Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Twenty Things We Now Know Five Years After 9/11

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
CrisisPapers Donating Member (271 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:26 AM
Original message
Twenty Things We Now Know Five Years After 9/11
| Bernard Weiner |

The imminent fifth anniversary of 9/11 provides the proper moment for a good, ol'-fashioned sum-up of the past half-decade under CheneyBush, especially because so much has happened in the past 12-months:

The Bush Administration's Katrina debacle, Iraq being sucked deeper into the civil-war vortex, Afghanistan turning once again into a major war theater, more and more military leaders speaking out about the disaster that is CheneyBush foreign policy, the defection of so many moderate conservatives from their GOP home, the plummeting of Bush's popularity to not much more than his fundamentalist base, the revelation that Bush&Co. have been spying on citizens' phone calls and emails without court warrants, the indictment of CheneyBush's chief aide Scooter Libby for obstruction of justice in the case of the administration's outing of a covert CIA agent, the "rendering" of detainees abroad for extreme torturing, etc. etc.

I'll get to the annual list in a moment. But first let's step back and take a deeper overview. Buckle your seat belts, here we go.


Whatever you may think of 9/11, and the extent of involvement of Bush&Co., it's crystal-clear that the events of that tragic day were and continue to be used as an excuse for a wide variety of immoral and illegal actions by the CheneyBush Administration. The radical agenda that was barely on the public's horizon five years ago has since become all too evident, both domestically and in terms of foreign/military policy, which is why so many traditional conservatives are abandoning the extremism of the Republican Party.

Launching a war against, and then occupying, Iraq is the most obvious foreign result of the 9/11 tragedy -- even though Bush has admitted several times that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, and no WMD either. In one of the worst strategic mistakes in modern American foreign policy, the war against the al-Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan was precipitously abandoned and U.S. troops were dispatched to Iraq, a country of no real threat to the U.S.

Domestically, the near-3000 deaths of 9/11 -- and, let us not forget, the spreading of deadly anthrax spores around the halls of Congress by someone still unknown -- led to the passage of the so-called "Patriot" Act. This collection of martial provisions gave the federal government and its agents unprecedented police power to violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights in its supposed hunt for terrorists. All this while very little has been done to actually make the country more secure, such as checking containers entering ports, improving security at nuclear and chemical plants, x-raying all air freight, and so on.

In short, Bush&Co. used and then grossly abused the awful events of 9/11 -- and continues to do so -- in order to expand and maintain power, to move aggressively in the world, to pay off corporate and wealthy-individual supporters through huge tax breaks (in the middle of a war!), to create a one-party system of government, to neuter the legislative and judicial branches and thus violate our time-honored checks-and-balances system that provides a brake on executive excesses, to amass more and more police powers in federal hands, to effectively control the mass-media and the vote-counting system in this country, etc. etc.

9/11 also gave Karl Rove the fear-tools with which to manipulate the populace whenever he wished. Rove knows he has a lock on about 1/3 of the electorate, the GOP's fundamentalist "base." In several elections since 9/11, he has revved up the fear machine by rolling out the required buzzwords (abortion, terrorists, gay marriage, the flag, illegal immigrants, Muslims, et al.) to cobble together enough support to "win" the elections, even if by the slimmest of margins. (In reference to those margins, election experts have found that there is enough statistical and experiential evidence to say with some confidence that in key states and regions, those balloting-results were fraudulently obtained.)

We'll talk some about what can be done to change the situation toward the end of this essay; right now, let's take a look at this year's compilation of what we now know five years after 9/11.


1. The Facts of 9/11. We know that the Bush Administration didn't want the public to learn much, if anything, about the events of that day five years ago. Bush&Co. had to be dragged kicking and screaming into agreeing to the appointment of the official 9/11 Commission, and they named the executive director, one of their made men (now an Administration official).

As it turned out, the Administration wasn't all that cooperative in furnishing documents, Bush would not testify under oath and would deign to appear only with Cheney by his side (here's my imagined transcript of that testimony), and just recently we learned that the commission was so angered by the constantly-shifting stories told by the Pentagon/NORAD that they were ready to urge that legal charges be filed.
  • We know that a growing number of academics and scientists have raised serious questions about the official government explanation of the 9/11 events, especially about whether the Twin Towers fell straight down on their own or were guided in that free-fall-speed path by pre-set explosives. Behind all these and other conspiracy theories rests a nagging suspicion among many Americans -- heightened by the admission that the Pentagon lied outright to the 9/11 Commission -- that the Bush Administration may have been complicit in helping orchestrate the 9/11 tragedies. (I do not accept much of that surmising, but until the Administration comes clean on a number of troublesome questions, Bush&Co. will always be, and justifiably so, under a cloud of suspicion for complicity. These questions include why the Secret Service didn't immediately grab Bush at that Florida school and get him to a secure location, why NORAD fighter-jets were MIA on that fateful morning, why airline stocks were "shorted" just prior to the attacks. Click here for more info on 9/11 skeptic groups.

