Frum may have sounded intelligent, but his points were almost nonsensical.

He made the argument of false equivalency, which is something conservatives do often, e.g. they punch you in the nose, and you slap them on the wrist, and it means it's all equal.

A bad example, but that's basically what he did: he equated Rachel Maddow's show with somebody shouting out "kill Obama."

Frum is a loathsome creature who is in many ways responsible for the mess that is the Bush administration.

And for him to promote Paul Wolfowitz, who has already admitted to lying about the reason to invade Iraq, accentuates the point all the more clearly.

Yeah Powell was screwed into that position. A biography on him states that Wolfowitz hated Powell and never wanted him around Bush because he was always for diplomacy before force. The belief is that he always wanted Powell to be the fall guy because then there would be no one in the way. He was given info before going in front of the UN and told by his colleges that it was absolutely true. Why would he assume they were full of shit since at that time no one knew just how full of shit they were. Powell is the ONLY member of the Bush administration that i might believe the "plausible deniability" excuse from.

Neo-Con == Neo-Fascist.

I for one applaud QM's presence and commentary.
He reminds us of Why We Fight against the Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld / Wolfowitz neo-con One World police state.

Please do watch the Neo-Con ideal: "Triumph of the Will"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80lLU5-yji8
*shudder*

i applaud political conservative Hitchens for at least having the backbone to experience it first hand and to film it.

Wish to god that this could be done to Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz and George W. Bush.

Hey Condoleezza, care to step up to the board you gutless twat.

16 seconds. I understand this abomination went on for days with some guantanamo victims.

And who will bring mass murderers Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld to justice? The gutless Democrats? Time for direct action.

the root of the problem is people like him saying nothing to the wolfowitz's and giving them free reign.
oops misspelled
Reins

It wouldn't surprise me if the publication of the Wolfowitz doctrine were the straw that broke the camel's back WRT provoking 9/11.

"a new military leader will have to step in"
Golly you don't think such a military puppet regime might possibly be in absolute lock step conformity with the Cheney/Wolfowitz strategic goals for the region do you? Nah.

NORAD has the ability to see trajectory based blips on their radar that are not using a transponder. These are usually highlighted on their radar screens as an unidentified craft. Dick Cheney was in control of NORAD by executive order just a few months before 9/11.

Confusion? - Yes...
Deliberate? - Unknown
NORAD Commander (Cheney) was in the basement of the Pentagon having an unusual conversation with an airman right before the crash in the Pentagon as reported by Mr. Mineta.

Was the Pentagon truly defenseless? Highly unlikely - details of air defense capabilities for the Pentagon are top secret.

False flag operation? Motives do exist according to the PNAC's desire for a "New Pearl Harbor" in order to expedite "their plans"(Wolfowitz,Cheney,Rumsfeld to name a few on the PNAC "think tank"). Pres. Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq and quickly abandoned the "search" for the "elusive" Osama Bin Laden.

We were quickly told how the "terrorists" pulled such an amazing feat off with extremely crude weapons and was supposedly orchestrated from a cave halfway around the world. 6 of the 19 accused terrorists are still alive today, so this story doesn't add up, among other flaws in the official story.

We want to believe we were told the truth.. that our government would never lie to us and commit or enable such a heinous crime, however many top level government and military officials have gone on the record protesting the official story.

Any logical criminal investigator would have to agree that the official story has many holes in it. Some evidence still exists but much of it was quickly shipped with armed guards to be permenantly destroyed in Communist China thanks to Rudy Giuliani.

It doesn't look good for this administration, however many people are refusing to look at the inconstencies of the official story.

from the intro
"the Rockefellers and Carnegies are one inspiring example" ?!?!?!
Read the history of both these viscious brutal animals and tell me how we should be more like them.

as for Clinton
Despite being charming and articulate, highly intelligent and apparently sincere, he's part of the Problem in the same way that Cheney and Wolfowitz and Bush Sr. are part of the problem - their worldview is from the position of the global elite and their western goals are to secure and broaden that position of control.

