An existential choice is forced upon us. Bush told us that we were either for his regime or we were for the "evil doers". I see a different paradigm: either we are for freedom or we are for Bush. Bush is spoiling for a Constitutional showdown that will force the issue and consolidate a dictatorship beyond the ability of Americans to change –short of violent revolution.In his latest book "Conservatives Without Conscience", John Dean paints a stark difference between Richard Nixon and George Bush. Dean recalled the day the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to hand over the infamous White House tapes. Nixon, Dean reveals, toyed with the idea of defying the high court. It was Nixon, after all, who had said that if the President does it, it's legal.
Pressured by his own party, Nixon spent a night talking to portraits and getting down on his knees in prayer with an embarrassed Henry Kissinger. By night's end, as the story goes, Nixon had had an epiphany. He would resign.
What brought him to a night of prayer was his decision to comply with an order of the US Supreme Court to turn over the secret recordings of his Oval Office conversations. They were notable for what was missing: an 18 minute gap, and also what was present: a tape recorded "smoking gun" in which then White House Counsel John Dean had warned Nixon of a "cancer on the Presidency".
But, Bush —Dean points out —is not Nixon. In the same or a similar situation, Bush will not budge. Bush will defy the Supreme Court of the United States. In doing so, America will no longer have the legal recourse of removal; impeachment will be a dead issue. If impeached, Bush will not leave the office. Having subverted every protection afforded the people by our founders, Bush will leave us no choice but slavery under a dictatorship or a popular uprising. Bush will leave us, therefore, no choice but revolution.
...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.Nixon was called an "imperial President". Interestingly, the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon were concerned with his abuse of the IRS, obstruction of justice in connection with the Watergate Scandal, and his various abuses of agencies to include the CIA. His secret bombing of Cambodia is not mentioned in the articles of impeachment against him. Nevertheless, Nixon's downfall is most certainly traced to hubris and disproportionate power invested in the modern Presidency.
—Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence
Bush seems to have created a dictatorship by exploiting a national tragedy, by manipulating a wave of fear, by fanning the flames of racial and religious prejudice. He divided the world into two opposing camps: us and "evil-doers" and declared that if you disagreed with him, then you, too, were an "evil doer". Declaring that he did not do nuance, Bush made of stupidity a virtue.
He suppressed dissent and declared himself above the law. He declared that he could interpret even the rulings of the Supreme Court; he could pick and choose which portions of laws he might enforce and which portions he might ignore; he assumed the additional powers of the judiciary and the legislature. He dared anyone to stop him. "Who cares what you think?" he asked.
He tipped his hand: "This would be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship ...just has long as I'm the dictator". If he, in fact, did not say "...stop throwing the Constitution up to me! The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper", he might as well have. His attitude and his actions are most certainly consistent with it.
When he was always wrong, he got support from a "liberal" media. What does being right have to do with anything? asked Thom Friedman. The GOP —Bushco in particular —is not restrained by common sense, concepts of good and bad, right and wrong.
Republicans appreciate that they are more likely to maintain influence and control of the presidency if the nation remains under ever-increasing threats of terrorism, so they have no hesitation in pursuing policies that can provoke potential terrorists throughout the world.Dean's book is widely reviewed as a study of the insidious nature of the conservative mentality. It is that to be sure but it is more importantly, a study of how that mentality is leading us inexorably to dictatorship. Dean cites the work of Bob Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba whose 1981 book Right Wing Authoritarianism may have diagnosed the Bushco pathology.
—John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience
Even the members of authoritarian groups appear to have changed during the '80s. The steely-eyed fanatic wearing a Nazi uniform and marching in Marquette Park (clearly one of "them") has been joined by the neatly dressed middle-class housewife throwing blood on abortion facilities. These authoritarian characters are so ordinary they could even be one of "us."Defined by symptoms identified by Altermyer and Dean, Bush's authoritarian dictatorship may have ushered in a new era in which states wage war not against other states but against civilian populations. Bush's war against Iraq, for example, is unlike previous wars; his goals are chaos, death, and annihilation. Bush was not only wrong about Iraq, it is clear that he deliberately lied about WMD in particular.
—Right Wing Authoritarianism
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.When nothing said by Bush turned out to have been true, Dean followed up with an article that asked Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
—George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003
To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."The Iraq war —now a debacle of unimaginable proportions —turned out to have been sold with a deliberate hoax. Colin Powell's presentation to the UN consisted of fabricated evidence, out of date satellite photos, bogus information by compromised informants, and, most notoriously, a plagiarized student paper. In fact, not getting the information he wanted to hear, Donald Rumsfeld created an Office for Special Plans tasked with telling him what he wanted to hear. The authoritarian diagnosis explains why it no longer matters to modern American conservatives that nothing mitigates the American occupation of Iraq —a grand theft begun upon a world wide hoax turned debacle.
—John Dean, Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
More recently, the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon —a Bush battle by proxy —is just such a case. While there is still the possibility that Iran and Syria will ally and join the fray, Bush will only exploit that as well. An authoritarian dictatorship, Bush's stock and trade, is fear; being "right" does not matter. Clearly —Bush has never shown himself to be concerned with consequences. What does matter to Bush is that Iraq is now off the front pages and just in time for the mid-terms.
How did we get from there to here? How was our Democracy snatched from under our noses? How did we wake up as cockroaches?
It may have begun with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947 [NSC-68]. It was then that the United States became a "security state”. The act was implemented in January 1950 when the National Security Council produced a blueprint for a new kind of country, unlike anything that preceded World War II.
It was not openly discussed at the time, but Senator Arthur Vandenburg —a Republican —reportedly told Truman "...that if he really wanted all those weapons and all those high taxes to pay for them, he had better 'scare the hell out of the American people.'"
It would appear that Bush took that admonition to heart. But the issue with Bush and Reagan had not and is not a matter of finding ways to pay for high tech ways to blow things up, it's a matter of simply not paying for them at all —hence the Reagan/Bush deficits! Reagan left to Bush Sr the largest debt in our nation's history. Bush will do the same if he leaves office.
In the meantime, a climate of fear is maintained. The brief exception is Dwight Eisenhower. In an attack of conscience unheard of among latter day Republicans, Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex that had, by then, established permanent control over the state! We've been overfeeding the beast since 1947.
It was David Hume’s 1758 Of the First Principles of Government that stated:
Nothing appears more surprising to those who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few, and the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers.Hume was most certainly not alone in associating military governments with despotic governments. When any person puts himself both above and against the law, then the people of the US states are entitled lawfully to rise up —violently if necessary —to overthrow the tyrant, the self-proclaimed dictator.
When we inquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find that, as force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is, therefore, on opinion only that government is founded, and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments as well as to the most free and most popular.
—David Hume, Of the First Principles of Government
John Dean makes this chilling point. Nixon, as we mentioned earlier, toyed with the idea of defying the high court, but, in the end thought better of it and resigned. Bush/Cheney won't budge. They have already declared that whatever may be alleged against them, they can, themselves "authorize" it and make legal –even after the fact. Bush has arrogated unto himself the power to interpret the laws. In a crisis, Bush will defy the court and the American republic is over.
Both Jefferson and Che Guevarra recognized that when government reaches this point, it operates outside the law. Both men recognized the terrible alternative to ultimate submission to tyranny. Revolution!
The success of revolution is by no means guaranteed. Lives will be lost; a terrible cost will be exacted. Victory is not cheap but the cost of failure is even more dear: our freedom. It is the existentialist position that we are most truly human in our acts of choice. Sartre said, for example, that “….man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.’ These are not empty words; consider the dreadful implications of making the wrong choice, but even worse, no choice. It is not so much the choice we make between a predetermined good vs a predetermined evil that is significant but, rather, the fact that we make a choice at all. Even Victor Frankl, inside the concentration camp, found his humanity in exercising the last choice left him: that of his own attitude. When Bush has denied us Democracy, we may either submit and be slaves, or choose freedom and fight.
From a review of this article:
This is an interesting commentary that discusses a lot of what Dean talks about in his new book, Conservatives Without Conscience.Jonathan Schell has written an excellent analysis of the Bush dictatorship that will appear in The Nation —but we get a free preview here:
I often use Nixon's decision to turn over the tapes as an example of how Nixon helped us avoid a disasterous constitutional crisis.
What if Nixon had continued to defy the SCOTUS order to turn over the tapes? What if Nixon just kept saying, "nope, you can't have them."?
Just who would have enforced the Supreme's decision?
When I ask my students this question, I get the usual answers:
The FBI. Nope they work for the president.
The Attorney General? Nope they work for the president.
The military? Nope, the president is the commander-in-chief.
The Washington D.C. police? Nope, not their jurisdiction.
The answer is, no one knows what would have happened. We do know that since all of the enforcers work for the president, it is unlikely that Nixon would have ordered any of the people under him to enforce an order by the Court that he was actively defying.
Nixon did us a huge favor when he changed his mind about not turning over the tapes and resigned. Nixon wasn't stupid. I think he realized the crisis that the nation was facing.
I just don't think Bush is smart enough about how our government works to understand something like this. And, if he does, he obviously doesn't care.
When did America STOP being the "good guys"?The US: Too late for empire
By Jonathan Schell There is a large body of observations that at one and the same time have been made too often and yet not often enough - too often because they have been repeated to the point of tedium for a minority ready to listen, but not often enough because the general public has yet to consider them seriously enough....
President George W Bush sent US troops into Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but they weren't there. He said Saddam Hussein's regime had given help to al-Qaeda, but it had not.
He therefore took the nation to war on the basis of falsehoods.
His administration says the torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and elsewhere has been the work of a few bad apples in the military, whereas in fact abuses were sanctioned at the highest levels of the executive branch in secret memos.
His administration lambastes leakers, but its own officials illegally leaked the name of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Plame, to discredit her husband politically.
He flatly stated to the public that all wiretaps of Americans were ordered pursuant to court warrants, whereas in fact he was authorizing and repeatedly reauthorizing warrantless wiretaps. These wiretaps violated a specific law of Congress forbidding them.
His administration has asserted a right to imprison Americans as well as foreigners indefinitely without the habeas corpus hearings required by law.
Wars of aggression, torture, domestic spying and arbitrary arrest are the hallmarks of dictatorship, yet Congress, run by the president's party, has refused to conduct full investigations into either the false WMD claims, or the abuses and torture, or the warrantless wiretaps, or the imprisonment without habeas corpus.
When Congress passed a bill forbidding torture and the president signed it, he added a "signing statement" implying a right to disregard its provisions when they conflicted with his interpretation of his powers.
The president's secret legal memos justifying the abuses and torture are based on a conception of the powers of the executive that gives him carte blanche to disregard specific statutes as well as international law in the exercise of self-granted powers to the commander-in-chief nowhere mentioned in the constitution.
If accepted, these claims would fundamentally alter the structure of the US government, upsetting the system of checks and balances and nullifying fundamental liberties, including guarantees in the Fourth Amendment to the constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures and guarantees of due process. As such, they embody apparent failures of the president to carry out his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States". ...
—Jonathan Schell, The US: Too late for empire
The Existentialist CowboyAussie veto stopped US war crimes
Cameron StewartJuly 29, 2006
Brigadier Maurie McNarn
29jul-mcnarn
AUSTRALIA intervened to stop key US military strikes against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, fearing they might constitute a war crime.
Major General Maurie McNarn, then a brigadier and commander of Australian forces in Iraq, on several occasions played a "red card" against the American plans, which included hits on individuals. His objections drew anger from some senior US military figures.
In one instance, Major General McNarn vetoed a US plan to drop a range of huge non-precision bombs on Baghdad, causing one angry US Air Force general to call the Australian a "pencil dick".
However, US military command accepted Major General McNarn's objection and the US plans were scrapped. ...
Dictatorship
freedom
Revolution
Bush
44 comments:
Calling Bush's imperial warmongering regime a dictatorship is a little hyperbolic and maybe a little defeatist, I feel.
Bush has 908 days to go in office on the Countdown Clock. Sadly, I think he's going to make it and escape impeachment. That's tragedy enough.
It's infuriating. Congress is weak and ineffectual and flag-burning and stem-cells seem more important than the destruction of our liberties. It's as if they've been hypnotized by the BushCo bunch.
#*&%!!! 908 more days :-(
Calling Bush's imperial warmongering regime a dictatorship is a little hyperbolic and maybe a little defeatist, I feel.
He has said himself that he is above the law. What is that but dictatorship? It is very easy to make the case that he had now consolidated in the office of President more powers than Oliver Cromwell who summarily dismissed Parliament in a pique: "You have sat too long fo the good that you have done!"
Bush is just spoiling for another such "existential" moment.
John Dean is correct: Bush/Cheney "...will not budge". In such a case, what remedy is left? None.
Congress is weak and ineffectual
Indeed! And power has merely sought to fill the vacuum.
"It is very easy to make the case that he had now consolidated in the office of President more powers than Oliver Cromwell" - The very situation that James Madison warned about in the Federalist Papers, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of a tyranny." Not at all hyperbolic to recognize a clear fact.
"Congress is weak and ineffectual" One would hope in vain that this is exclusively due to the partisanship of a Republican majority. The much more grave danger is from the so-called Democrats who either actively support the Skulland Bonehead (hopefully the worst of these, Lieberman, will receive his just deserts on Aug. 8) or show their tacit approval by remaining silent. When it comes time to raise campaign funds, the Dems and Repugs feed at the same corporate trough. This remains a serious flaw in the American electoral system.
The hypothetical scenario of Nixon defying the Supreme's decision on the White house tapes brings up a critical point. First, don't all officers in the US military swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the President? At what point does a critical mass form in the brass-hat class over being issued orders that may or may not be illegal? One officer at least, Lt. Ehren K. Wakada, is now facing court martial for refusing to deploy to Iraq. - Officer Facing Court Martial - Several retired Generals have criticized the war in Iraq, and some have retired in order to be able to criticize it. Retired Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler defied and exposed a coup attempt in 1933 aimed at FDR's government, but that coup was from outside the government. The current crisis is more of a Hitlerian style putsch, which the US system of checks and balances seems woefully ill-equipped to deal with.