  • We now know -- no matter what one believes about the Bush Administration's level of complicity in 9/11 -- that at the very least the inner Bush circle knew that a huge al-Qaida attack was coming in late-Summer/early-Fall, but they did absolutely nothing to prevent it or prepare the public for its consequences. They knew because fairly detailed, red-hot warnings about planes being used as weapons were supplied to the CheneyBush inner circle by numerous countries' intelligence services around the world. But CheneyBush didn't even call a meeting of involved advisors and counter-terrorism honchos to move on the intel they were getting. In short, Bush&Co. had advance word that something "spectacular" was about to go down, and, for their own reasons, did nothing. Indeed, when the CIA sent a briefer to Crawford, Texas, to go over the ominously-titled August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." -- which talked about N.Y. buildings being cased, preparations for hijacking of planes, terrorists in the U.S. with explosives, etc. -- Bush barely listened and then insultingly dismissed the briefer, saying "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

  • We know that Bush&Co. saw, in Condi Rice's apt term at the time, the "opportunity" offered by the 9/11 attacks to move quickly and forcefully with the Administration's foreign and domestic agenda. PNAC had talked about its Pax Americana plan for global "benevolent hegemony" taking forever to implement unless a "new Pearl Harbor" changed the equation in the public mind. 9/11 came along and served as that "new Pearl Harbor." (See "How We Got Into This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer".)
2. PNAC & the Neo-Cons. We know that a FarRight segment of the conservative movement was dedicated to using America's sole superpower status to move aggressively in the world while no other country or international force could put up much resistance. The key neo-con leaders in charge of U.S. foreign/military policy (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Perle, Khalilzad, et al.) were founders of, and affiliated with, The Project for The New American Century (PNAC).

The neo-cons realized that presidents enjoy enormous patriotic support during wartime, but when the war ends, those leaders lose their compelling luster, as was the case with Bush#1. Ergo, Bush#2 would become a PERMANENT wartime president, and those who opposed him could then be tarred forever with the "unpatriotic" brush, and their political opposition marginalized. And it worked: the Democrats cowered and gave Bush virtually everything he wanted, up until relatively recently, when occasionally they remember they have spines in their bodies and stand up and fight as an opposition party should.

3. Oil & the Politics of PNAC. We know that after 9/11, Bush seemed to bring the entire country along with him when he launched an attack on al-Qaida and its Taliban-government supporters in Afghanistan. But there's no oil in that destitute country -- and, as Rumsfeld reminded us, not much worth bombing -- and thus no lessons could be drawn by Middle East leaders from the U.S. attack. But, as Cheney's secret energy panel was aware, there was another country in the region that did have oil, and lots of it, and which could be taken easily by U.S. forces. Thus Iraq became the object-lesson to other autocratic leaders in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Iran: If you do not do our bidding, prepare to accept a massive dose of "shock&awe": You will be removed, replaced by democratic-looking governments as arranged by the U.S.

The neo-cons -- most of whom were members of PNAC and similar organizations, such as the American Enterprise Institute and Foundation for the Defense of Democracies -- had urged Clinton to depose Saddam Hussein in 1998, but he demurred, seeing a mostly contained dictator there, whereas Osama bin Laden, and those terrorists like him, actually were successfully attacking U.S. assets.

But the PNAC crowd had larger ambitions than simply toppling a brutal dictator. Among their other recommendations: "pre-emptively" attacking countries devoid of imminent danger to the U.S., abrogating agreed-upon treaties when they conflict with U.S. goals, making sure no other nation (or organization, such as the United Nations) can ever achieve power-parity with the U.S., installing U.S.-friendly governments to do America's will, expressing a willingness to use tactical nuclear weapons, and so on. All of these extreme PNAC suggestions, once regarded as lunatic, were enshrined in 2002 as official U.S. policy in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America and were renewed in Bush's 2004's National Security Strategy.

4. Sexing Up the Intel. We know that given the extreme nature of the neo-con agenda, the Bush Administration had their work cut out for them in fomenting support for an invasion and occupation of Iraq. Therefore, among the first moves by Rumsfeld -- and even Bush himself -- following 9/11 was to somehow try to connect Saddam to the terror attacks. The various intelligence agencies reported to Rumsfeld that there was no Iraq connection to 9/11, that it was an al-Qaida operation, but those finds were merely bothersome impediments. Since the CIA and the other intelligence agencies would not, or could not, supply the intelligence needed to justify a war on Iraq, Rumsfeld set up his own rump "intelligence" agency, the Office of Special Plans, stocked it with political appointees of the PNAC persuasion and soon was stovepiping cherry-picked raw intel, much of it untrue from self-interested Iraqi exiles, straight to Cheney and others in the White House. Shortly thereafter, the White House Iraq Group -- the in-house marketing cabal, with such major players as Libby, Rove, Card, Rice, Hadley, Hughes, Matalin, et al. -- went big-time with the WMD and mushroom-cloud scares and the suspect melding of Saddam Hussein with the events of 9/11.

Based on this sexed-up and phony intelligence, Cheney, Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld and the others began warning about mushroom clouds over the U.S., drone planes dropping biological agents over the East Coast, huge stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq, etc. Secretary of State Colin Powell, regarded as the most believable of the bunch, was dispatched to the United Nations to make the case, which he did, reluctantly, by presenting an embarrassingly weak litany of surmise and concocted facts. While the U.S. mainstream media was unanimous in its opinion that Powell had cinched the case, the world didn't buy it (Powell, who resigned in 2004, has since lamented his role in this charade), and the opposition to the U.S. war plan was palpable and huge: 10 million citizens throughout the world hit the streets to protest, former allies publicly criticized Bush. Only Tony Blair in England eagerly hitched his wagon to the Bush war-plan with large numbers of troops dispatched, as it turned out over the objections of many of his closest aides and advisers.

