En itse usko, että Irakin sota olisi uskonsota, mutta mielenkiintoista oli lukea NY Timesin kirja-arvostelu Peter ja Rochelle Schweizerin teoksesta 'The Bushes Portrait of a Dynasty'
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7DE1E30F93AA15750C0A9629C8B63
"Members of the usually media-wary Bush family seem surprisingly unguarded in talking to the authors, and some of their remarks could well disconcert a White House in campaign mode or ratify opponents' worst fears. For instance the Schweizers quote one unnamed relative as saying that George W. Bush sees the war on terrorism ''as a religious war'': ''He doesn't have a p.c. view of this war. His view of this is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know.''"
Lisää GWB:stä:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1192158,00.html
"Bush, in fact, does not read his President's Daily Briefs, but has them orally summarised every morning by the CIA director, George Tenet. President Clinton, by contrast, read them closely and alone, preventing any aides from interpreting what he wanted to know first-hand. He extensively marked up his PDBs, demanding action on this or that, which is almost certainly the likely reason the Bush administration withheld his memoranda from the 9/11 commission.
"I know he doesn't read," one former Bush national security council staffer told me. Several other former NSC staffers corroborated this. It seems highly unlikely that he read the national intelligence estimate on WMD before the Iraq war that consigned contrary evidence and caveats that undermined the case to footnotes and fine print. Nor is there any evidence that he read the state department's 17-volume report, The Future of Iraq, warning of nearly all the postwar pitfalls, that was shelved by the neocons in the Pentagon and Vice-President Cheney's office.
Nor was Bush aware of similar warnings urgently being sounded by the military's top strategic analysts. One monograph, Reconstructing Iraq, by the US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, predicted in detail "possible severe security difficulties" and conflicts among Iraqis that US forces "can barely comprehend". I have learned that it was suppressed by the Pentagon neocons, and only released to US central command after Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the foreign relations committee, directly intervened. A revolt within the military against Bush is brewing. Many in the military's strategic echelon share the same feelings of being ignored and ill-treated by the administration that senior intelligence officers voice in private. "The Pentagon began with fantasy assumptions on Iraq and worked back," one of them remarked to me.
As the iconic image of the "war president" has tattered, another picture has emerged. Bush appears as a passive manager who enjoys sitting atop a hierarchical structure, unwilling and unable to do the hard work a real manager has to do to run the largest enterprise in the world. He does not seem to absorb data unless it is presented to him in simple, clear fashion by people whose judgment he trusts. He is receptive to information that agrees with his point of view rather than information that challenges it. This leads to enormous power on the part of the trusted interlocutors, who know and bolster his predilections."
Onko Dubya todellakin muiden vietävissä (en epäile)? Osaako hän edes lukea?
Muhiiko USA:ssa sotilasvallankaappaus?
http://www.cemetery.state.tx.us/pub/user_form.asp?step=1&pers_id=7206
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7DE1E30F93AA15750C0A9629C8B63
"Members of the usually media-wary Bush family seem surprisingly unguarded in talking to the authors, and some of their remarks could well disconcert a White House in campaign mode or ratify opponents' worst fears. For instance the Schweizers quote one unnamed relative as saying that George W. Bush sees the war on terrorism ''as a religious war'': ''He doesn't have a p.c. view of this war. His view of this is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know.''"
Lisää GWB:stä:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1192158,00.html
"Bush, in fact, does not read his President's Daily Briefs, but has them orally summarised every morning by the CIA director, George Tenet. President Clinton, by contrast, read them closely and alone, preventing any aides from interpreting what he wanted to know first-hand. He extensively marked up his PDBs, demanding action on this or that, which is almost certainly the likely reason the Bush administration withheld his memoranda from the 9/11 commission.
"I know he doesn't read," one former Bush national security council staffer told me. Several other former NSC staffers corroborated this. It seems highly unlikely that he read the national intelligence estimate on WMD before the Iraq war that consigned contrary evidence and caveats that undermined the case to footnotes and fine print. Nor is there any evidence that he read the state department's 17-volume report, The Future of Iraq, warning of nearly all the postwar pitfalls, that was shelved by the neocons in the Pentagon and Vice-President Cheney's office.
Nor was Bush aware of similar warnings urgently being sounded by the military's top strategic analysts. One monograph, Reconstructing Iraq, by the US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, predicted in detail "possible severe security difficulties" and conflicts among Iraqis that US forces "can barely comprehend". I have learned that it was suppressed by the Pentagon neocons, and only released to US central command after Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the foreign relations committee, directly intervened. A revolt within the military against Bush is brewing. Many in the military's strategic echelon share the same feelings of being ignored and ill-treated by the administration that senior intelligence officers voice in private. "The Pentagon began with fantasy assumptions on Iraq and worked back," one of them remarked to me.
As the iconic image of the "war president" has tattered, another picture has emerged. Bush appears as a passive manager who enjoys sitting atop a hierarchical structure, unwilling and unable to do the hard work a real manager has to do to run the largest enterprise in the world. He does not seem to absorb data unless it is presented to him in simple, clear fashion by people whose judgment he trusts. He is receptive to information that agrees with his point of view rather than information that challenges it. This leads to enormous power on the part of the trusted interlocutors, who know and bolster his predilections."
