HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » dougolat » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Aug 25, 2007, 07:27 PM
Number of posts: 707

Journal Archives

How ironic, that of all people, Wesley Clark, who exposed the .....

....insane over-reach of the PNAC quest, evidently fails to see that it is still operating, on an extended time-frame!
Syria was a moderately stable and successful secular nation, outside of the Saudi/Sunni fold (like Iraq) and the refugee burden from the "Iraq War" pushed it into partial failure.
Now, ISIS/IS/ISIL/Daesh is acting as a useful tool to take down Syria and oppose the Shia of Iraq, and there is evidence of covert support from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and others.
If the US really intended to end ISIS, why aren't it's oil shipments confiscated? Why aren't the buyers in trouble? Why aren't it's funds frozen? Why aren't it's fleets droned? Are the PNAC schemers still calling the shots? Are the MIC and the Homeland Security crew happy with their made-to-order "terrorist enemy" and the associated financial bonanza?

'Seven nations in five years' morphs to 'twelve years in - five down, two left.'

Thank you, I'm sympathetic. And to continue with the Tonkin anology...

it's a lot like acknowledging the nefarious intent of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution but still denying the bad intentions displayed in the precipitating Incident.
We have a clear statement if intent from PNAC on June 3, 1997, followed by "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and "Present Dangers" in 2000, and backed up by 10 official letters and 4 statements, the signers of which were and are in positions to help "make it so", and affirmed by Gen. Wesley Clark in 2003, that there was the intention to "take down" 7 nations in 5 years. One can refer to the chart at www.publiceye.org/pnac.chart/pnac.html
Now, after 9/11, a "Christian" nation might have impressed the world by "forgiving your enemy" and "turning the other cheek" and a nation under the rule of law might have investigated the crime, but what actually happened might best be described as a "war-machine run amok." Let's not forget the complicity of the "owned" media, either, serving neither the public interest nor the cause of truth and honesty.
This "war machine run amok" meme can be seen elsewhere and more currently, such as in Ukraine, where Nuland and Kagan (PNAC) morphed an effort to prosecute a truly corrupt elected leader into a violently divisive coup. This, in former Soviet Union countries, where our promise that NATO would not expand "one inch" has morphed into "every last inch." Cold War manipulation, provocation, and betrayal, more than two decades out of date.
The world faces impending disasters galore and we're busy "killing millions and harming billions to steal trillions" - it's diabolically tragic!

So, we've got the dangerous war-machine that Eisenhower warned us about (they cooked up and approved Northwoods, the Bay of Pigs, and our involvement in Viet Nam on his watch) and a host of bad-actors eager to take the reins, going into the 2000 election. They steal the election, take power, and spend the next half year installing "their" people in crucial positions. They also scuttle Clinton's anti-terrorist efforts and re-schedule multiple recurring war games to all occur simultaneously in early September. Then comes our day of "Shock and Awe" and the Official Conspiracy Theory.
What can I say? There is simply no part of it that does not qualify as the very model of "Unsupported and Illogical", from the supposed Saudi hi-jackers with CIA expedited passports, thru the unproven plane-boarding, and the preposterous take-over scenarios, and the hinkey phone calls (to which Rebekah Roth has recently pointed out yet more failings), etc,etc.
OK, I've got to stop, lest I go on all day and night, steaming with indignation- but honestly how can anyone deny the importance of the war-games? The regular scramble jets and people scattered to the west and Europe, yet no pause in the ordinary lower level training missions in recognition of that unusual circumstance? The radar distractions, insertions, interruptions, and irregularities? The extra, pretend hijackings, some even live flights? The key anti-terrorism personnel off in Monterrey? The fill-in people, unfamiliar with their roles, procedures, and expected contacts? The communication interruptions and confusion ("...or is this real-world?") ? Who the frack can dismiss all that?
Another biggie, the towers' structural failure of the cores: Those fires could have gone on for a decade and the bulk of the structural steel would still have FULL STRENGTH! Partial damage to the top 1.4% (by weight- tower 1) can cause the rest to fail? Really? Two of the strongest buildings ever erected, there's virtually nothing that could be done from the top that could make the lower third or so of those cores to fail like we saw/see, up to and including such over-kill (for the rest of the building) as dropping aircraft carriers on them, so their failure indicates something more, probably causing the lingering hot-spots; and denials of the myriad reports, recordings, and indications of explosions, as well as the wildly inflated estimates of their required loudness, are pointedly obfuscatory and largely merit-less (sorry, team, no ceegar).
Let's skip the rest of the failures of the OCT, for a moment, and consider our eager "world domination gang"; they've got their wished for pearl harbor, wrapped with a bow that says Muslim, what do they do with it? Time to push for war-powers and the Patriot Act (a ready PNAC package, that)and get started on the Middle East disruption. There will be opposition, so that calls for deploying some super-secret, illegal, military anthrax with a crude Muslim label: never mind that the story won't hold water in the long term, it's first impressions that matter here, and you never get a second chance to make a first impression. The war powers authorization that got passed was more sold as a bargaining chip to use in negotiations than a go-ahead for Wild-West vigilantism, but it worked.
So, no, I don't require belief in any pet theory, but those who defend the craziest theory of all, I must assume, are speaking from ignorance, connivance, or blind faith like the creationists, and to ignore all the incriminating indications of intention behind it all is yet more of the same.
Need I remind you of what Karl Rove said?
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality, and when you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will = we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out....and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do!"