5. The Downing Street Revelations. We know that those advisers warned Blair that he was about to involve the U.K. in an illegal, immoral and probably unwinnable war that would put U.K. and U.S. troops in great danger from potential insurgent forces. How do we know about these inner workings of the Blair government? Because someone from inside that body leaked the top-secret minutes from those war-Cabinet meetings, the so-called Downing Street Memos.

We also learned from those minutes that Bush & Blair agreed to make war on Iraq as early as the Spring of 2002. The intelligence, they decided, would be "fixed around the policy" to go to war, despite their telling their legislative bodies and their citizens that no decisions had been made. In fact, the Bush Administration had decided to go to war a year before the invasion. "Fuck Saddam," Bush told three U.S. Senators in March of 2002. "We're taking him out."

We know that many of Blair's most senior advisors thought the WMD argument rested on shaky ground, and that the legality of the war was in question without specific authorization from the United Nations Security Council. But the Bush Administration rushed to war anyway, in haste because the U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq were not finding any WMD stockpiles; the rush to war was accomplished without proper planning and with no workable plan to secure the peace and reconstruct the country after the major fighting. Some weeks later, Bush prematurely declared, under a "Mission Accomplished" banner, that the U.S. had "prevailed" in the Iraq war.

6. The Big Lie Technique & WMD. We know (again, thanks to the Downing Street Memos) that both the U.S. and U.K. were well aware that Iraq was a paper tiger, with no significant WMD stockpiles or link to Al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, the major thrust of Bush&Co.'s justification for going to war was based on these non-existent weapons and 9/11 links. The Big Lie Technique, repeating the same falsehoods over and over and over, drummed those lies into our heads day after day, month after month, with little if any skeptical analysis by the corporate mainstream media, which marched mostly in lockstep with Bush policy and thinking. Wolfowitz admitted later that they chose WMD as the primary reason for making war because they couldn't agree on anything else the citizenry would accept. But frightening people with talk of nuclear weapons, mushroom clouds, toxins delivered by drone airplanes and the like would work like a charm. And so they did, convincing the American people and Congress that an attack was justified. It wasn't.

7. Iran Is Beneficiary of U.S. Policy. We know that the real reasons for invading Iraq had precious little to do with WMD, with Islamist terrorists inside that country, with installing democracy, and the like. There were no WMD to speak of, and Saddam, an especially vicious dictator, did not tolerate religious or political zealots of any stripe. No, the reasons had more to do with American geopolitical goals in the region involving oil, control, support for its ally Israel, hardened military bases and keeping Iran from having free rein in the region.

However, as it turned out, by invading and occupying Iraq, it removed the one buffer against the expansion of Iran's political and military power in the region; in addition, because the U.S. Occupation was so incompetently carried out, it pushed Iraq and Iran into a far closer religious and political alliance than would have been the case if Saddam had been permitted to remain in power. CheneyBush may have sacrificed thousands of American dead, tens of thousands of American wounded, and more than 100,000 Iraqis as "collateral damage" -- and now the Administration is quietly willing to accept an Islamist government that may well turn out to be more attuned to Teheran than to Washington.

8. Iraq As a Disaster Zone. We know that Bush's war has been a thorough disaster, built on a foundation of lies, and bunglingly managed from the start. As a result, the Occupation has provided a magnet for jihadists from other countries, billions have been wasted or lost in the corrupt system of organized corporate looting that ostensibly is designed to speed up Iraq's "reconstruction," etc. etc. Indeed, so much has Bush's war been botched that the "realists" in the Administration know the U.S. must get out as quickly as possible if they are to have any hope of exercising their considerable muscle elsewhere in the Middle East. But, so far, the neo-con strategy still rules, and "stay-the-course" remains the operating principle.

9. The Stretched-Thin Military Needs Bodies. We know that Bush's Middle East agenda also is suffering because the U.S. military is spread way thin in Afghanistan and Iraq, the desertion rates are high, soldiers are not re-enlisting at the usual clip, recruitment isn't working and illegal scams are being used to lure youngsters into signing up. In short, there are no forces to spare on the ground. Either a military draft will be instituted -- and the recent call up of thousands of ready-reserve Marines is a draft by a different name -- or all future attacks will have to come from air power or from missiles, which will merely deliver a message. The air attacks will result in making the citizens of those countries even angrier at America, and with little likelihood of success in forging U.S.-friendly "democratic" governments in Iran, Syria, et al., since the bombed populations will support their existing governments. In short, America's and Israel's failures in Iraq and Lebanon demonstrate the limits of highly-armed powers in the modern, nationalist-guerrillas world.

10. Hiding the Facts from the Public. We know that Bush&Co. made sure that there would be no full-scale, independent probes of their role in using and abusing the intelligence that led to war on Iraq. This is the most secretive Administration in American history, and they want no investigations of any of their mistakes or corruptions of the democratic process.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Republican Pat Roberts, held hearings on the failures lower down the chain, namely at the CIA and FBI level, and promised there would be follow-up hearings on any White House manipulation of intelligence. But, following the 2004 election, Roberts said no purpose would be served in launching such an investigation. Likewise, the 9/11 Commission did not delve deeply into how the Bush Administration misused its pre-9/11 knowledge. In short, this secretive administration made sure that everything was done to head off at the pass any investigations whatsoever.

