The most important thing you need to know about the PNAC is that it is one of dozens
of front groups for the government of Israel, and that WILLIAM KRISTOL is its
chairman. William Kristol is a leading member of the Richard Perle/Paul Wolfowitz
political network.

Our current Iraq policy is being dictated by the government of Israel and by the
Israel lobby in the United States. The plan to attack Iraq was devised BEFORE
911. 911 was instantly used by this political group as a pretext to implement
a pre-positioned, off-the-shelf plan.

Whenever members of this political network use high-falutin' terms like "freedom,"
"democracy," "America," etc. what they are really talking about is the Judeofascism
of Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud, which is diametrically opposed to
basic American values of ethnic and religious pluralism, equality and tolerance.

Bush Jr. has fallen completely under the sway of this group, which has been
exploiting his Christian fundamentalist programming.

And now we are potentially on the verge of a global catastrophe. Few people in
American public life have had the courage to stand up to this lobby. Anyone one
who has challenged the lobby has come under vicious attack, including the use of
black operations jointly run by Mossad and sympathizers in the American intel
community.

We are truly and royally screwed.

I'm crying in my beer today (metaphorically), because I realize that there's not a
damned thing that can be done to stop this juggernaut. We're all going over the
cliff. So be it.

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President

By Neil Mackay

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and
his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime
change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global
Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W
Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The
document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And
Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the
neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf
region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United
States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional
security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the
Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US
pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American principles and
interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future
as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and
decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core
mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new
American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written
by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial
nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger
regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient
means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political
leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf
regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a
threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the
presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to
'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of
democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the
total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against
the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of
mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which
the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of
attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely
available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space,
cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of
biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and
says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide
command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the
leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from
right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen
the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who
were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their
making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to
control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should
have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

XM was playing a filler celebrity piece during a commercial break on Cuaron and the next Harry Potter film about two months ago in which he indicated he saw similarities between George W. Bush and Voldemort. So he hasn't exactly been hiding his political opinions about the war on terror, though it will be interesting to see if Curaon insists that the master of the Dark Arts sport a Texas drawl in the next movie...

See, it's all a metaphor for the Jews. It always is.

By the way, is there some law requiring political imbeciles to also be formatting imbeciles?

My kids are of an age to be into Harry Potter. The books are enjoyable (although I much prefer Lord of the Rings). One can easily see the parallels to the current world reality in HP3 (and the 4th and 5th books) but one could twist it around and say Harry Potter is Bush fighting the evil Lord Volemort.
If the director turns HP3 into an obvious political statement then it might turn parents off to the HP series which might affect its popularity.

Conspiracy theorists always make themselves sound silly by making things too complex: so, you've got a small group of Jews and a tiny nation like Israel manipulating a powerful nation like the U.S. and its millions of Christian evangelicals, instead of vice versa.

Another point - OJ's quip is right - the analogy(ies) fall apart on further inspection. If Bush is Voldemort then HP and the wizards are Osama and al Qaeda. If Fudge and the Ministry of Magic are analogous to the Patriot Act then Osama is Voldemort. In Book 5 (not to give future books away) Harry and others chafe against all the new Ministry of Magic rules, leading some to call Harry a ACLU type Democrat.
Finally (again not to give books away) I read when Book 5 came out in that some interpreted the book as pro-Bush/Blair because Voldemort (i.e. evil), whose existence is denied through books 1-4 by Fudge and others, is proven to exist.
But as I note above taking essentially a children's book and turning it into a political statement is not helpful.

With true allegories you have perfect matchings that tell people exactly what each stands for. When it's simply good writing, you speak about eternal truths so each reader identifies the most relevant points to them and sees how it relates to actual events even when the story itself is not a perfect match up. And since every event is different in its particulars but still adheres to human nature, one can constantly find "new" allegories.

I realize I'm a bit more slower and stupider than usual this morning, but I still cannot figure out at all what that first posting has to do with Harry Potter, Warner Bros., Entertainment Weekly or Alfonso Cuaron or Voldemort.

And I hope he goes ahead an makes a politcal mess of this, so we will be spared the rest of the books ever making it to film.

My reading of the series is that it is very conservative. Fudge would be the actual totalitarian (Stalin, Hitler, Saddam), and Voldemort the metaphor for the totalitarian impulse.

The heroes in the series fight for personal freedom and integrity against the morally compromised.

The HP series doesn't require a decoder ring to determine right from wrong. Moral relativism need not apply.

The Harry Potter movies have been a terrible disappointment in the pchuck household. The books are so much better and the movies just blow.

So Fudge, the one who denies that evil exists and could possibly come back, the one who refuses to believe that putative allies who protest their friendship (like the Malfoys) could be evil because of their generous charitable donations and long pedigree-- he's supposed to be Blair?

Seems to be quite a stretch to me. Only works of course if you see Bush as far, far more evil than Hussein, bin Laden, and Al Qaeda.

Fudge=Chamberlain

Dumbledore=Churchill

Voldemoort=Hitler

I missed. Mr. Choudhury hit it square on the head.