Look who's talking, a believer in disappearing titanium engines!

How quaint.
The BIG plane would make 3 circular holes on two floors but there's only one, suitable for either engine, leaving a lot to be accounted for: "No fit, sherlock!"
As a steady lurker since 2007, I'm aware of your dismissal of the P4T research that doesn't fit the fractured fairy-tale. but I was referring to the posts from OneSliceShort on that site, providing further analysis of the 239 Pentagon witnesses, only 41 of whom actually had physical locations capable of pinning down the north or south of Citgo question; from the helipad flight controller, Sean Boger, who saw the plane coming directly at him from north of Citgo, and ducked under his desk, yet claimed it hit (150 feet to his left, wrong trajectory for the internal damage), to Deb Anlauf in the Sheraton Hotel, who saw the jet close and directly overhead and flying on toward the Pentagon ( cited by some as viewing southward and indicating the south of Citgo flightpath, but incorrectly so).
But we're getting off in the weeds, and my gripe is not with you, rather the tag-team of abusive and vehement "skeptics" who make this group a dungeon. It's like dealing with creationists, or people who know about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and following Resolution, but refuse to acknowledge the criminality therein, maintaining that "all's fair in love and war."

Ahh yes we love us some skeptics -

especially those who are more skeptical of the criticisms of the hare-brained tales used to lead the US into illegal, disastrous, and profitable wars than the preposterous and unverified tale itself: the "untruthers", one could say. Their diligent tag-team mockery, denial, belittling, obstinence, and defense of the "Official Conspiracy Theory" (hallowed be it's name- though hollowed be it's substance), indicates a disturbing allegiance.
The "Amerithrax" saga? no ceegar.
The war-games recipe? no ceegar.
The explosion evidence? no ceegar.
The structural engineers? no ceegar, (but the "low likelihood" mist from NIST, based on tortured scenarios and not addressing the actual collapse gets an OK, I guess because it's "Official", doncha know?)
The groundbreaking CIT (backed up the analysis from OSS on P4T)? no ceegar.
Kevin Ryan's "Another Nineteen"? nary a whisper of doubt.
The lack of proof of actual hijacker boardings? shrugs.
The disturbing fate of air traffic controllers' tapes? nothing.
The financial skulduggery of the day? "no tie to Al-qaida..."
The financial skulduggery of the following days? nada.
The rewards and promotions handed out to those who spectacularly failed their duties? SOP
The contradiction between supposed Pentagon plane recovered DNA evidence and "burned away" plane debris, even the titanium parts? poo-poo.

There's more, lots more; but the point is :

Yeah, that's Skepticism alright, IN BONDAGE, BLINDERS, & A LEASH!

"Profits over People" "Public Risk and Private Gain"...

"The Rule of Law - Except for the Rich"
"The 1% vs The 99%"
"The Golden Rule or the Rule of Gold?"

I like my new bumper sticker:


But we turned Afghanistan into the biggest heroin factory ever seen!

(complete with sharecropper-like growers, living in poverty, while the profits accrue to the distribution networks. And who might they be, now? Hmmm?)

It's odd to recall Bush's Oct 2001 announcement of the bombing and invasion, based in part on their having provided "training camps".
We then turned Afghanistan, and later Iraq, into vast training camps, where we provided most of the targets, arms, and money- for a decade!

Truth is stranger, and more regrettable, than fiction.

Like we should have learned from Prohibition...

...it's the illegality that supports the profits, and a cascade of unintended consequences worse than the original problem.

(and the prohibition of alcohol also benefited the petroleum industry by "smashing the stills" used to supply alcohol fuel for rural America's mechanization. Similarly, the later ban on hemp locked in the future for petroleum by-products, slamming the door on less poisonous and more biodegradable hemp derived alternatives; thus the Plague of Poisonous Petroleum Products was contrived, not inevitable.)

The test is here!

Will humanity be "Planet Despoilers" or "Planet Caretakers"?

Can we stop killing millions and harming billions to steal trillions (as Carl Herman says), spreading the "Land of Mordor"(see the Alberta wastelands and ocean dead zones)?

Can we turn our creativity and efforts away from brutal greed, toward a "Seventh Generation" perspective?

If people say yes, and corporations stay focused on profit opportunities in more wars and declining health and ever shoddier products with ever slicker packaging and ever more sophisticated advertising, do they merit their influence?

Grades in a decade or two, pop-quiz coming up Nov. 2016.

Those who worship proffit are eager

to sell us the gasmasks and medications we will need to exist in the world they are so busily creating.


We need a new word for government subservience to corporations, "fascist" applies to a partnership in which the government dominates, but our current gov. is led around by the nose and wallet. Regulation gets de-fanged, under-funded and subverted.
One problem is that the financial wizards concoct schemes several steps ahead of the law, which is always trying to deal with the after-effects.
One of the worst Supreme Court decisions was their interpretation of "honest services" as not applying to intent or results, but allowing "new" ways of cheating because the rules were lagging behind creative dishonesty.
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »