of fellow intel analysts who still love america.