Republican or Democrat, high-tech or old school brick and mortar, all these guys are part of the system of global corporate capitalism which is THE REAL problem in the world today.

excellent post!
THE ARCHITECTS OF WAR: WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
http://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-where-are-they-now/

President Bush has not fired any of the architects of the Iraq war. In fact, a review of the key planners of the conflict reveals that they have been rewarded — not blamed — for their incompetence.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ

Role In Going To War: Wolfowitz said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki’s estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was “wildly off the mark.” [Washington Post, 12/8/05; Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]

Where He Is Now: Bush promoted Wolfowitz to head the World Bank in March 2005. Two years into his five-year term, Wolfowitz was rebuked by the World Bank investigative committee for engineering an unethical pay and promotion package for his girlfriend and, after repeated calls for his resignation, stepped down on May 17, 2007. Wolfowitz is now a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank that “has the President’s ear” on national security issues. [Washington Post, 3/17/05, 5/18/07; Financial Times, 6/28/07]

Key Quote: “The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [for going to war].” [USA Today, 5/30/03]

DOUGLAS FEITH

Role In Going To War: As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Feith spearheaded two secretive groups at the Pentagon — the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans — that were instrumental in drawing up documents that explained the supposed ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. The groups were “created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true.” Colin Powell referred to Feith’s operation as the Gestapo. In Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack, former CentCom Commander Gen. Tommy Franks called Feith the “f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” [LAT, 1/27/05; NYT, 4/28/04; New Yorker, 5/12/03; Plan of Attack, p.281]

Where He Is Now: Feith voluntarily resigned from the Defense Department shortly after Bush’s reelection. He is currently writing a memoir of his Pentagon work and teaching a course at Georgetown University “on the Bush Administration’s strategy behind the war on terrorism.” The Defense Department’s Inspector General found that Feith’s secretive groups at the Pentagon “developed, produced, and then disseminated” deceptive intelligence that contradicted “the consensus of the Intelligence Community.” These groups are still under investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee. [Washington Post, 1/27/05;Georgetown press release, 5/1/06; NYT, 2/9/07]

Key Quote: “I am not asserting to you that I know that the answer is — we did it right. What I am saying is it’s an extremely complex judgment to know whether the course that we chose with its pros and cons was more sensible.” [Washington Post, 7/13/05]

STEPHEN HADLEY

Role In Going To War: As then-Deputy National Security Advisor, Hadley disregarded memos from the CIA and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet warning that references to Iraq’s pursuit of uranium be dropped from Bush’s speeches. The false information ended up in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address. [Washington Post, 7/23/03]

Where He Is Now: On January 26, 2005, Stephen Hadley was promoted to National Security Advisor. [White House bio]

Key Quote: “I should have recalled at the time of the State of the Union speech that there was controversy associated with the uranium issue. … And it is now clear to me that I failed in that responsibility in connection with the inclusion of these 16 words in the speech that he gave on the 28th of January.” [Hadley, 7/22/03]

RICHARD PERLE

Role In Going To War: Richard Perle, the so-called “Prince of Darkness,” was the chairman of Defense Policy Board during the run-up to the Iraq war. He suggested Iraq had a hand in 9-11. In 1996, he authored “Clean Break,” a paper that was co-signed by Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and others that argued for regime change in Iraq. Shortly after the war began, Perle resigned from the Board because he came under fire for having relationships with businesses that stood to profit from the war. [Guardian, 9/3/02, 3/28/03; AFP, 8/9/02]

Where He Is Now: Currently, Perle is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where he specializes in national security and defense issues. He has been investigated for ethical violations concerning war profiteering and other conflicts of interest. [Washington Post, 9/1/04]

Key Quote: “And a year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they’ve been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation.” [Perle, 9/22/03]

ELLIOT ABRAMS

Role In Going To War: Abrams was one of the defendants in the Iran-Contra Affair, and he pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. He was appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs during Bush’s first term, where he served as Bush’s chief advisor on the Middle East. His name surfaced as part of the investigation into who leaked the name of a undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. [Washington Post, 5/27/03, 2/3/05]

Where He Is Now: Abrams was promoted to deputy national security adviser in February of 2005. In that position, he has led a smear campaign to attack Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syria. [Slate, 2/17/05; IPS, 4/9/07; Washington Post, 2/15/07]

Key Quote: “We recognize that military action in Iraq, if necessary, will have adverse humanitarian consequences. We have been planning over the last several months, across all relevant agencies, to limit any such consequences and provide relief quickly.” [CNN, 2/25/03]

SCOOTER LIBBY

Role In Going To War: As Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Libby repeatedly pressured CIA analysts to report that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. He also provided classified government information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller that formed the basis of a series of articles highlighting Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that were later entirely discredited. Along with Hannah, Libby was a principal author of the discredited draft UN presentation. [Washington Post, 6/5/03; National Journal, 4/6/06; FAIR, 3/19/07; NYT, 10/30/05]

Where He Is Now: On June 5, 2007, Libby was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for perjury and obstruction of justice for his role in the CIA leak case. On July 2, 2007, Bush commuted Libby’s prison sentence, ensuring he would serve no time in jail. [NYT, 6/5/07; Bush, 7/2/07]

Key Quote: “I’m a great fan of the Vice President,” Libby told Larry King in 2002. “I think he’s one of the smartest, most honorable people I’ve ever met.” [Time, 10/28/05]

JOHN HANNAH

Role In Going To War: As deputy national security advisor to Vice President Cheney, Hannah served as the conduit between Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress and the Bush administration, passing along false information about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction that the administration relied upon to justify the invasion. Hannah was also a principal author of the draft speech making the administration’s case for war to the UN. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA director George Tenet rejected most of the content of the speech as exaggerated and unwarranted. [Newsweek, 12/15/06; NYT, 10/30/05]

Where He Is Now: On October 31, 2005, Cheney promoted Hannah to national security advisor, replacing the role served previously by Scooter Libby. [CNN, 10/31/05]

Key Quote: Reprising his role in misleading the country to war with Iraq, Hannah has told a U.S. ambassador that 2007 is “the year of Iran” and that a U.S. attack is “a real possibility.” [Washington Post, 2/11/07]

DAVID WURMSER

Role In Going To War: At the time of the war, Wurmser was a special assistant to John Bolton in the State Department. Wurmser has long advocated the belief that both Syria and Iraq represented threats to the stability of the Middle East. In early 2001, Wurmser had issued a call for air strikes against Iraq and Syria. Along with Perle, he is considered a main author of “Clean Break.” [Asia Times, 4/17/03; Guardian, 9/3/02]

Where He Is Now: Wurmser was promoted to Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs; he is in charge of coordinating Middle East strategy. His name has been associated with the Plame Affair and with an FBI investigation into the passing of classified information to Chalabi and AIPAC. [Raw Story, 10/19/05; Washington Post, 9/4/04]

Key Quote: “Syria, Iran, Iraq, the PLO and Sudan are playing a skillful game, but have consistently worked to undermine US interests and influence in the region for years, and certainly will continue to do so now, even if they momentarily, out of fear, seem more forthcoming.” [Washington Post, 9/24/01]

ANDREW NATSIOS

Role In Going To War: Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Andrew Natsios, then the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, went on Nightline and claimed that the U.S. contribution to the rebuilding of Iraq would be just $1.7 billion. When it became quickly apparent that Natsios’ prediction would fall woefully short of reality, the government came under fire for scrubbing his comments from the USAID Web site. [Washington Post, 12/18/03; ABC News, 4/23/03]

Where He Is Now: Natsios stepped down as the head of USAID in January and was teaching at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh’s School of Foreign Service as a Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy and Advisor on International Development. In September 2006, Bush appointed him Special Envoy for Darfur. [AP, 2/20/06; Georgetown, 12/2/05; Washington Post, 9/19/06]

Key Quote: “[T]he American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” [Nightline, 4/23/03]

DAN BARTLETT

Role In Going To War: Dan Bartlett was the White House Communications Director at the time of the war and was a mouthpiece in hyping the Iraq threat. Bartlett was also a regular participant in the weekly meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). The main purpose of the group was the systematic coordination of the “marketing” of going to war with Iraq as well as selling the war here at home. [Washington Post, 8/10/03]

Where He Is Now: Bartlett announced his resignation on June 1, 2007 to pursue his “prospects in the private sector.” He was promoted to Counselor to the President on January 5, 2005, and was responsible for the formulation of policy and implementation of the President’s agenda. [Washington Post, 6/2/07]

Key Quote: “Most people would argue we are part of the solution in Iraq, not part of the problem.” [CNN, 10/23/06]

MITCH DANIELS

Role In Going To War: Mitch Daniels was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from January 2001 through June of 2003. In this capacity, he was responsible for releasing the initial budget estimates for the Iraq War which he pegged at $50 to $60 billion. The estimated cost of the war, including the full economic ramifications, is approaching $1 trillion. [MSNBC, 3/17/06]

Where He Is Now: In 2004, Daniels was elected Governor of Indiana. [USA Today, 11/3/04]

Key Quote: Mitch Daniels had said the war would be an “affordable endeavor” and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as “very, very high.” [Christian Science Monitor, 1/10/06]

GEORGE TENET

Role In Going To War: As CIA Director, Tenet was responsible for gathering information on Iraq and the potential threat posted by Saddam Hussein. According to author Bob Woodward, Tenet told President Bush before the war that there was a “slam dunk case” that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Tenet remained publicly silent while the Bush administration made pre-war statements on Iraq’s supposed nuclear program and ties to al Qaeda that were contrary to the CIA’s judgments. Tenet issued a statement in July 2003, drafted by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, taking responsibility for Bush’s false statements in his State of the Union address. [CNN, 4/19/04; NYT, 7/22/05]

Where He Is Now: Tenet voluntarily resigned from the administration on June 3, 2004. He was later awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom. He released a memoir in April 2007 critical of many in the Bush administration for their roles in the Iraq war and currently teaches at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh’s School of Foreign Service. [Washington Post, 6/3/04; CBS, 4/29/07]

Key Quote: “It’s a slam dunk case.” [CNN, 4/19/04]

COLIN POWELL

Role In Going To War: Despite stating in Feb. 2001 that Saddam had not developed “any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction,” Powell made the case in front of the United Nations for a United States-led invasion of Iraq, stating that, “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.” [Powell, 2/5/03; Powell, 2/24/01]

Where He Is Now: Shortly after Bush won reelection in 2004, Powell resigned from the administration. Powell now sits on numerous corporate boards. He succeeded Henry Kissinger in May 2006 as Chairman of the Eisenhower Fellowship Program at the City College of New York. In September 2005, Powell said of his U.N. speech that it was a “blot” on his record. He went on to say, “It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.” [ABC News, 9/9/05]

Key Quote: “‘You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,’ he told the president. ‘You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.’ Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.” [Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack]

DONALD RUMSFELD

Role In Going To War: Prior to the war, Rumsfeld repeatedly suggested the war in Iraq would be short and swift. He said, “The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” He also said, “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” [Rumsfeld, 11/14/02; USA Today, 4/1/03]

Where He Is Now: After repeated calls for his resignation, Donald Rumsfeld finally stepped down on November 8, 2006, one day after the 2006 midterm elections. Rumsfeld is now “working on setting up a new foundation…to promote continued U.S. engagement in world affairs in furtherance of U.S. security interests” so that he can “remain engaged in public policy issues.” He is also shopping a memoir, in the hopes of receiving “a large cash advance.” [AP, 11/8/06; Reuters, 3/19/06; Washington Times, 5/18/07; NY Sun, 6/27/07]

Key Quote: “You go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” [CNN, 12/9/04]

CONDOLEEZZA RICE

Role In Going To War: As National Security Adviser, Rice disregarded at least two CIA memos and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet stating that the evidence behind Iraq’s supposed uranium acquisition was weak. She urged the necessity of war because “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” [Washington Post, 7/27/03; CNN, 9/8/02]

Where She Is Now: In December of 2004, Condoleezza Rice was promoted to Secretary of State. [ABC News, 11/16/04]

Key Quote: “We did not know at the time — maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency — but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken.” [Meet the Press, 6/8/03]

DICK CHENEY

Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was “pretty well confirmed” that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was “in fact reconstituting his nuclear program” and that the U.S. would be “greeted as liberators.” [Meet the Press, 12/9/01, 3/16/03]

Where He Is Now: Cheney earned another four years in power when Bush won re-election in 2004. Despite some conservatives calling for him to be replaced, Cheney has said, “I’ve now been elected to a second term; I’ll serve out my term.” Cheney continues to advocate for preemptive military intervention, recently delivering threats toward Iran in a speech aboard an aircraft carrier off Iran’s coast. [CBS Face the Nation, 3/19/06; NYT, 5/11/07]

Key Quote: “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” [Larry King Live, 6/20/05]

GEORGE W. BUSH

Role In Going To War: Emphasizing Saddam Hussein’s supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, supposed ties to al Qaeda, and supposed nuclear weapons program, Bush built public support for — and subsequently ordered — an invasion of Iraq. [State of the Union, 1/28/03]

Where He Is Now: In November 2004, Bush won re-election. Since that time, popular support for the war and the President have reached a low point — nearing the levels of Richard Nixon during Watergate. [Chicago Sun-Times, 6/19/07]

Key Quote: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” [Bush, 10/7/02]

Ok... first off, I'm merely trying to learn about the protocols of zion. It's written out very carefully and I admit that it may be a forgery, a fake, a hoax. I surely hope that it is, however there are parallels that raise alarms in the United States that is extremely troubling to patriots that wish to preserve the Constitution and national sovereignty of this great nation that our forefathers/founders intended for a truly free and non-oppressive country where immigrants from oppressive nations can find refuge (although we are starting to become a bit crowded and immigration is a little out of control thanks to NAFTA and the SPP).

1.) A shadow government has been exposed with massive control in our government.

2.) The Constitution is being subverted, violated, and slowly being trumped by the Executive branch which has also managed to virtually disable the Justice department and constantly vetoes important bills from the Senate. Some of this is justified due to the amount of pork and earmarks added to these important bills... the Senate and HR bill process needs to be revised to control the abuse of the vulnerabilities of this great but less-than-perfect system.

3.) I know some wonderful Jewish people and I don't wish to sound anti-semitic because I respect my Jewish friends very much, however... there are many powerful Jewish people that I feel are hurting this country and I despise - such as Silverstein, Ariel Sharon, Media giant Murdoch, Senator Charles Schumer, Alan Greenspan, Paul Wolfowitz and most importantly: Henry Kissinger.

4.) Silverstein profited big time (7 Billion dollars) on the tragedy of 9/11 from which he purchased the WTC and a multi-million dollar policy a few months before 9/11.
Mukasey (current Attorney General @ Justice dept selected by Bush) was the Judge that presided over this case.

5.) Media monopolist Murdoch continues to buy up any media source of signifigance.

6.) When Bush finally appointed someone to head the 9/11 commission (14 months after), he appointed Henry Kissinger - then realizing the fact that Kissinger which when confronted with the verifiable ties he and the Bush's has to the Bin Ladens he then stepped down from the position.

7.) The Bush family and the CIA has intimate ties with the Bin Ladens and Saudi oil tycoons and Israeli officials.

When Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres warned Prime minister Ariel Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America."

9.) For decades the US has provided Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial backing, including more than $3 billion each year in aid.

10.) Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has spoken with blunt exasperation about the Jewish-Israeli hold on the United States:

"I've never seen a President — I don't care who he is — stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."