11. Perilously Close to Dictatorship. We know that Bush has no great love for legitimate democratic processes, certainly not inside the United States. (On at least three occasions, he has "jokingly" expressed his preference for dictatorship, as long, he said, as he can be the dictator.) He much prefers to rule as an oligarch, but to do that, he had to invent legal justifications that he could claim granted him the requisite power. So he had his longtime lawyer-toady, Alberto Gonzales, devise a legal philosophy that permits Bush to do pretty much what he wants -- ignore laws on the books, disappear U.S. citizens into military prisons, authorize torture, spy on citizens' phone calls and emails, etc. -- whenever Bush says he's acting as "commander-in-chief" during "wartime."

And, since "wartime" is the amorphous "war on terror," from which there is no end, Bush is home free. There always will be terrorists trying to do anti-U.S. damage somewhere around the globe, or inside America, and the "commander-in-chief" will need to respond. Ergo, goes this logic, Bush is above the law, untouchable, in perpetuity. Bush&Co. also made sure that U.S. officials and military troops would not be subject to indictment by any international court or war-crimes tribunal.

Neither Gonzales, nor Bush, has disavowed this legal philosophy of a dictator-like President being beyond the reach of the law. No doubt the issue ultimately will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, to which Bush has appointed ultra-conservative Judges John Roberts and Samuel Alito. In a chilling decision, the appeals panel, of which Roberts was a member prior to his ascension to the Supremes, ruled that the Commander-in-Chief's arbitrarily-designated "enemies" are non-persons, with no legal rights. Bush now feels free to subject anyone he likes to the "military tribunal" system he has concocted; even the Court's recent objections to the tribunal system has had little effect on day-to-day violations of detainees' rights, as Bush&Co. always manage to postpone and delay implementation or find ways around the court rulings.

12. Torture As Official U.S. Policy. We know that Gonzales, then Bush's White House Counsel, and Pentagon lawyers beholden to Rumsfeld, devised legal rationales that make torture of suspects official state policy. These Bush-loyalist lawyers also greatly widened the definition of what is acceptable interrogation practice -- basically anything this side of death or terminally abusing internal organs. They also authorized the "rendering" of key suspects to countries specializing in extreme torture. After all this, Bush and Rumsfeld professed shock, shock!, that those under their command would wind up torturing, abusing and humiliating prisoners in U.S. care. But the Administration made sure to stop all inquiries into higher-up responsibility for the endemic torture. The buck never stops on Bush's desk -- if something goes wrong (and he never will admit to mistakes), it's always someone else's fault.

13. The Bill of Rights Goes "Quaint." We know that the Bush Administration has been able to obtain whatever legislation it needs in its self-proclaimed "war on terror" by utilizing, and hyping, the understandable fright of the American people. John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge emerged periodically to manipulate the public's fright by announcing yet another "terror" threat, based on "credible but unverified" evidence. As he departed his directorate of the Homeland Security Department, Ridge admitted that he was required to issue many of those "terror" warnings when there was no justifiable reason for doing so; it has been demonstrated that those warnings were activated usually when the Administration was facing an election or when they were having an especially bad-news day -- a new scandal, especially discouraging reports from Iraq, etc. Meanwhile, Congress (shame on you, Democrats!) recently made most of the Patriot Act laws permanent. Unless those can be repealed, that vote will be a nail into the coffin housing the remains of the Bill of Rights.

14. Outing CIA Agents for Political Reasons. The Bush Administration, for its own crass political reasons, compromised American national security by revealing the identity of two key intelligence operatives -- one, CIA agent Valerie Plame, who had important contacts in the shadowy world of weapons of mass destruction, especially in dealing with Iran's nuclear capabilities. It is possible that the first of "senior Administration officials" to reveal her identity was from the State Department (Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage), but wherever the leak originated, it is clear that Cheney (through Libby) and Rove deliberately piled on the Plame story in an attempt to punish her husband for telling the world that Bush's Iraq war was based on phony intelligence. Revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent, not incidentally, is a felony. The other outing of a CIA operative, by Condi Rice, apparently to show off how successful the Administration was in its anti-terrorism hunt, was that a high-ranking mole close to bin Laden's inner circle. This operative could have kept the U.S. informed as to ongoing and future plans of al-Qaida. That's our war-on-terrorism government at work.

15. Do You Know If Your Vote Is Counted? We know that America's voting system and, more importantly, the vote-counting system are corrupted. Sophisticated statistical analysis along with wide-scale exit-polling, suggests strongly that the 2004 election results were fiddled with by the private companies that tally the votes. These companies are owned by far-right Republican supporters, but the same objection would be lodged if Democrats owned the companies. There are no good reasons to "outsource" vote-counting to private corporations. These are the same companies who make and program the voting machines, who refuse to permit inspection of their software, and whose technicians have behaved suspiciously on election nights in 2000 in Florida, in 2002 in Georgia, and in Ohio and Florida in 2004. And we haven't even mentioned Rove's dirty-tricks department whose function has been, by hook or by crook, to lower the number of potential Democratic voters, especially minority voters; a favorite tactic is to knock hundreds of thousands of likely Democratic voters off the voting rolls in advance in key states such as Florida and Ohio. Unless the vote-counting system can be changed soon -- and the vote-tallying scandal will not be adequately dealt with voter-verified receipts -- the integrity of our elections will be suspect into the far future. Even if all the other reforms were implemented, they would mean nothing without the guarantee of honest elections.

