PNAC flowered from the Israeli Clean Break papers out of Tel Aviv. Why are the co-authors Zionists Jews who have histories of spying for Israel such as Richard Perle and Doug Feith? How come AIPAC can be caught spying on the US and there is nearly NO mention of it in the media? It would ruin the theories that "Bush did it." And Bush did do it, but he was a puppet of his Zionist handlers because Bush is a Christian bigot and with a trust fund from Big Oil.

It is a war for Israel primarily and a war for profit, as is any war, secondarily. They all connect, the MIC, the Evangelical churches, the lobby, and the Zionists neocons who make up the OSP and wrote PNAC. No-bid contract works a la hidden communism and how we create state-assisted monopolies through everything from agribusiness subsidies to earmarked foreign aid.

Problem, how many average Americans have even heard of richard Perle? He is the nastiest of the nasty. In my mind he is The worst Neocon of them all. He has appropriately earned the nickname "The Prince of Darkness." Perle along with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser,(all three of them got jobs in the US defense department, Perle and Fieth have had to resign) authored the Israel's "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." While speaking to Wolf Blitzer from CNN, a former AIPAC employee, Perle said of Semour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who exposed the My Lai massacre of Vietnam and later with the help of Joe Darby, broke the story about the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, "Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly." And Perle is the author of at least 4 different IASPS papers.

Dual loyalty? Yes, it's a real issue. As is fairness and justice.

The commitment to protect one's allies should be in the mix.

How much was it in the mix?

You got my list of prospective genuine goals of the decision makers. (Bush, Cheney, generals).

I'm amazed at the extent that Bush's behavior is somehow immune from criticims while those that provided him with opinions are subject to criticism.

We elect a president, and the president selects his/her advisors independantly and freely.

That makes the election of the president and his/her accountability that much more important. That is the person that is accountable. Lets hold him accountable.

They are nothing but modern day Feudal (Goy) lords of the manor. The Jews (except Phil & a handful of others) are just performing their usual feudal role, through the state mechanism
and indirect control of the Fourth Estate.

We won't look at the original communist revoution.

But it's the same.

Look at the real key players.

Some Americans actually believe that the controlling proposition
should be "all are created equal before the law."

It has it's problems in actual implementation.

Gimme Phil, not Witty or Sword.

Or their mirror-image, MacWhat'shis name or Duke.

LOL!!!!! Too good, Phil.

That memo must have been one of those self-destructing ones, like in the old kids cartoon "Inspector Gadget"… and only the media elites got to see it.

Wouldn't even be the first time Chris Matthews sold us out, would it?

I see Matthews sit down with Ralph Nader and I say to myself, holy shit, Phil's right, Matthews is a mensch!

Unfortunately the other 364 days a year he's chirping about George W. Bush's flightsuit.

"I'm amazed at the extent that Bush's behavior is somehow immune from criticims while those that provided him with opinions are subject to criticism.

"We elect a president, and the president selects his/her advisors independantly and freely.

"That makes the election of the president and his/her accountability that much more important. That is the person that is accountable. Lets hold him accountable."

Of course, of course.

Just a couple of points I would try to inject somewhere in there:

1. By the previous standards of the last 224 years, Bush in 2000 was not actually "elected". And we the people do not actually elect the president, he is elected for us, in our name, by the electoral college.

2. The history really suggests to me at least that Cheney picked Bush more than Bush picked Cheney. Bush's record of non-accomplishments, his brief and relatively uncontroversial stint as governor, his inaccessible arrest record, his uneducated persona masking his elite origin, all made him the perfect 'yes man' for a guy like Cheney to send off on the campaign trail, with Niccolò Roviavelli keeping him on task.

3. Bush was not a signatory of the Project for the New American Century's famous Rebuilding America's Defenses document. Therein we find the crystalization of the two coalescing forces of militarist, right-wing American imperialism and militarist, right-wing Israeli zionism: Richard Perle and Doug Feith (ex-Clean Break) meet Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (Henry Kissinger's apprentices).

They've got a catchy name.

Why don't you get into real policy discussion about the appropriate extent of US military involvement in the war?

Also, how about a truly insightful inquiry into the degree that military values have imposed on civilian culture?

Dual loyalty perhaps?