From the inception of America as a nation it has been a given that freedom would not be destroyed by an external enemy, but from within. Many warnings have been issued on this score, notably that of Henry A. Wallace The Danger of American Fascism in 1944 and Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex speech in 1961.
"Indeed! And power has merely sought to fill the vacuum"
Len,
That says it all...you are 110% correct, we should not pull any punches or let up one bit, after all, that is what congress is for. Along with the legislature we also have MSM and the general public asleep at the wheel, so I guess that just leaves us "alarmists". Is the tide changing?
It does seem many more are becoming aware of the gross incompetence and constitutional Russian roulette we are playing with these clowns, but only time will tell. Yea, I also have people tell me: "You must really enjoy this Bush bashing..." I tell them, your damn right I do.
sadbuttrue, you raise great issues and zero in on the critical ones.
First, don't all officers in the US military swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the President?
That is correct. But, lately I've grown cynical about the popular understanding of tha great document. The GOP had probably told more lies to the gullible about the Constitution than about the war against Iraq.
It does seem many more are becoming aware of the gross incompetence and constitutional Russian roulette we are playing with these clowns, but only time will tell. Yea, I also have people tell me: "You must really enjoy this Bush bashing..." I tell them, your damn right I do.
Is the tide changing? Are we winning? I have to think so, benmerc. I haven't the courage to think otherwise!
Fuzzflash wrote:
Are you ready to rumble for Jeffersonian Democracy?
I have a few heroes to inspire me in the fight. You've, no doubt, noticed that I quote some of them from time to time.
"They say we're here and we've given them freedom, but really what is that? You know, what is freedom? You've got kids here who can't go to school. You've got people here who don't have jobs anymore. You've got people here who don't have power," he said. "You know, so yeah, they've got freedom now, but when they didn't have freedom, everybody had a job."
Good link, Dante. It's a vivid portrait. Things simply cannot continue this way.
Let's not be too alarmist. Don't you think using the word "revolution" is, ah, jumping the gun a little? Moreover, isn't it hypocritical, since the entire idea of revolution is that it uses extra-legal means to overthrow an abusive government? There are enough things to worry about without the rapid wholesale collapse of our entire way of life being one of them. Such is not a realistic fear at the moment, while it certainly may be if things continue down this road. All you've pointed out is that Bush *thinks* he's above the law, just as Nixon *thought* he was above the law. But there is an important distinction between thinking you are above the law and actually being above the law. Bush, the Congress, and the rest of the federal government still have to answer to the states and to the American people. And the American people indicate more and more that the Republicans are going to be voted down this coming election, along with.
Institutional deterioration seldom happens all at once, especially in a government as entrenched in world affairs as ours. That's why the media hasn't really been reporting on it until now - it's just hasn't been sensational enough. It happens slowly - we're seeing elements of corporatism(some say synonomous with fascism) extend more and more influence over governmental affairs. This has to be stopped first and foremost. I don't see a revolution happening because the important thing about our democracy is that revolution is built into it - power changes hands every two years by necessity. But if we don't take drastic (legal) steps to put up a barrier between big business and our government, we're going to be really gorked beyond all ungorking.
I appreciate your comments, Jonathan, but I must refer you to the update by Jonathan Schell [excerpt above]. But let's consider your post, point by point:
Let's not be too alarmist. Don't you think using the word "revolution" is, ah, jumping the gun a little?
I should have used the term "counter-revolution". In fact, it is Bush who has effected a revolution. But the terms "revolution" and "counter-revolution" just depend upon which side you're on.
Read Jonathan Schell's article which I've posted to this piece as an addendum. His point is that Bush has, in fact, brought about a dictatorship. What's puzzling is why the population is not already alarmed and manning the barricades.
Has it not sunk in?
Do Americans not get it?
Is it not widely understand the dramatic nature of Bush's assult upon Democracy and the rule of law?
Rather than "jumping the gun", I believe that the alarm bells have not sounded loud enough and most certainly not soon enough.
Moreover, isn't it hypocritical, since the entire idea of revolution is that it uses extra-legal means to overthrow an abusive government?
No, I have established a legal basis (to include some 400 years of common law and precedent) for the overthrow of George Bush, indeed, any illegitimate government —by any means. A first year law student can make that case. Read Jefferson, Madison, Che, Locke, JS Mill, et al. It was Jefferson who merely articulated a principle that is, in fact, recognized since Magna Carta: faced with an illegitimate regime, the people have the right to overthrow it, abolish it, and replace it. That principle was cited in defense of our own "Revolution" against British colonial rule.
There are enough things to worry about without the rapid wholesale collapse of our entire way of life being one of them.
I don't know where you've been living but I can tell you that MY way of life has already been "revolutionized" to my detriment by the policies of one man and his endemically crooked party: GWB and the GOP! Secondly, it is foolhardy to wait for utter collapse to act.
Such is not a realistic fear at the moment, while it certainly may be if things continue down this road. All you've pointed out is that Bush *thinks* he's above the law, just as Nixon *thought* he was above the law. But there is an important distinction between thinking you are above the law and actually being above the law.
In theory! But, as we have seen "theory" means little to Bush. I share Jonathan Schell's frustration! But let me try one more time: Bush is a clear and present danger not only to the Constitution but the very concept of the "rule of law". Bush is an absolutist who has very nearly consolidated all the power he needs to run the government by decree. Neither John Dean —White House Counsel under Richard Nixon —nor Jonathan Schell [The Nation] nor myself are alarmists. Realists is a better word. I rather think it "un-realistic" to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. He had in word and deed disavowed the very foundations of the separation of powers and Democratic government.
Bush, the Congress, and the rest of the federal government still have to answer to the states and to the American people.
UH huh! Who will enforce it? Congress has no police force and no army and neither does SCOTUS.
You have not grasped the essential point: our laws are effective only if they can be enforced when someone deliberately breaks them. Who will enforce the laws when it is the "executive" —Constitutionally empowered to enforce the laws —which deliberately subverts not merely the letter of the law but the very concept of law itself?
Let me put it this way: Bush is not enforcing the laws equitably; he's breaking them. And not only is he breaking them; he's rewriting them. And though it is the judiciary that has been solely empowered to interpret the laws, Bush has taken on that role, as well.
This is all dangerous and seditious treason. Unless checked it becomes precedent.
And the American people indicate more and more that the Republicans are going to be voted down this coming election, along with.
The GOP has already stolen two Presidential elections and one of the with the complicity of the high court.
I admire your optimism but cannot share it.
Sorry Jonathan, but you are not getting it at all.
“Don't you think using the word "revolution" is, ah, jumping the gun a little?”
When Len call for a “Revolution”, he does understand fully what this word means.
Too many Americans, including you, do not even have a remote idea of what that word really means. That's why common Americans accept and embrace the American war for independence as an “American Revolution”; as if the French Revolution of 1789 and 1830's – the latter famously illustrated by Hugo's “Les miserables”- , the Bolshevik Revolution, the Russian Revolution of 1917, or the Cuban Revolution can all be put in the same bag. Ludicrous!