16. There Is No Real Economic Plan. We know that the Bush Administration paid off its backers (and itself) by giving humongous tax breaks, for 10 years out, to the already wealthy and to large corporations. In addition, corporate tax-evasion was made easier via offshore listings and by laying off thousands of IRS auditors of high-end returns. All this was done at a time when the U.S. economy was in a sorry state and when the treasury deficit from those tax-breaks was growing even larger from Iraq/Afghanistan/"war-on-terror" costs. (Those war costs are now closing in on half a TRILLION dollars!) So far as we know, the Bush Administration has no plans for how to retire that debt and no real plan (other than the discredited "trickle-down" theory) for restarting the economy and creating well-paying jobs for skilled workers, many of whom have had their positions outsourced to foreign lands.

17. Drowning Government In a Bathtub. We know that the HardRight conservatives who control Bush policy don't really care what kind of debt and deficits their policies cause; in some ways, the more the better, since as GOP honcho Grover Norquist has admitted, they want to shrink government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." They want to decimate and starve popular social programs from the New Deal/Great Society eras, including, most visibly, Head Start, Social Security, Medicare (and real drug coverage for seniors), student loans, welfare assistance, public education, etc. (The IRS is going to hire private tax collectors!) Bush's plan to privatize a huge chunk of the Social Security System is still on track, though Republicans are keeping quiet about it prior to the November elections.

18. Who Cares What You Drink or Breathe? We know that Bush environmental policy -- dealing with air and water pollution, mineral extraction, national parks, and so on -- is an unmitigated disaster, giving pretty much free rein to corporations whose bottom line does better when they don't have to pay attention to the public interest. It's the worst sort of grab-the-money-and-run scenario. Perhaps the best worst example of the Administration's attitude toward protecting the public's health can be seen in the EPA giving the green light for residents and workers to safely return to their homes and jobs in Lower Manhattan shortly after the Twin Towers fell five years ago, even though EPA scientists had determined that the air was grossly polluted and dangerous.

19. It's Greed for Money, Control, Power. We know from "insider" memoirs and reports by former Bush Administration officials -- Joseph DeIulio, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, et al. -- that the public interest plays little role in the formulation of policy inside the Bush Administration. The motivating factors are mainly greed and ideological control and remaining in political power. Further, they say, there is little or no curiosity in this Administration to think outside the political box, or even to hear other opinions.

20. It's Faith Over Science, Myth Over Reality. We know that this attitude -- "my mind is made up, don't bother me with the facts" -- shows up most openly in how science is disregarded by the Bush Administration (good example: global warming) in favor of faith-based thinking. Some of this non-curiosity about reality may be based in fundamentalist religious, even Apocalyptic, beliefs. Much of Bush's bashing of science is designed as payback to his fundamentalist base, but the scary part is that a good share of the time he actually seems to believe what he's saying, about evolution vs. intelligent-design, stem-cell research, abstinence education, censoring the rewriting of government scientific reports that differ from the Bush party line, cutbacks in research&development grants for the National Science Foundation, etc., ad nauseum. This closed-mind attitude helps explain, on a deeper level, why things aren't working out in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.


In sum, we know that permanent-war policy abroad and police-state tactics at home are taking us into a kind of American fascism domestically and an imperial foreign policy overseas. All aspects of the American polity are infected with the militarist Know-Nothingism emanating from the top, with governmental and vigilante-type crackdowns on protesters, dissent, free speech, freedom of assembly happening regularly on both the local and federal levels. More and more, America is resembling Germany in the early 1930s, group pitted against group while the central government amasses more and more power and control of its put-upon citizens, and criticizing The Leader's policies is denounced as unpatriotic or treasonous.

The good news is that after suffering through six-plus years of the CheneyBush presidency, the public's blinders are falling off. The fall from power of Tom DeLay is a good symbol of this, and the true nature of these men and their regime is finally starting to hit home. Cheney is acknowledged as the true power behind the throne, and Bush is seen for what he is: an insecure, uncurious, arrogant, dangerous, dry-drunk bully who is endangering U.S. national interests abroad with his reckless and incompetently-managed wars, his wrecking of the U.S. economy at home, and with his over-reaching in all areas.

If a Democratic president and vice president had behaved similarly to Bush and Cheney, they'd have been in the impeachment dock in a minute.


But there is no way for that to happen unless and until the Republicans lose control of one or both of the houses of Congress in the November election. If the Dems were to take over the House, for example, they would have subpoena power to compel witnesses to testify under oath for the first time in nearly seven years, which could lead to productive investigations of the machinations that sent the U.S. to war in Iraq, to what really happened on 9/11, to the other myriad scandals and embarrassments: torture, domestic spying, the punishment and outing of CIA agents for political ends, the Abramoff corruption network, etc., etc.

The Democrats are not politically pure, to be sure -- with too many beholden to the same interests that have corrupted the Republicans during the CheneyBush years -- but in enough instances that matter, they would be different enough to start to turn the ship of state away from its reckless, dangerous extremism and back more toward the center and maybe even, on some issues, in the direction of progressive liberalism.