11.) I will agree that the protocols is a hoax only because it may very well be, however the things that are occurring in this country seem to prove otherwise. Hate me if you wish.... call me anti-semitic, call me the malicious names as you have in the past if you wish, but I've seen some very questionable things happening in regards to powerful Jewish ppl. I hope your right and I'm wrong.

12.) I will continue to research this and other topics and I thank God (if there even is one) that we have the internet to discuss such issues. The mass media seems to be mostly trivial crap focused on entertaining people keeping them from focusing on the seriousness of the problems with our government. This is one of the agendas in the PoZ but I'm sure that's just coincidence because it's a hoax intended to make people hate Jews, right?

P.S. qualm: When I refer to International Bankers, I don't mean it in code as as you continually perpetuate as it's meaning... International Bankers means to most people just what it implies... check wikipedia and that one video I posted: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-CFR-The-Capitalist-Conspiracy at the 1:15 mark for more modern definitions of the term. International Bankers are not just Jewish people.

PLEASE READ

How Cheney took control of Bush's foreign policy

The new veep installed crony Don Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, and would've won Paul Wolfowitz the top post at CIA -- if not for Wolfowitz's zipper problem.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/11/07/house_of_bush/

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/11/08/house_of_bush/

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/11/09/house_of_bush_3/

You haven't gone high enough. Carlin is referring to people and organizations like Cheney / Haliburton, Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank directors, etc.

Halliburton is a medium-sized company (market cap ~$40 billion) - I've dealt with CEOs of companies the same size. That said, it's in a sensitive sector, obviously, and that does make it somewhat special. I've never dealt with anything defense related (I'm Canadian, for one), and I'm sure the political ties are odd with a company like that.

Anyways, I'd agree that Cheney would love to see Halliburton do well; even though he's mostly disconnected from it in a financial sense, he's still connected to it on the level of ego (that is, unless he doesn't like the new CEO). But, again, I think people make too much of this kind of connection - or at least they oversimplify it. Cheney is not going to get rich by starting wars so Halliburton can get bigger.

Regardless of wars, Cheney - IF he ends up wanting more money than he already had coming into office - will be able to cash in on a great CEO position after his term. If anything, his specific political actions have hurt his long term money-making ability. If he wanted to make a lot of money, he would have kept his nose clean, kept his popularity high, and maybe cut some taxes.

I'm not saying Cheney hasn't screwed up. All I'm saying is that if you want to understand or predict Cheney all you have to do is look at him, what he's done, and remember that he's a human. Trying to picture him just through the lens of money is going to give you a distorted picture.

Moving on, to the extent that there is corruption at the World Bank, etc, it needs to be rooted out and dealt with. It's a big problem. I'm not denying that. I think the way the UN in general works makes it prone to breeding corruption. The point I'm trying to make is that it's not an untouchable group of super-villains who can't be brought to justice, and if you think of them like that then you give them power.

In reality, the corruption is on petty, human scales. Look at Enron - a bunch of guys thought they had a real smart scheme to make a bit of money (though not, in grand terms, all that much). But they didn't have endless political friends to save them when the scandal broke. They perhaps didn't go down hard enough, but they went down. Look at Clinton: as the most powerful man on the planet he couldn't get "serviced" in private.

Again, I'm not saying there isn't problems. I'm saying that the problems can be dealt with. There isn't some unaccountable group pulling every string and hand-picking the president. There is choice. Don't give into a vague hopelessness.

"I've dealt with high placed business people and seen high-level business strategy meetings and documents."

You haven't gone high enough. Carlin is referring to people and organizations like Cheney / Haliburton, Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank directors, etc.

"Does someone legitimately believe businessmen are lobbying to - I don't know - lower education funding so that the sheeple are easier to control with their vast media machine?"

Not the ordinary President or CEO of your average mid-sized company, no.
But the guys mentioned above? Oh hell yes.

Wake up indeed - the fact that most people don't even know this goes on is the whole point of the video. *sigh*