First of all, the “American Revolution” effectively sacked the tyranny of the English Empire, only to replace it by the tyranny of the Planters in the South, the electoral Bosses in the North, the nightmarish factory environment sprang from the mind of Frederick Winslow Taylor and the corporate fascism planted by Rockefeller.
And I have to disagree with Len as well: a real “American Revolution” took place indeed. But the one I am talking about took more than seven decades to become somewhat successful. It started with the Reformers and Progressives of the early 20th century, to end with the partial victory of the civil right movement. With the assassination of the last real American Reformer - Robert Kennedy-, the seventy years of the real American Revolution ended. And just like the reign of Robespierre followed the first French Revolution, Corporate fascism was reintroduced by fire Ronald Reagan - fascism finally brought to its pinnacle by the Bush administration.
America does not need A Revolution. America needs to pull her Revolution out of the basement; dust it off; and give it a jump start. The American people need to achieve the progressivism they have started long ago but have forgotten because they were to busy to fear.
A Revolution is supposed to be violent only in Jonathan's mind and the mind of all those who have surrendered to Karl Rove' s politic of fear.
A Revolution must be a real one, in a way that it does not seem to create some kind of a different society. We don't need a different political system in order to get happy and prosperous again; we need to live in a completely new one. Despite all the attempts to repair it; despite all the garage bills and the commuting nightmares; if your car is full of relentless mechanical problems and seems only to please the oil companies while not being able to pass a mere smoke check; it is time to buy a brand new car.
Take the National education system, for instance. For all the money we put in it, for all the grants, the vouchers, the allocations and the debts ran by most states in order to curb the rising numbers of college drop-outs, no politician has ever wonder if the real problem would actually comes from the very axioms that today's America teaches to her children:
the CEO' s racking hundreds of millions of dollars despite of having sunk their companies; a music industries that preaches to our children that musical talents are no more needed in order to “bling-bling”; a president who doesn't have any foreign policy skills but who gets a permit to go to wage not one but many wars; a political system in which only the super-rich can afford to be represented or bid to represent; a country that does not even take its scientists seriously.
This is the system that needs a Revolution – in the geometric sense even more than the political sense. This is the system which the American people need to turn their back on, if they ever hope to re-ignite into themselves any sense of hope, if they want to dream again a genuine “American dream” instead of the continuous but all too real nightmare that we are living under the present corporate fascism cherished and promoted by the Bush dynasty, and a whole political system populated by lame ducks, corporate sell-outs and K-street puppets.
American winner of the Tour De France 2006, Floyd Landis, is about to be stripped of his title for doping (a first in the 103 years history of the race!). Another great example for our children...
Vive le sport à l'américaine!
Vive la pharmacie américaine!
Vive la pharmacie américaine!
LOL superbe, mon ami
America does not need A Revolution. America needs to pull her Revolution out of the basement; dust it off; and give it a jump start.
You've given me some great food for thought, especially this line:
With the assassination of the last real American Reformer - Robert Kennedy-, the seventy years of the real American Revolution ended.
Indeed, I've often tried to put a date on the end of what you have called the "real" American revolution. It's not easy. I've come up with any number of contenders: the Pullman Strike, Haymarket Square, The bombing of the L.A. Times Building cicra 1911, William Jennings Bryan's unsuccessful bids for the Presidency, the demonization of Emma Goldman, and on and on and on.
The tragedy is the progressive movement in America, the "real" revolution, died a thousand deaths by a thousand cuts. It took a wave of assassinations in the sixties to put it on life support. By the time Ronald Reagan assumed the Oval Office, all that left to be done was to break up the unions and export their jobs.
This is the system which the American people need to turn their back on, if they ever hope to re-ignite into themselves any sense of hope, if they want to dream again a genuine “American dream” instead of the continuous but all too real nightmare that we are living under the present corporate fascism cherished and promoted by the Bush dynasty, and a whole political system populated by lame ducks, corporate sell-outs and K-street puppets.
Well said! A "real" revolution, indeed, finds its center among people who know who they are. If we should find ourselves again, our revolution will have found its wellspring. Won't it be ironic if by his utter incompetence, by confronting us with our absurdly shallow lifestyles, Bush will wind up having done us all a favor amid his utter and ultimate disgrace?
Thanks for anchoring the debate and, though I disagree with him, thanks to Jonathan for raising the issue.
I think the basic and undeniable point Len makes, and has been making for some time is this:
Team Bush is playing for keeps!
Bush is merely in the process of completing his Coup d'État, he is not the least bit phased by a court document from the SCOTUS. It took Hitler many years to rise to power by "legal means" but once obtained, there was no turning back or relinquishing of power.
Len's point, I believe, which I share is two-fold:
1. Laws not only have to be obeyed to be laws, but they must be enforced. There has been no substantiation of any kind to show the many laws Bush has subverted will be enforced and justice served - quite the opposite. Bush, on a near daily level DARES anyone to challenge him; but we don't and likely won't absent a true insurrection.
2. Bush has no intention of leaving the Whitehouse, whether impeached or by completion of term - he will not be leaving now, in the near future or in Jan., 2009. Call me over the top, but if you have astutely and judiciously studied Bush's actions over the past 5 years, it is easy to conclude we are in the midst of the people's government being overthrown, right before our very eyes!
Even if Bush was impeached and removed, he would refuse to go and just who would enforce it? When his term ends and he adds a signing statement to the constitution declaring his "inherent authority" to remain in office during a national crisis or for reasons of "national security", who will remove him? Who, I ask?
The truth is, we don't know. The framers of the Constitution did make provisions for the removal of such a radial dictator that ascended to the office of the presidency. They envisioned the need for possible removal of a despot, but never clearly outlined WHO would remove the desperado in question. Reality is, it would be left to the people if this country to take up arms and remove him ourselves. Problem is, the US military is under the direction of Bush and I doubt ordinary citizens could amass enough might to overcome today's high-tech military.
Call me a conspirator and a pessimist, but mark my words,
"People that steal elections, roll in the stench of obscene amounts of money obtained through war-for-profits manifestos disguised as exportation of democracy and believe they are on a "mission from God" do not go away quietly."
- Frank J. Ranelli
http://ranellirants.blogspot.com/
"This is all dangerous and seditious treason."
That's just the problem. In the US this type of disloyalty to the constitution is not treason, that crime being narrowly defined and limited by article III of the constitution.
"Unless checked it becomes precedent." In the blog post I composed yesterday these were the two main theme points, exactly. That is downright spooky. Checking the time stamps, we must have been composing at the same time. The precedents set by Watergate and Iran/Contra, that malfeasance in high office would not be punished, is what has led to the current malfeasance.
Mr. Ranelli, you make good rants.
"Bush has no intention of leaving the Whitehouse, whether impeached or by completion of term...it is easy to conclude we are in the midst of the people's government being overthrown, right before our very eyes!...People that steal elections, roll in the stench of obscene amounts of money obtained through war-for-profits manifestos disguised as exportation of democracy and believe they are on a "mission from God" do not go away quietly."
Further to that, people who have engaged in every sordid crime in order to steal elections, etc. are not likely to allow a successor to gain control of the legal means to investigate those crimes. The crisis may be this November, not Jan. 2009. Can one rationally expect that BushCo™ will allow either house to supply the Democrats with subpoena power?