That is why for the next two-plus months, we need to work our butts off to ensure a Republican defeat in the House, and, if we're lucky, in the Senate as well -- by a huge margin. We know that Rove and his minions will be doing everything to steal and manipulate this election. There will be more sleaze and slime and dirty tricks, and perhaps even some October "surprises," and we need to factor those in and work even harder, including suing election officials who refuse to take steps for honest balloting and vote-counting. Landslide victories would make it more risky for Rove and his minions to try to fiddle with the vote totals.

Winning in November is our job, our moral duty. If we don't take them down in this midterm election, we may not have another good shot for a decade or more. It's crank-it-up time. Let's get to work.

-- BW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Thanks for posting this.

Welcome to DU, CrisisPapers! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mogster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. Good stuff
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. Excellent! This goes into my collection of articles & editorials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. Long, but good, read. These are our talking points, folks.
As the author says, these are things we KNOW. But with corporate media complicity, to the general public much of this isn't so much known as is an uncomfortable itch they can't quite reach.

Lets get it out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
corkhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. what a depressing laundry list of bushco crimes K&R
I didnt need a rehash on all the sad details, but the points of the last 2 paragraphs need to be repeated to the point of "catapulting"

Thanks for another excellent article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
poverlay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. Concise and well written, thank you for putting that together. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
7. Excellent work.
I only disagree with a bit of your first bullet point, but I don't want to start that argument here. On the whole it's very fine piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
8. kicked and recommended
for the Truth. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
9. You de-emphasize the money
Iraq was about money and oil - not for the benefit of the American people but for Big Oil, related businesses and, least of all, neo-con visions of empire. Who got all those Iraq contracts? Halliburton certainly made out well - well enough to pay off those 100,000+ asbestos claims it acquired when it bought Dresser. GE is certainly "bringing good things to life" if you're Jeffrey Immelt or a institutional shareholder. Profits of Big Defense and Big Oil are all up. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent - and for what?

Blood and treasure. White working class blood and corporate treasure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
10. Thanks. K&R. And welcome to DU. GREAT post.
Would you mind posting it in GD where many more people will see it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. "Welcome to DU"?
Edited on Tue Aug-29-06 11:47 AM by greyl
Maybe I should welcome you to DU. ;)
CrisisPapers is Ernest Partridge and Bernard Weiner, two of the best aspects of DU.

edit: check out the homepage: and look at the top. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
11. I stopped reading after controlled demolition
What part of "gravity works" don't people understand?

If the author is that far out to lunch on the first point, there's no point wasting my time on the rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SaneInSC Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Too many people stopped reading..
Something about physics maybe...

I didn't, and still don't want to believe what it looks like has been/is going on..but I at least had the courage to keep reading, keep searching. Painful though it may be, I'd argue that you owe it to yourself to debunk these "myths" or maybe come to a new understanding, either way.

Its a bell curve. Some people saw this administration for what it was right off the bat, more are opening their eyes daily (in year 6), and some will wait for another several years to change their minds, if at all. I keep looking for other answers, but I won't shut my mind off because what I see is too painful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. You've got a point...and it's actually about logic
Edited on Tue Aug-29-06 11:47 AM by TrogL
(edited for spelling and clarity)

You're right, if there are multiple arguments I need to address each on its own merits so I'll read the rest of the article even if I do intend to take it with a grain of salt.

Here's the basic problem with controlled demolition theories - they contain a logical fallacy.

They're pretty much going with "if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck".

Or in other words, if it looks like a controlled demolition building falling down, it's controlled demolition.

Let's put this in the form of a syllogism.

Buildings brought down by controlled demolition fall straight down.
The towers fell straight down.
Therefore the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

That's the fallacy of the undivided middle.

Here's another simple example:

All computers contain a power supply.
My soldering iron contains a power supply.
Therefore, my soldering iron is a computer.

See the problem? It's the same structure.

I'm also alarmed by complaints about the buildings' "free-fall-speed". At what other speed did they expect them to fall? Gravity works.

Finally, whoever wanted to create terror didn't need the towers to fall down at all. That was a bonus. To impress their followers, all they had to do was give the appearance of "striking a blow". Understand me clearly - the actions of September 11th were horrible and I spent the entire day crying. Be that as it may, as soon as the first aircraft changed course, as soon as the first person got a boo-boo on their elbow whoever caused this achieved their primary objective. Reaching NY was a bonus. Actually hitting the towers was a bonus. The towers falling down was a bonus. And Dubya and company milked it for all it was worth. Hell, they probably Let It Happen On Purpose but I can't prove that either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dfgrbac Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. It's far more than looking like a duck!
What's your explanation for building 7 falling in its own footprint? It was not hit by anything.

And the signature of thermate has been found in the WTC residue. Thermate is not used for any purpose except to bring down buildings!

See Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? by Dr. Steven Jones.

We now have the DNA of the duck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. From the article
New, side-by-side comparison of WTC7 collapse and a controlled demolition using explosives

If it looks like a duck....

His main arguments for thermite involve comparing photographs.

If it looks like a duck...

This article is one of the classics - riddled with logical fallacies. See if you can spot them all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Thermate

Thermate, or Thermate-TH3, is an incendiary compound primarily used for military applications. Because of the similarity in names, thermate is sometimes confused with one of its components, thermite.

Thermate is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%.

His "logic" ...

"Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur".
Thermate contains sulphur.
Therefore the only possible conclusion is that thermate was used.

