Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 21, 2006 18:42:57 GMT -5
Wonder what people think. There's so much explosive stuff in there, and so many issues to discuss. Many suspicions are confirmed as well:
- Cheney runs things at the White House.
- Cheney's "one-percent doctrine" holds that anything is justifiable if there is only a 1% chance that the worst-case scenario will happen, i.e. torture, Gitmo, wars, etc. Pretty chilling, and I don't know how on earth to reconcile that with the "freedom" nonsense we've been hearing for 6 years.
- Al-Qaeda wanted Bush to be re-elected because it is to their benefit.
- Al Jazeera's station in Kabul WAS bombed in order to chill their coverage of the US wars. (The documentary "Control Room" confirms that the White House and DoD later also bombed Al Jazeera's Baghdad center as well.)
Here are some excerpts from an interview with Wolf Blitzer:
"BLITZER: The relationship that you describe between the president and the vice president is pretty dramatic. And going back to the early days when Cheney clearly had a lot more experience in national security matters. But you write this: 'In the spring of 2002 Bush asked Cheney to pull back a little at big meetings to give the president more room to move, to take charge. Bush asked -- Bush asked Cheney not to offer him advice in crowded rooms. Do that privately.' "
"Talk about that.
"SUSKIND: Well, you know what, the fact is I'm sympathetic to both parties here. Bush is one of the least experienced presidents to come into office. Cheney, the most experienced vice president. They had to work out how they're going to work together.
"Fascinating, what happens after 9/11. There's a change. Because what you see there is Cheney really is embracing the broad, sweeping doctrinaire thinking. What are the big strategies? He essentially creates an architecture, a platform, where Bush can be Bush, a man of action and still be effective as president. That's the relationship. Cheney essentially sets the framework, Bush acts within it.
"BLITZER: But you suggest, though, that Bush didn't want Cheney to upstage him. . . .
"SUSKIND: Absolutely."
Also:
"BLITZER: You're saying the CIA formally concluded that bin Laden wanted Bush re-elected.
"SUSKIND: Well, look -- absolutely true . . . the analysis flowed essentially along those lines.
"The question, the key question, is what it is it about America's war on terror that is such that bin Laden would want it to continue and Bush to continue conducting it? That's the bigger question that was not examined by the CIA, because many of these people there were soon to be pushed out."
And finally:
"BLITZER: One of the other explosive charges you have in the book is that the U.S. deliberately bombed the Al Jazeera offices in Kabul to make a point. You write this: 'On November 13, a hectic day when Kabul fell to the Northern Alliance and there were celebrations in the streets of the city, a U.S. missile obliterated Al Jazeera's office. Inside the CIA and White House there was satisfaction that a message had been sent to Al Jazeera.'
"Are you suggesting that someone in the U.S. government made a deliberate decision to take out the Al Jazeera office in Kabul?
"SUSKIND: My sources are clear that that was done on purpose, precisely to send a message to Al Jazeera, and essentially a message was sent."
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/20/sitroom.02.html
Thoughts?
- Cheney runs things at the White House.
- Cheney's "one-percent doctrine" holds that anything is justifiable if there is only a 1% chance that the worst-case scenario will happen, i.e. torture, Gitmo, wars, etc. Pretty chilling, and I don't know how on earth to reconcile that with the "freedom" nonsense we've been hearing for 6 years.
- Al-Qaeda wanted Bush to be re-elected because it is to their benefit.
- Al Jazeera's station in Kabul WAS bombed in order to chill their coverage of the US wars. (The documentary "Control Room" confirms that the White House and DoD later also bombed Al Jazeera's Baghdad center as well.)
Here are some excerpts from an interview with Wolf Blitzer:
"BLITZER: The relationship that you describe between the president and the vice president is pretty dramatic. And going back to the early days when Cheney clearly had a lot more experience in national security matters. But you write this: 'In the spring of 2002 Bush asked Cheney to pull back a little at big meetings to give the president more room to move, to take charge. Bush asked -- Bush asked Cheney not to offer him advice in crowded rooms. Do that privately.' "
"Talk about that.
"SUSKIND: Well, you know what, the fact is I'm sympathetic to both parties here. Bush is one of the least experienced presidents to come into office. Cheney, the most experienced vice president. They had to work out how they're going to work together.
"Fascinating, what happens after 9/11. There's a change. Because what you see there is Cheney really is embracing the broad, sweeping doctrinaire thinking. What are the big strategies? He essentially creates an architecture, a platform, where Bush can be Bush, a man of action and still be effective as president. That's the relationship. Cheney essentially sets the framework, Bush acts within it.
"BLITZER: But you suggest, though, that Bush didn't want Cheney to upstage him. . . .
"SUSKIND: Absolutely."
Also:
"BLITZER: You're saying the CIA formally concluded that bin Laden wanted Bush re-elected.
"SUSKIND: Well, look -- absolutely true . . . the analysis flowed essentially along those lines.
"The question, the key question, is what it is it about America's war on terror that is such that bin Laden would want it to continue and Bush to continue conducting it? That's the bigger question that was not examined by the CIA, because many of these people there were soon to be pushed out."
And finally:
"BLITZER: One of the other explosive charges you have in the book is that the U.S. deliberately bombed the Al Jazeera offices in Kabul to make a point. You write this: 'On November 13, a hectic day when Kabul fell to the Northern Alliance and there were celebrations in the streets of the city, a U.S. missile obliterated Al Jazeera's office. Inside the CIA and White House there was satisfaction that a message had been sent to Al Jazeera.'
"Are you suggesting that someone in the U.S. government made a deliberate decision to take out the Al Jazeera office in Kabul?
"SUSKIND: My sources are clear that that was done on purpose, precisely to send a message to Al Jazeera, and essentially a message was sent."
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/20/sitroom.02.html
Thoughts?