Re: time stamp reference above. OOPS, forgot about time zones. When I put up my blog at noon yesterday, it was still only 9:00 am. in your neck of the woods.
ranelli is right. Bushco is playing for keeps and I don't see any effective opposition.
If enough people woke up, an open-ended general strike might work but not before the FEMA camps are filled to the brim by anyone opposing Bush. Those camps were built for a reason.
Indeed, sad, Nixon, Reagan, Bush misdeeds are incremental and may have reached critical mass. They have exploited weaknesses in the system. As Dean pointed out, the old Nixon gang —in evidence in force in the current admin —learned all the "wrong" lessons from Watergate. They learned NOT to get caught.
Another thesis of mine: it'll take nothing short of revolution to rid the body politic of this cancer.
Here's another clue: when Bushco was found recently by SCOTUS to have been in violation of the Geneva Convention with regard to torture, did Bush cease and desist the practice?
NO!
The GOP crime syndicate merely did what they always do, that is, they tried to make Bush's crime legal.
Arlen Specter, despite his sporadic and inconsistent protestations, scurried furiously to come up with a bill to make legal —after the fact —the crimes that Bush has already perpetrated and intends to KEEP ON perpetrating upon the world and the American people.
It's hard to see how a rag tag people's revolution can simply march into the White House and arrest the sonovubitch —but some one ought to.
I stand by my allegation that Bush is personally culpable for the commission of capital crimes.
The Arthurian ideal was "might for right"....but where is that to be found?
Will this administration's inconpetency and utmost irresponsability ever reach an end?
What I might have and perhaps should have added earlier in response to:
Moreover, isn't it hypocritical, since the entire idea of revolution is that it uses extra-legal means to overthrow an abusive government?
What Jefferson and many other thinkers have recognized is simply this: if a regime is illegitimate or, in itself, illegal i.e., operating outside the established or constitutional law, then the utter destruction of that regime —by whatever means —cannot be illegal.
In Bush's America, the status quo has become intolerable by any standard.
Bush's regime MUST end. And sadly, we cannot blythely await the results of an election. Two national elections have already been stolen. The first resulted in Bush v Gore, a dubious decision even by the language of Bush v Gore, bu not before a gang of GOP "brownshirts" violently attacked the recount room in Florida. This was an act of "Seditious Treason". See US criminal codes. [Try Findlaw] Even GOPPERS called it a coup d'etat! Yet, people will still deny that our nation was hijacked by a revolutionary gang of thugs intending to subvert our Democracy.
Dante wrote:
First of all, the “American Revolution” effectively sacked the tyranny of the English Empire, only to replace it by the tyranny of the Planters
Excellent point. It is not widely understood that the US did not have to wait for Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to find itself dictated to by the South. The North could not have waged its "revolution" against Britain without Southern support. The Adams family could never have gotten the revolution underway without the support of a southern cabal: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Mason et al.
Sergeant Samuel Provance,who ran the military intelligence computer network at Abu Ghraib, came forward in Iraq to protest against torture practices. Some details have been made public through Sibel Edmonds as part of her work as head of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC):
"The military in Iraq were bringing the children of the detainees - 3 years old, 5 years old - and they would beat up and torture the children in front of the detainees - and they'd threaten the detainees that they would keep torturing the children until they talked! So Sergeant Provance reported this stuff and he was disciplined and put on administrative leave."
Provance's statements have recently drawn the attention of Chris Shays, Head of the House Government Reform subcommittee on national security who subpoened various documents from Rumsfeld on 14 July, documents due on 29 July. Various sources say there have only been one or two congressional subpoenas issued to the Bush administration.
You would have thought, wouldn't you, that a subpoena based on reports of attempts to "break terror suspects by kidnapping and mistreating their family members" would have gained some measure of media scrutiny. The torture of children! And the media refuses to discuss it! If Americans ever wanted to know how far their democracy has fallen they only have to consider this.
Links: 1 2 3
Damien that is truly sickening. Calling Bush a dictator is not hyperbolic, but probably an understatement. Worst President Ever? Try worst despot since Caligula.
Blogwhore alert! Came across a religious survey at Ice Station Tango today. IST Religion Survey
Posted the question with my candid, though tongue-in-cheek answers on my latest post. My first attempt at a humour blog, (but I meant every word.) Taking The Survey And hey, while at Friendly Neighbour, check out Wednesday's post, What Went Wrong?, which is my take on How George Bush Became a Dictator. Dante Lee Said, "Wow. Nice article, Daniel. Very, uh.... Oh would I say,.... Very 'existentialist Cowboy !"
Len, you and your readers should all go to IST and answer that survey. The sample will be so skewed Station Agent will have as much chance of a scientifically objective result as he has of living off those south polar date palms he's been trying to grow.
Fuzzflash, you wrote:
Remember that the greatest tyrannies of the last several millenia have always crumbled before a broadly held idea whose time has come.
I think a few ideas may come to fruition in Bush's wake. One of them may turn out to be a more realistic assessment of US troops and the potential for evil under the missrule of a commander-in-chief of Bush's ilk.
What I find most alarming is how easily almost everything we believed about ourselves is proven wrong.
Second to that and related to it: how easily the very premises of this country were nullified by a single dictator wannabe.
The reason for that, as benmerc points out, is simply this:
Along with the legislature we also have MSM and the general public asleep at the wheel, so I guess that just leaves us "alarmists". Is the tide changing?
Many more analogies can be made than I have time to make. They will wait; short of a revolution, Bush will still be around when I find the time to write it all up.
Back to Dante's ideas about the American "revolution". Too often, the American revolution as a "war of separation" is exploited by the right in order to denigrate the very revolutionary nature of men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison et al. The point is well taken because it is true that the "patriots" were fighting for their rights as "Englishmen". England had already fought its civil war and despite Cromwell's de facto dictatorship, it emerge a more Democratic nation.
That the colonists insisted upon those rights for themselves, however, may have been revolutionary and it most certainly portends the broader anti-colonial struggle that is still underway. It remains a "revolutionary" idea that has inspired a panoply of activists from Ghandi to Ho Chi Minh, from Che to Bin Laden.
damien, related to your post was tonight's edition of NOW with David Brancaccio on PBS. I doubt that you get that in Oz, but you can visit them online. This week's program: The Prisoner
The U.S. said that Moazzam Begg has "strong, long-term ties to terrorism," —an allegation Begg firmly denies. He was set free from Guantanamo last year having never been found guilty of any crime. The US still maintains that his detention was justified. The point being that, on its face, there was no probable cause for his detention, there was NO evidence against him, he was never even told the charges against him, therefore he could present no defense, he was never given a trial date, he was denied all access to the outside world and, therefore, could not retain legal representation, and so on and so on and so on.
This is all a Nazi atrocity on its face and would be even if there had been evidence against him. It is my position that any person is entitled to basic fundamental rights and they are inviolate. And, in this case, that principle is affirm by Geneva which the US deliberately ignored and is STILL ignoring.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED! Nothing will change until George W. Bush himself is found personally responsible for this on going war crime and is personally charged for violations of both Geneva and Nuremberg.