Onko Dubya todellakin muiden vietävissä (en epäile)? Osaako hän edes lukea?
Muhiiko USA:ssa sotilasvallankaappaus?
http://www.cemetery.state.tx.us/pub/user_form.asp?step=1&pers_id=7206
Vastaukset 4
Vanhimmat
Is it possible that you write your text in Finnish because "Time Is Money" among normal readers?
Näemmä osaat englantia.
Valitettavasti aikani ei juuri tällä hetkellä riitä käännöstyöhön, mutta palataan asiaan. Suunnitteilla on ollut tällaisen suomenkielisen indy-uutiswebsivun perustaminen, mutta kuten sanottu: time is money.
Kuitenkin odotan kommenttia/keskustelua avaukseeni teiltä englanninkielen lukutaitoisilta, joihin sinäkin lukeudut.
Lisää uutisia:
Radioaktiivista materiaalia katoaa Irakista. Valvonta on ollut USAn tehtävänä siitä saakka, kun IAEA:n tarkastajat poistuivat Irakista. Nyt materiaalia on satelliittikuvien mukaan saapunut Euroopan satamiin.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040415.wnuke0415/BNStory/International/
Mistä huono valvonta johtuu? Onko tarkoituksena saada Eurooppa sekasortoon avustamalla paikallisia bin-Ladeneita (vrt. CIA/Afganistan), jotta USA:n sotilaallista läsnäoloa voidaan entisestään lisätä? Jos näin, mikä olisi perimmäinen syy? Kenties NATOn itälaajentuminen ja sen mukanaan tuoma helpompi Venäjälle hyökkäys? Muistettava on, että Pietarista on NATO-alueelle hyvin, hyvin lyhyt matka. Siihen kun vielä Suomi otetaan jäseneksi...
Otsikon keksimiseen menee aina eniten aikaa, oon huomannut. Laama on eläin etelä-amerikassa, ja tällä tiedolla on yhtä vähän tekemistä aiheen kanssa, kuin voitte kuvitellakaan.
Luin, mutta en jaksanut lukea loppuun. Itekin oon kuullu monia juttuja Irakin sodan yhteydestä uskonsotiin. Baabelintorni-juttukin on aika hyvin todistettu, että en tiedä. Tosin noi antamasi "dokumentit" ei välttämättä kerro mitään. Jos bush sanoo 100 kertaa, että Irakiin hyökättiin aseiden takia, ja löytyy 1 puhe, jossa sanotaan, että mentiin esim. öljyn takia, niin öljypuhe pääsee lehtiin ja siihen ihmiset uskoo. Jos Bush puolestaan olis aluks sanonut menevänsä pelkästää öljyn takia, ja sen jälkeen löydetty 100 puhetta, missä sanookin menevänsä aseiden takia, niin sitten oltaisiin uskottu jälkimmäistä. Se mikä viimeisenä tulee julki, on uskottavampi. Mä voin sanoa kahta eri asiaa, ja ihmiset valitsee mielekkäämmän. Ainaiset USA-vihaajat valitsee öljyn, kun taas muut voi valita aseet. Dokumenttien arvo menettää makunsa aina, kun tekstiä ruvetaan kääntelemään ja vääntelemään, ja näin muokataan kansan kielelle.
jo eilen uutissa, Teksti-TV:llä, kerrottiin samaa, mitä on näillä sivuilla kerrottu ja toista vuotta sitten, Irakiin oltiin suunniteltu hyökkäys jo ennen WTC iskuja ja terrorismin vastaista sotaa, lainausta IS, sähkeuutisista,
"Presidentti George W. Bush suunnitteli hyökkäystä Irakiin jo joulukuussa 2001 huolimatta julkisista vakuutteluista, joiden mukaan maiden väliseen umpikujaan etsittiin diplomaattista ratkaisua. Näin väitetään uudessa Plan of Attack -teoksessa, josta julkaistiin Yhdysvalloissa otteita eilen.
Kirjan on kirjoittanut Washington Post -lehdessä työskentelevä Bob Woodward. Hän paljasti yhdessä Carl Bersteinin kanssa presidentti Richard Nixonin eroon johtaneen Watergate-skandaalin vuonna 1974.
Woodward kirjoittaa Bushilla olleen vuoden 2001 lopussa useita tapaamisia sotaneuvonantajiensa kanssa. Washington Post -lehden saamien asiakirjojen mukaan näissä tapaamisissa suunniteltiin Yhdysvaltojen hyökkäystä Irakiin.
Presidentti Bushilta kysyttiin eilen Britannian pääministerin Tony Blairin tapaamiseen liittyneessä lehdistötilaisuudessa, pyysikö hän puolustusministeri Donald Rumsfeldia valmistelemaan sotaa jo marraskuussa 2001. Bushin mukaan hän ei voi muistaa niin vanhoja päivämääriä. (STT-AFP)"
"Bushin mukaan hän ei voi muistaa niin vanhoja päivämääriä." Tälle kai voi jo vapaasti nauraa...