Fallacy of the undivided middle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Now that I've read the rest of the article....
I want to link to it on my oil wars website 'cause it sums up everything perfectly....except the controlled demolition bit.

You have to remember:

Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. - Heinlein

and many will fall into the same logical fallacy I did, disconting the validity of everything based upon one weak point - basically "straw man".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SaneInSC Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Thank you!
You impress me. Maybe it shouldn't surprise me; after all, you are here on this board :p.

I struggle with these questions daily, except when it gets to be too much, too depressing, and I take a few days off for a "mental vacation". Boy oh boy do I wish things were different.

The only thing I'm convinced of, is that something is definitely NOT right. I know I'll keep on searching...

Thanks again for having a curious mind. Well met!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. The logical fallacy is your failure to distinguish between an
Edited on Tue Aug-29-06 05:32 PM by petgoat
hypothesis and a conclusion.

The first paragraph in Dr. Jones's paper (under "Abstract") says

"In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers
were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned
cutter-charges.... I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis..."

Claims of proof would constitute a logical fallacy. Examining the evidence for an hypothesis, and
calling for a new investigation testing the hypothesis is not.

You allowed your knee-jerk, fallacious, straw man interpretation to truncate your reading.
This is how people protect their cherished illusions. It is Job One for all of us to
examine the facts and analyze them rationally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. ah go ahead, read the rest.
I think the main point made was that the chronic dishonesty and CYA of the bushadmin helps to foster the conspiracy theorists. That's a point which makes me hate the bushadmin even more. It makes the task of eliminating wacky conspiracies from the lexicon of the left all the more difficult. Hmmm... ;)
I disagree with much of the stuff at the link in the first bullet point, but the article is great as a whole, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Felix Mala Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
18. The actions of our government on that day can be summed up in
one word. The word isn't conspiracy or complicity. The word is the word that, as history will show, will become a synonym for this administration: INCOMPETENCE.

After five years, the lesson so sadly brought home to our nation is that this group of idiots can't seem to get anything right, mostly because they spend so much of their time -- stem cells, morning after pill, abstinence education, intelligent design -- making things wrong. They have championed ignorance and lunacy in defense of their narrow worldview for so long that they wouldn't recognize a prudent course of action if it bit them on the ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. For a group of incompetents they have been astoundingly
capable and successful at achieving their goals.

They "won" two elections, they led the country to war in two countries that were of particular interest to the oil industry,
they have stacked the courts, they have grabbed unheard of power for the executive, they have cut taxes for the rich, they have achieved the agenda set forth by PNAC.

I would estimate they have achieved about 90% of their goals at this point. I don't believe their goal is good government.

I believe they use the illusion of incompetence as cover for their real agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
clydefrand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
19. Who helped plan 9/11?
Anyone doubt that Cheney/Rove/Bush did NOT have a hand in working with Osama to committ what has led to all the 'power' Bush and group have taken for them selves, regardless of whether it is legal or even constitutional? (why else has Osama not been 'found'?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
secular humanoid Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
20. hostile takeover
This article sums up very well the hostile takeover of the USA.

I had to stop and take a deep breath a few times to maintain composure.

If you keep your head in the sand, sooner or later you'll
get your ass kicked, or otherwise abused.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DemInDistress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
21. k&r I enjoyed your interpretation of bush/cheney's testimony.
your quite the writer. I pictured them 2 answering questions just like the smug descriptions you portrayed. That those 2 testified together is mystifying, not doubt together they would dispel contradictory answers that would have brought a cloud of suspicion and possibly indictments.

Good story and 20 great facts we now know 5 years later..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
25. Wow! Great job! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
27. # 21.) Bush admin has no problem with slaughtering Americans
much less innocent foreign persons.

Air not safe to breathe at Ground Zero? Eh, no problem. Tell 'em it is anyway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-29-06 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
28. good analysis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
30. Boy this is some pretty awful stuff.
How can the millions that are destroying this country have the nerve to go to their constituents and say anything, but I'm resigning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
31. The Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of 9/11

The Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11th, 2001

1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.

2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
c. Was there an air defense standdown?

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation's capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?

Continued at:

9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out

Edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott
Olive Branch Press (Interlink Books)

Truth activists can celebrate Thanksgiving astonishingly early this year given the precocious wealth of resources now hitting theaters and book shops across the land. Each new work seems to open another frontier and spread truth to a fresh audience. The relentless Dr. Griffin deserves great credit for many of these sallies, and now he has teamed with eminent diplomat/scholar Dr. Peter Dale Scott to catalyze and edit this latest tour de force. This anthology addresses the crimes of 9/11 from a rare altitude of intelligence in ten authoritative voices, and examines their premeditation and abuse as an empire ordaining event. Whenever you encounter 9/11 truth resistance in bright but wingnut-traumatized friends, this book is the antidote to offer. - Ed.