I can make the case that George W. Bush is guilty of capital crimes under US codes binding the US to those relevant principles of international law.
CAPITAL CRIMES!
Now, having said that, I strongly insist that Bush be arrested only upon probable cause, that he have the right to hear the charges against him, that his rights be made clear to him, that he have the right of counsel and the right to defend himself in the appropriate jurisdiction.
I am no hypocrite. I support war crimes trials for George W. Bush, a right that he has denied to thousands of detainees who, if they were not terrorist sympathizers at the time of their "capture" are most certainly sympathizers today.
Besides, I am very curious about how Bush will defend himself. I hope he has a good lawyer. Clue: Alberto Gonzales ain't it!
I hope he has a good lawyer. Clue: Alberto Gonzales ain't it!
Gonzales should of course be there, but as a co-defendant.
sad,
Absolutely! I see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Condi in the dock. Who have I left out?
BTW —thanks for the heads up on the survey. I'll definitely check it out.
Regrettably, the US public seems to have developed a 'tin ear' for their constitutional rights and their defence. It's as if they expect the hollow phrases of patriotism and justice put out by the crime gang to be sufficient of themselves to protect the democratic spirit. We're seeing an attenuation of judgement and the senses; something a bit like an abused spouse who after a while fails to notice abuses - or even finds excuses for her abuser. There certainly is a cultural deafening going on, and, yes, the media has to take a lot of the blame. But I am at a total loss to see how the Democrats in Congress - knowing what they know of this administration - can continue to liase with them in the way they do. It's just appalling.
The redress seems to involve engaging those members of the general public who still have some hearing and judgement intact. I am not so confident that the crime gang will ever be brought to justice as long as they continue to mouth the right phrases and bring on the next 'crisis' providing always new reasons to trust the Fuerher and his team.
Recently, in an address entitled "Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of Modern Terrorism," for the policy forum of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) on 30 April 2006, Neocon stalwart Michael Ledeen declared: "the time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon."
The Washington Times (always a sound oracle of Neocon intentions) has this headline: "Hezbollah leader said to be hiding in Iranian Embassy.....If confirmed, the reports could lead to an Israeli air strike on the embassy, possibly leading to a widening of the conflict, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity".
Since Lebanon seems to be going so well - and the others are being demonised - we're likely all going to be Ledeenites before the year's out whether we like it or not.
There's along way to play out with these criminals. As I think we've previously agreed, this can only end badly (and by 'badly' I include a nuclear-armed jihadist Pakistan and an entire Middle East aflame and united against the US and the West).
I watch PBS Lehrer Hour. And I will follow up on Moazzam Begg. Gitmo, the detentions and renditions have been shown to be criminal, yet even in my country the MSM prattles on as if it all has some meaning. Nuts. Thanks for the links, Len.
you're right, damien. The American public may be in a state of denial. Or maybe they think it's all a tv series.
But I would wager that the crux of the probably is education. I would put money on this: that less than 2 percent of the population knows what "probable cause" is. Same goes for "due process of law" et al. The level of ignorance on these issues is shocking. It boils down to this: the American people don't even know what they've lost. That's tragic.
The "founders", after all, were will to fight and die for concepts that are very little grasped by moderns, concepts that some americans may think of as mere abstractions if they are given any thought at all.
Some wiser heads are at loggerheads with the Bush Lebanon policy. Richard Armitage says you can't eliminate eliminate Hezbollah through airstrikes.
And Zbigniew Brzezinksi:"I hate to say this but I will say it. I think what the Israelis are doing today for example in Lebanon is in effect, in effect -- maybe not in intent -- the killing of hostages. The killing of hostages."
"I would put money on this: that less than 2 percent of the population knows what "probable cause" is."
It would be nice to see some evidence that that percentage is higher at the Supreme Court. I'm still waiting.
Revolution? Not gonna happen. The struggle of everyday living will prevent it. Intellectuals begin revolutions; and you have to be able to afford thinking. It begins with education, of course; and even if you accept that there are enough educated and informed people here in the United States that would recognize a coup for what it was – they will not be able to inflame the public to rise up en masse. Why? Not ennui – exhaustion. Information entropy doesn’t figure here – despite 24 hour ‘news’. People are overwhelmed just trying to get by. My neighbor is more interested in how he’s going to pay for his son’s education than what the President is or isn’t doing. He isn’t going to give a damn if Congress overturns the 22 Amendment (the most likely way Bush would make his bid for a third term). He’s working too many hours, is barely able to pay his bills, and doesn’t think of politics at all. In fact – he can’t remember the last time he voted. Revolution? Not on your life! So Bush maybe gets impeached and refused to acknowledge it. So the military decided to back Bush and disregard the Constitution. We’ll be out on that front line alone, my friends! None of our fellow Americans will even notice that their local police are now riding Hummers and carrying MAS rifles. The moment of possible intervention has long passed. Even if Bush gets bored with playing President (a distinct possibility – he’s never stayed too long in any one job) the damage he’s done to the office will surely be exploited by one of his immediate successors. We can only hope for a host of ‘Col. Casey’s’ to stand up to whoever decides to channel ‘James Mattoon Scott’. It may not be ‘Seven Days in May’ - but it’ll be America’s autumn – and that’s no shit!
This is related to previous comments of mine here and here. Daniel Hopsicker has some explosive developments on the April 10 capture of a drug plane in the Yacatan. It's summarised well by Cannonfire, so I quote him below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember the drug jet? Remember the DC-9 loaded up with 5.5 tons of coke, which was discovered by Mexican authorities? Remember when we learned that it was owned by Skyway, a scam company designed to bilk investors, a company run by the (allegedly) spooked-up Kovar family? Daniel Hopsicker has tied this drug smuggling scandal directly to the immediate circle of George W. Bush:
The company which owned the seized "Cocaine One" DC9, SkyWay Aircraft of St. Petersburg FL, leased a 70,000 square foot “repair” facility at DFW Airport in Dallas for more than $20,000 a month...in a building owned by a man called “George W. Bush’s biggest supporter” and “the power behind the throne” during Bush’s first Presidential campaign.
SkyWay, a company with no products, and thus nothing needing "repair," nonetheless announced in July 2003 “their newly established Part 145 repair station” in a building owned by LIT Industrial Texas Limited Partnership, a venture of Texas real estate giant Trammel Crow, the flagship corporation in the far-flung empire of billionaire speculator Richard Rainwater.
Ranked among the 100 wealthiest Americans, Rainwater backed George W. Bush in four separate business ventures, including the Texas Rangers baseball team from which Bush, who had been drilling “dry holes” until then, profited handsomely. In a heated 1994 Governor’s race, Texas Democratic Governor Ann Richards charged Rainwater “owned" her Republican opponent Bush.
What the hell do we have to do to force the mainstream media to pay attention?
(...thanks Joseph)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopsicker also has given two good interviews about the shenanigans with the 9/11 terrorists at their drugs-trafficking flight school Huffman Aviation,in Venice Fla. It seems the Florida airport was a small concern with only a few buildings. So it's of some interest that the sister ship of the drug plane to the one captured in Mexico recently should have been housed at Venice Fla. This was, perhaps, not too surprising given that Huffman had been running multiple drug flights into the US on a weekly basis prior to 9/11 without the necessary licences and documentation. And that it could only have done so with the tacit approval of one or more US regulatory agencies. A final grace-note: the plane captured in Mexico with the 5.5 tons of cocaine was dressed out in faux Homeland Security signage. Interviews here and here.
Len,
I have a question, somewhat but not entirely off subject. I have just viewed a c-span presentation of American Scholars Symposium..."Theories about Sept 11th"
To say the least, it was a disturbing experience, and not being one totally ignorant of the subject…I was still stunned at some of the claims.
What is your take on the credibility of this group? I'm asking you because this guy is out of your neck of the woods more or less)....Alex Jones. He seems to have quite a cabal of individuals involved: ex-military, legit Professors, Authors and film makers etc, and a large following. I have not really under stood much about 9/11 groups, although I have done shallow research on a few, but not this one.
At any rate, by the end of the program I was grinding my teeth, because so many other parts and or pieces concerning many layers and issues about the event and beyond (for that matter prior also) fall into recognized formats for my self. Rather then mince odds and ends of the factions and details discussed, I just wanted to know what you thought about this bunch. Any insight would be appreciated, as my research time and effort can be limited by other constraints of time etc. I think you may mail me off of my profile if you want. I appreciate any insight you may offer up specific to this group, that appears to be a loose national coalition of sorts.
I have heard of this group but haven't read anything that they written. But that's not because I have come to a conclusion about them. In fact, I applaud any effort to get at the truth.
My efforts, so far, have been confined to debunking the "official" conspiracy theory i.e. the bunkum Bush served up immediately after 911. And doing that is not difficult.
For one thing, there is NO hard evidence to support the official cover stories. There were NO bodies positively identified as being passengers of Flight 77 buried in the only funeral of 77 victims. There was NO wreckage of an airliner at the Pentagon. I've concluded that the cell phones calls said to have been made from the hijacked airliners were impossible.
I tend to shy away from Alex Jones —but that doesn't mean that he's always wrong or that he is wrong in this case. I think the scholars themselves are reputable and, on the few points I've look at, I think they are correct. For example, I have very serious doubts that the towers could have fallen as they did without controlled demolition technology. That at least one of the buildings in WTC was so wired is a fact. The source for that is a PBS Documentary in which the building owner/manager, Silverstein (I believe) states flatly for the record that he ordered Building 7 pulled ...and, indeed, it was pulled just minutes later. It was a controlled demolition. It could not have been readied for in so short a time. The question, therefore, is WHY was building 7 wired for demolition long before 911.
I am always on the lookout for un-impeachable sources. The source for my statements about the funeral, for example, is Arlington National Cemetary itself.
I think the funerals are important because no theory is not correct that does not explain all anomalies. The "official" theory is full of holes.
Moreover, I contend that Bush's well-documented efforts to prevent any investigation at all is evidence, in and of itself, of a cover up. The question is not whether they were trying to cover something up; it's what they trying to cover up and why?
Exactly where I have left it, with a bit less confirmation, although the facts you have mentioned seem bullet proof, and I have read them via other's research. I will spend more time on this group, the "disturbing" part I refer to in the segment is the very short time they say we have to rectify this "global manipulation" of our Constitution...in a nut shell.
Of course I don't disagree with the proto fascist status "limbo" we seem to be in, and something they clearly state as a matter of fact. I guess the elections this fall should help define the direction we as a nation and individual citizens will take. I am not sure what will happen if elections are stolen, I doubt the msm will back the people, or constitution for that matter...but time will tell.
Thanks for your input on this Len, and as with most conspirests I will take small steps delving in.
Benmerc, I hope you don't mind me jumping in on your question to Len re 9/11. You asked me a question some time ago and I got distracted (it was a fair question, and you were right on parts of it). I am hoping to make up for that failure. So I have opened up the comments section on my scratchpad here. I would be most happy to do my best to answer any questions you may have. I don't pretend to know all the answers and 9/11 issues are messy, but there are a number of important features:
(1) The government inquiry process was flawed and does not meet the kind of accountability standards you would expect in a democracy. The Bush admin spent $16M on the 9/11 Commission and $50M on Clinton's impeachment.
* It was forbidden to investigate 9/11 - only to investigate how to forestall a repeat of it.
* It was forbidden to examine anything about the war games that paralyzed military responses.
* It was forbidden to examine the plane 'black boxes' - their existence was concealed from them.
* It was forbidden to examine any intelligence agency reports to the Bush Administration made prior to 9/11.
* It was forbidden to examine any aspect of the financing of the 9/11 terrorists.
* It was forbidden to examine 9/11 terrorists support networks within the US (a la Huffman Aviation)
* The 9/11 Commissioners were specifically chosen because of conflicts of interest that would limit their investigative zeal.
(2) What people know of 9/11 has come to them from their government in a debased setting of which the 9/11 Commission mandate was only one small part:
* Evidence concealed: flight recorders
* Evidence embargoed: various videos of the Pentagon attack kept from the 9/11 Commission and the public
* Evidence discarded: the hurried removal of the steel at the WTC.
* Evidence unreported: the testimony of Sibel Edmonds on terrorist financing.
* Evidence downplayed: fire chiefs who did not believe the fires were sufficient to bring down the towers.
* Witnesses intimidated: ordered by FBI and Intelligence officials not to discuss their experiences publicly.
* Standard FAA and military investigations that should have taken place following 9/11 but did not.
* Public discussion stifled by the Bush administration on alleged security grounds.
* There was uncritical and compliant media reporting on key aspects such of the official 9/11 explanation - such as the identities of the hijackers.
(3) There are also significant evidence contradictions (Len has pointed to some):
* The Osama bin Laden fake confession video of Dec 2001 denied by video and Islamic experts.
* Mahommed Atta, Islamic suicide warrior, had a stripper girlfriend, used cocaine and liked pork chops.
* He stayed at a drug-trafficking flight centre whose activities were never examined by the 9/11 Commission.
* The evidence is more in favor of controlled demolitions at the WTC than collapses (Prof. Steven Jones)
* The penetration of six walls [3 rings] at the Pentagon was consistent with a missile, not the nosecone of a Boeing.
* Fighters that normally intercepted wayward aircraft after June 2001 needed Secretary Rumsfeld's approval.
* Sec. Rumsfeld's absence on 9/11 have never been properly accounted for.
* The debris of Flight 93 was spread over six miles supporting claims its was shot down.
* Senator Bob Graham, on The Lehrer Hour in Dec 2002, admitted another nation was involved.
* Why did Gen. Ahmad, Head of Pakistani Military Intelligence, pay $100,000 into Mohammed Atta's account?
Just to mention ONE of these issues, which is massively compelling, in my view, is this one:
Senator Bob Graham, as Head of the Joint Congressional 911 Inquiry from Feb - Dec 2002, was interviewed on the PBS Lehrer Hour in Dec 2002:
"I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.... I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now." (link)(link)
So we KNOW the 19 hijackers were not operating alone. There was a support base, and others - beside the 19 terrorists - who were aware of the impending attacks.
And this is what you have.... a person who should know what he is talking about is telling anyone who cares to listen that there were a lot more people than the 19 terrorists behind 9/11 going right up to the leadership of a sovereign foreign government. [There is considerable evidence I could point to here in relation to both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that Sen.Graham is likely referring to].
So these are the sorts of issues under review here.
As to the matter of the proponents of 9/11 criticisms such as Alex Jones the it's a strange phenomenon. 9/11 critics represent something of a cross-section of political views; many have religious beliefs; some hold oddball or objectionable beliefs on other issues. It is true to say that a number of them are 'outsiders' in a sense. But far more strange, in my view, is the complete absence of public affirmation of the official theory by, say, mainstream scientists and historians. This reflects the banishment of 9/11 as an historical topic from our media - a process that has gone hand in hand with a number of lies about political pursuits in the Middle East. This is not to say 9/11 critics such as Sibel Edmonds, Cynthia McKinney, Catherine Austin Fitts, Steven Jones, Andreas von Buelow, David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds and, recently, people like Paul Craig Roberts lack integrity or judgement. Rather, it's that they are principled individuals who have never been wholly beholden to their employers.
Alex Jones was telling his radio listeners BEFORE 9/11 that the Bush admin was going to carry out terrorist attacks in New York and blame it on islamic terrorists. He was telling his listeners to call Washington and let them know that "hey, if you go ahead with this, we are watching you and we are going to call it for what it is." He was almost beside himself. I have the video, but I've lost the weblink.
The general public has never felt comfortable with the superficial and partial answers provided by the 9/11 Commission's 650 pages. Nor should they - the Warren Commission got 25 volumes.
I hope these comments help.
Damien - I might add that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there were any Moslem hijackers at all - we were only told that there were 19 terrorists who carried out this operation, and it turned out that almost half of the ones named by the administration are alive and well today. Furthermore, every single person on the passenger manifest has been accounted for by relatives etc., and there were no extra passengers on any of these manifests that could be identified as hijackers/terrorists. Does it not strike you as more than strange and way beyond the most generous of probability calculations some nineteen men could slip unnoticed onto four planes on the same day within a couple of hours, and not be included in the passenger lists? This is why I question the existence of any hijacker/terrorist on those four planes.
There may be merit in what you say Vierotchka, but published records are curious things, especially when they go through several hands (FBI, FAA, WH,....) There are one or two disputed video clips of some hijackers getting on to connecting flights. I am tempted to believe these videos are possibly true. But I am well aware that false evidence was produced (the passport that survived the WTC fires and landed in the street; the car containing a will, passport, koran and flying manual- duh!). So clearly some false evidence was produced which points to complicity of some kind on the part of the authorities. As to the manifests, I'm not so sure. Because of the security clampdown post 9/11 the published manifests may NOT be the originals; terrorist passenger names may have been deleted prior to the public release. As to the terrorist identities, it appears that about 6 persons have come forward claiming to be the person identified by the FBI as terrorists. We should NOT think of the 9/11 terrorists as basking on some desert island somewhere. Rather, we should assume that a number of identities were stolen by the terrorists from other persons. Of course, any of the situations you have outlined could have occured. But the fairest, and safest, thing to say is that approximately 6 of the named terrorists appear to have stolen the identities of living persons. And that, in real terms, we do not know the real identities of these alleged terrorists.
I know it's tempting to try to "piece things together" and give an account of "what actually happened". But it's easy to get it wrong. It's far safer to reject the official account because (a)The 9/11 Commission inquiry mechanisms were inadequate (b) the evidence from 9/11 was not properly assessed (c) The evidence discrepancies themselves do not support the official explanation.
Particular pieces of evidence will also be more appealling to some people than for others. You might find flight manifest discrepancies to be compelling, while another person believes the buildings were demolished by explosives.
So it appears wisest to appeal to the most blatant and simply stated evidence discrepancies. The one I focus on is what Sen.Graham admitted ("another country took part in it"). I also point out to people that airliners DON'T go "missing" over London, Frankfurt or Tokyo for over an hour. It's all nonsense. The failure of NORAD to get fighter planes to intercept the hijacked aircraft has never been adequately explained.
But go with the evidence the way you see it. I prefer to keep it simple and stick to the demonstrable, more blatant, items. And certainly, if we can't discuss these issues in our media because of a social taboo, then we have to start asking 'why not?'
Damien,
Thanks for the input and links, it has given me new impetus to catch up on this case. It appears you have more then delved into this issue, it has been on a back burner for myself. I am going to try to expand my out look considering this event, as it may be a pivotal aspect to future scenarios, to say the least. It is so strange how Americans just seem to except it as the current “sacred cow” something not to discuss or push to hard, it is more then likely they really don’t want to hear the truth, on some level.
I am sure all of this has been discussed ad infinitum, never the less I must delve a bit more to get a better understanding of this mess we find ourselves in these days. Your numbered points are very helpful, as this is a multi-faceted and well layered event.
I will pick out some of those points to follow up on.
I wonder how much Senator Graham knows? He certainly has been quiet this past year. He is a fairly conservative Dem, but I have voted for him in the past as I consider him a straight shooter. Frankly, most of the Dems in Florida, except for a couple of House members would be considered conservatives elsewhere. And did Graham have an association with Porter Goss? or at least I did not hear any objections from any of the Florida senators, Nelson, Martinez or the past Graham. Also, do you know if Goss was on the “inside” the CIA during the 9/11 period? Maybe you don’t attack a fellow native son, but I was deeply disappointed in the swift confirmation, and then he just makes a year and… *poof* yet another Bush fiasco swept under the rug.
Also, have you researched any of the Jim Walters Jr. findings? Just wonder if you are familiar with his work. I have read a bit of his findings, but not gone far into them.
Again, thanks for your comments, they will help as I begin to piece this stuff together.
Did you catch the c-span meeting of the American Scholars Symposium? Alex Jones was the moderator along with several panelists. I don’t know if you get c-span, but they played it this weekend here in Florida, and will be repeating it Tuesday evening at 6:10 PM EST.
Benmerc, Sen.Graham was the Head of the Joint Congressional 9/11 Inquiry. As such he was privy to a great deal of evidence regarding 9/11. There are some points you raise that are worth discussing, but it's probably best if we thrash them around here rather than I vandalize Len's blog any further.(Apologies, Len. Upon reflection, I should have recorded the longer post elsewhere and simply linked to it. I'll remember that next time). Fair warning Benmerc: as I'm running around a bit you may have to wait on some answers. Vierotchka, you're welcome too here.Cheers.
damien, no apologies, please. This has been a great exchange with great input from vierotchka and benmerc. Thanks for the links and the bulleted list.
Obviously, this is an area where you are much more up to speed than am I. But I am completely sympathatic. The "official" theory is just a cover story floated up to hoax the world. It's full of holes and I have found no hard evidence in support of it —merely assertions by the media and the known liars of Bushco.
With regard to culprits, Gore Vidal names Pakistan. You can find his informed comments in a piece called: "The Enemy Within".
Post a Comment