Pre-pub Review (more follow...)
"This is the most important book of our time. Distinguished national and international scientists and scholars present massive evidence that The 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax and that the 9/11 "terrorist attack" has been manipulated to serve a hegemonic agenda in the Middle East. The book's call for a truly independent panel of experts to be empowered to bring out the true facts must be heeded or Americans will never again live under accountable government." Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration

1. 9/11, the American Empire, and Common Moral Norms
David Ray Griffin

2. Assessing the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Karen Kwiatkowski

3. Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
Steven E. Jones

4. Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
Kevin Ryan

5. The Background of 9/11: Drugs, Oil, and US Covert Operations
Peter Dale Scott

6. What We Have Learned about the "Strategy of Tension": Historical Data from the Cold War Period
Daniele Ganser

7. 9/11, Texas A&M University, and Heresy
Morgan Reynolds

8. Global Ambitions and Geopolitical Wars: The Domestic Challenge
Richard Falk

9. 9/11 and the 9/11 Wars: Understanding the Supreme Crimes
John McMurtry

9. The War on Terror and Pax Americana
Ola Tunander

10. Parameters of Power in the Global Dominance Group: 9/11 and Election Irregularities in Context
Peter Phillips with Bridget Thornton and Celeste Vogler

More reviewer comments at:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
32. A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before

by Matt Everett
The Journal of Psychohistory, Winter 2005, 32 (3): 202-238


Thankfully, the invasion passed without our resorting to nuclear weapons. But it seemed the desire for a bigger conflict remained, with attempts beginning almost immediately to find a new, more formidable enemy. In particular, Iran and Syria seemed next on the list for liberation. At a press conference in July 2003, President Bush issued a stern warning to both countries, accusing them of harboring terrorists. This behaviour is completely unacceptable, he said, and states that continue to harbour terrorists will be held completely accountable. Three months later, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton told journalists: There is awareness of the threat posed by Iran and consensus that threat has to be eliminated. Yet these warnings failed to capture much public interest.

Instead, there was a growing interest around the investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001. Previously, the press had largely ignored the work of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, better known as the 9-11 Commission. When it held its second public hearings in May 2003 on the key issue of air defense, the New York Times and Los Angeles Times failed to write any articles about it. Suddenly though, in March 2004 the Commission became the center of attention when former White House security expert Richard Clarke publicly testified before it and criticized the Bush administration for failing to address terrorism when it first came into office. Since then, the 9/11 Commission remained a major news story and the book of its final report became an instant bestseller. However, the mass media were still overlooking the fact that increasing numbers of people were seriously questioning the entire official account of 9/11. More and more books had been released around the world giving evidence of possible U.S. government complicity in the attacks. Polls suggested that millions of people were suspicious: A Zogby poll in late August 2004 found 49 per cent of New York City residents and 41 per cent of New York citizens overall agreed that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action. A survey three months earlier found 63 per cent of Canadians believed the U.S. government had prior knowledge of the plans for the events of September 11th, and failed to take appropriate action to stop them. A July 2003 poll had found almost a fifth of Germans believed the U.S. government, or elements within it, were responsible for organizing the attacks.

With attempts at identifying a new external enemy so far failing, I believe it is possible that, instead, this growing suspicion around 9/11 will develop into an unprecedented public scandal. But what are these suspicions about? Are they simply the result of rumour and urban legend, or could some of the disturbing allegations now being made be found true in future? In this article, I will examine some of the arguments put forward by 9/11 skeptics, along with supporting evidence. Then I will examine some of the psychohistorical evidence that shows why we could be heading for a major scandal over the events of 9/11. Until the controversy around 9/11 is brought into the open and investigated properly, it is up to individuals to draw their own conclusions. However, in my opinion, the volume of evidence now gathered is enough to suggest a massive scandal is a real possibility. The implications of this would be extraordinary. As one of the most prominent 9/11 skeptics, former German government minister Andreas von Blow, says: If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HeavensHell Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-06-06 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
33. Tyranny
Edited on Wed Sep-06-06 11:54 AM by HeavensHell
Tyranny can only come from absolute power. Absolute power can only come from fear. Throughout history it is fear that has driven societies to agree with their government during times of crisis. In America, a war based on lies, a "patriot act" and a concentration camp could only be achieved when the populace thought all hope was lost. This country and it's citizens are programmed to believe in the founding fathers and the constitution, but ah, how does one deprogram the citizen? Fear! Countless threats, being on the eve of destruction, etc. Call it a conspiracy theory, call it what you will, but America is the greatest power on Earth. With as many checks and balances as we have, the only logical way to achieve absolute power is to make sure some the populace thinks the end is near. Whether we like it or not, a despot can come from any party now. The patriot act and the war on terror made sure of that. Do I think 9/11 was our governments work? Not at all, but I think they let it happen. They needed it to happen to reign in the checks and balances. Once again the conspiracy theory. It couldn't possibly happen in America, please. With the military power we have, who wouldn't want absolute power. To know that a single person can destroy the entire planet, but that's not what this is really about. It's about total control of the world. The system is finally in place to get rid of that pesky thing called the constitution once and for all. All the parties need is another attack, the same as or greater than 9/11. How do you think the public will react to such an event happening again? Do you think they will get rid of republicans? No, they won't, we will embrace extremism. I, myself, have thought this as well. DO what it takes to rid us of the terror, by any means. Let's also not forget; our government has done this in the past. Ignored or done things to drag us into war, why not a dictatorship? Once again, people think it's a conspiracy theory, a crack pot idea from drinking to much or doing to many drugs, but if you were thirsty for power what would you do? The world is not in short supply of madmen. It can happen here as well. I just heard that the "King" has suspended habeas corpus, bill of rights suspended, terror suspects can not see the evidence against them nor seek counsel. The only way to do this is to "suspend" he beaus corpus for every one.... It's listed on the Press Conference expected this afternoon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-08-06 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jun 22nd 2021, 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC