IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH!! The Bulldog Manifesto The Bulldog Manifesto: July 2005

Sunday, July 31, 2005 

And Finally, #5......

You may recall last week when I posted about "Some More 9/11 Facts" that I intentionally cut myself short of discussing fact #5.

Well, here goes:

#5. No steel building in history has collapsed from fire damage apart from those buildings lost on 9/11. Yeah, I know what your response is, 'how many other steel buildings have been hit by commercial aircrafts filled with jet fuel?' Fair enough, but lets consider ALL OF THE FACTS before we simply assume that jet fuel + collision = completely collapsed building.

Like everyone else, I watched the planes hit the World Trade Center towers and then watched with sheer horror how the buildings collapsed straight down. Like everyone else, I believed the impact from the planes and the ensuing fires caused the collapses. But now, after much information has been revealed, I'm not so sure. Consider all of this:

a. Did you know that, in order for a building to collapse straight down, all of the load bearing elements of the building must fail at exactly the same time? Its just simple physics. If all of the load bearing elements do not fail at the exact same time, the building will simply tip over to one side. (As pictured in the image to the right and the image above left)

b. Did you know that Building 7 of the WTC, a 47 story steel structure, was not hit by any airplane but nonetheless collapsed...straight down. (See image to the left, that is WTC 7 collapsing straight down) The building was only on fire for 1 to 2 hours! (And remember, this building was not hit by any plane. It was far away from the towers.) This was the same building that housed offices for the CIA, Department of Defense, Office of the Mayor, FEMA, and a host of other curious tenants. Please check this out.

This is what Dan Rather of CBS News said "live" on the air immediately after building 7 fell down:
“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.” (See Video here)

c. Did you know that FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) stated in May of 2002 that "the specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME." (See here, Chapter 5, Page 31 of the FEMA Report)

d. Yet, WTC 7's owner, Larry Silverstein, admitted on PBS that the building was intentionally pulled down. Check this out. So why does FEMA report that the cause of building 7's collapse is "unknown at this time"? Certainly they should have known that it was pulled down intentionally, right? And lets just say that Larry Silverstein, the building's owner is lying, then how the heck do they account for the fact that the building fell straight down after only being on fire (moderate fire) for 1 to 2 hours?

As far as WTC 7 goes, there is something very, very, very fishy about that collapse. Either the owner is lying or FEMA is lying. And consider this, in order for that building to have been intentionally pulled, that building would have had to have been fitted with explosives. There was only one hour between the time WTC was completely evacuated and the time the building collapsed. Unless, of course, the building was fitted ahead of time.

e. Did you know that Fire Engineering Magazine, the premier firefighter trade magazine for over 122 years, stated the following in January of 2002:
"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure"


f. Did you know that all of the evidence, including the structural steel within the towers, was "cut up and sold for scrap" to China. This occurred almost immediately after the towers collapsed. They never bothered to examine the steel. What kind of investigation could there have been without, at the minimum, examining the wreckage? Wouldn't it have been useful, simply from a design perspective to examine the "hows" and "whys" of the collapse?
"Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall." (Fire Engineering Magazine (January 4, 2002)


g. Did you know that, according to an AP article, only $600,000 was spent investigating the WTC towers collapse. The 9/11 Commission spent $15 million dollars in its entire investigation. (Compare that with the $65 million spent investigating Clinton's "affairs").

h. The prevailing theory holds that the WTC towers collapsed because the jet fuel within the planes burned so hot that it caused the steel within the WTC towers to melt, therefore causing the building to collapse. Now, even if we assume this is true, in order for the towers to collapse straight down, the steel would have had to have been compromised equally on all four corners of the building and within the four corners of the interior support columns. So if the fire raging within the towers was burning hot enough to compromise the steel (800 degrees Celsius), how come there are clear photographs of people standing in the burnt out areas of the crash? (See image to the right: Notice the woman standing in a burnt out area of the WTC tower. If its hot enough to bend steel, how the heck is she not incinerated?)

i. Did you know that prior to the collapse of South Tower, whereas floors 78-84 were alleged to have been "ravaged by an 800 degree Celsius inferno", there were firefighters on the 78th floor who were calmly preparing to move up to the 79th floor? Here is a transcript of their radio transmission:
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones.

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, okay."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."

Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."


j. Did you know that, for well over a year, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey refused to release the audiotape of firefighters' communications from the World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks?

k. Did you know that seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained? While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31. However, the Palisades seismic record shows that—as the collapses began—a huge seismic “spike” marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth. (Check out this article)

l. Did you know that many witnesses, including firemen inside the building, reported "secondary explosions" prior to the collapse of each of the towers? One of the first firefighters in the stricken second tower, Louie Cacchioli, 51, told People Weekly on Sept. 24: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building." (I'm not going to post all of these claims, I simply suggest you go look for yourself...there are too many! But if you wish, you can check out this video of firefighters talking about the explosions.)

m. Did you know that "somehow" people were warned ahead of time that the first tower would collapse, even though prior to the first collapse, there was no reason to believe that the tower would collapse (remember, until the first tower collapsed, no modern steel building had ever collapsed due to fire...ever!!)? Check out this video

n. Did you know that in February of 2005, a 32 story steel skyscraper in Madrid, Spain (the Windsor Building) burned for days at temperatures nearing 800 degrees Celsius, yet that building, which was constructed in 1973, did what most steel buildings do when they are on fire...it simply burned. It did not collapse. Compare that with what happened to WTC 7, a building which did NOT get hit by a plane, and a building that only burned for a few hours. WTC 7 collapsed straight down!

For more info and photos on the Windsor Building fire, check this out.

Well, I could go on, but I think I've given you a lot for one sitting. :-)Like I've said before, the real conspiracy theory is the one perpetrated by the government. Sorry, but I'm not buying it at all!

Friday, July 29, 2005 

South Carolina....the Next "Terrorist" Target?

Maybe somebody should warn South Carolina. I'm not kidding. Consider these three facts:

1. On September 11, 2001, it just so happens that the CIA was planning to run a 'training exercise' on that very same morning. The 'training exercise' was intended to simulate the crashing of a small jet plane into one of the CIA's own buildings near Dulles Airport. (Isn't that where Flight 77 took off from?)

You might not remember this "amazing coincidence" because the major media outlets only mentioned this story in quick passing. It did, however make the front page of the USA Today.

2. On July 7, 2005, in London, it just so happens that Visor Consultants, a British consultant company with government and police connections, was running an 'exercise' for an unnamed company. The 'exercise' revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th. Of course, this amazing coincidence has hardly been covered in the major media outlets. But this very fact was revealed on a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th. The host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, and here is what he said. (.mp3 file). It was also reported in the Toronto Free Press.

Oh yeah, it just so happens that the July 7 bombings in London were in fact, nearly simultaneous, just like the 'exercise'.

Take a deep breath now.....

3. On June 29, 2005, the United States Northern Command (Northcom) issued a press release stating that the Joint Task Force Civil Support (JTF-CS) will be conducting a 'training exercise' in August of 2005. What kind of 'training exercise' you might be asking? How about an 'exercise' wherein:
"A seafaring vessel transporting a 10-kiloton nuclear warhead makes its way into a port off the coast of Charleston, S.C. Terrorists aboard the ship attempt to smuggle the warhead off the ship to detonate it."
Go to Northcom's Website for the press release.

Considering how 'training exercises' seem to have a knack for coincidentally turning into alleged terrorist attacks, maybe its a good idea if we pass this along to more people. Better to be safe than sorry, in my view.

Thursday, July 28, 2005 

Bush's Kempf

Hitler had his "Kampf" (definition: "struggle"). Now it seems that Bush has his too.

Recently, in another Orwellian attempt to manipulate language for the purpose of mind control, the Bush administration decided that the term "War on Terror" was no longer the proper terminology for what has been going on since 9/11. Apparently, now the administration thinks the better term is "the global struggle against ideological extremists" (See Bush's speech, a .mov file.)

Apart from being completely ironic that an extreme ideologue such as Bush would be struggling against idealogical extremism, the term is laughable because it is a thinly disguised attempt to confuse us all into believing that this "war" is something that we can all live with. I can see it now, "The Struggle in Iraq".

John Stewart's "The Daily Show" has a great take on all of this (Windows Media Player) (Thanks to Crooks and Liars for posting it on his site. If you've never been to Crooks and Liars, its a great site, check it out.)

Wars get tiring. Its hard to recruit people for wars, especially wars that are unpopular, cause much death, and have no end in sight. But we can all live with a struggle, right? A struggle is something we can all take part in too. Yippee!! Who would have ever thought that all we needed to do to win the "war on terror" is simply change the name? Genius!!

One last bit of irony.... Jihad also means "struggle". Oh brother.....

(I know the title is spelled incorrectly, its "kampf" not "kempf" but I cannot change it because its already been linked too many times, and if I change it, all those links go bad!)

 

Misconceptions Relating to Fascism

As some of you know, recently I've been posting about fascism in America. One thing I've noticed-- there certainly are a lot of misconceptions about fascism floating around. Often, many people confuse totalitarianism with fascism. In my view, thats like confusing God with religion. Look at it this way, just as religion is merely used as a conduit to God. Fascism is merely used as a conduit to totalitarianism. Religion is not God. Fascism is not totalitarianism. Just as religiously minded people are seeking God, fascists seek complete authority and control. But please dont confuse the method for the result.

Now, the right wing's metamorphosis into quasi-fascism isn't obvious to everybody because there's nothing distinctly exceptional about any single aspect of it. Indeed, much of it seems all too familiar.

Perhaps what blinds some people's vision is that its become common to think of fascism as primarily a European phenomenon. After all, fascism was personified, in its most "memorable" form, in the national identities of Germany and Italy. In Germany, as embodied by the Nazi Party, fascism was replete with Germanic imagery and symbolism. Mussolini's fascism in Italy similarly suggested its national heritage.

And its quite possible that some people have a mythical belief that fascism died with Adolph Hitler. But can an idea die just because a man dies? Fascism is an ideology. And for better or for worse, ideologies never seem to die, they just get passed on and renamed. Its quite possible that fascism has lulled us into a sleep, into a false belief that it doesn't exist anymore, that it was cremated in 1945. Or better yet, perhaps it left such an indelible mark on us, in the form of Naziism, that we wrongly assume that it can only manifest in the same exact form. Essentially, some people likely believe that, similar to 'obscenity', they would 'know fascism if they saw it".

But what if fascism has changed-- not necessarily in its essence, but in its exterior form? What if fascism has merely evolved, adapted, and marketed itself for the 21st Century? Would the American public see it coming? Or are they too conditioned to believe that a fascist only wears a swastika? Or perhaps, because the word "fascist" has become used so often in the perjorative, many people simply dismiss the term as the 'boy who cried wolf.'

In 1935, Nobel Prize winner Sinclair Lewis stated, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross." And as David Neiwert stated in his masterful 7-part series:
"Fascism always wraps itself in the flag, always seeks absolute power, always brands opponents as traitors, always relies heavily on propaganda for dissemination of its ideas, always invokes subversive enemies (at home and abroad), always embraces militarism and permanent war, always favors politicizing of police functions (and expanding them and the surveillance state), always scorns intellectuals, artists, and bourgeois democratic values, always is hostile to leftist and labor movements, and is obsessed with idealized images of a mythic "better time" of the past (while at the same time destroying that past, and the nation as a whole)."
The truth is, so as long as there is an opportunity to seize power, then the potential for fascism remains with us.

For a democratic body politik, fascism must be recognized as soon as possible and dealt with accordingly, otherwise, like a cancer, it will consume the body. After all, as Neiwart says:
"Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence."
And thus I ask you this again... Who is more dangerous? The so-called terrorists or the so-called fascists?

(For an in-depth look at Fascism, the Republican Party, and the Pseudo Fascist Campaign, I highly recommend reading the work of David Neiwart at Orcinus. He won the 2004 Sandy Koufax Award for his 7 part series.)

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 

Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism

After examining the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), political scientist, Dr. Lawrence Britt found that they all had fourteen (14) elements in common.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military

Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism

The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.


6. Controlled Mass Media


Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security

Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected

The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed

Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections

Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

(Used pursuant to Fair Use, compliments of OldAmericanCentury.org)

Monday, July 25, 2005 

The Security Fallacy and the War Profiteers

There is a major tendency for people to presume that further security measures will somehow save us from potential terrorist attacks. This presumption, however, is an outright fallacy. Nothing will completely save us from the eventual terrorist who wishes to exact violence on our soil. Nothing.

Look at Iraq. You have a nation that is completely occupied with over 140,000 troops. You have a country where there is no Bill of Rights. You have a country which is basically under military rule 24 hours a day. Yet still, violence is rampant. In fact, the U.S. death toll in Iraq has surpassed the number of American soldiers killed during the first three years of the Vietnam War. And this doesn't even account for the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been killed as "collateral damage".

The inescapable truth is that we are vulnerable to any group who has the will to attack us. Our borders are vast. Our nation's enemies are growing, in spite of the four years of "War on Terrorism." In truth, its a war that cannot ever end. After all, the day we claim victory in the war on terror is the day we leave ourselves vulnerable to attack. Thus, our leaders have chosen to commit us to what is, in essence, a war that cannot end-- a war that cannot truly ever be won.

So what can be done?

As Noam Chomsky says, "There is one simple way for the United States to decrease very significantly the amount of terror in the world, and that is to just stop supporting and participating in it." You see, the prevailing belief is that if somebody carries out terror against us or against our allies, it's considered "terror". However, if we carry out terror or our allies do, maybe even much worse terror, against someone else, it's not considered terror, it's counterterror or it's a just war. Not only is this just a political game of semantics, but its a losing game altogether.

Ask yourselves, why aren't nations like Guatemala, Mexico, Costa Rica, Ghana, Switzerland, or for example, the Czech Republic being threatened by Middle Eastern fighters? Is it perhaps because none of these nations are supporting repressive regimes? Is it because, perhaps, none of these nations are getting their noses in the middle of other nation's conflicts?

Would we be the target for terrorists if we simply minded our own business and stopped trying to police the entire globe? Our military deploys well over half a million soldiers, spies, technicians, teachers, dependents, and civilian contractors in other nations. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon "currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories."

The truth is, our economy has become addicted to war. In 2005, we will spend $401.7 billion dollars in discretionary defense spending. If you add up the rest of the world's defense budgets it is almost equal to what the United States spends alone! And still, we are told that we are not safe? Why? Perhaps its not a matter of how much security, but rather a matter of learning how to stop stepping in dog shit.

According to UCSD Emeritus Professor of International Relations Chalmers
Johnson
, this vast military empire constitutes proof that the "Unites States
prefers to deal with other nations through the use or the threat of force rather than through negotiations, commerce, or cultural interaction." Dr. Johnson correctly concludes that American power has shifted from the people to the Pentagon with such dramatic finality that "a revolution would be required to bring the Pentagon back under democratic control."

Consider the fact that for the last twelve years, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush have been engaging in war-profiteering through the Carlyle Group ("CG"). CG is a consortium of wealthy conservatives who operate internationally as a merchant banking firm. CG is also a major player in the defense and telecommunications industries. CG has been averaging a whopping 34% return for its investors over the past 15 years, and its current estimated worth is $18 billion. Largely through war-profiteering, CG's worth soared from $12 billion to $18 billion between 2000 and 2005.

So who's involved in the Carlyle Group? Among many others: former President George H.W. Bush (CG's adviser from 1993 to October 2003, and current investor); Bush I Secretary of State James Baker (CG's $180 million partner); General Colin Powell before he was Bush II's SOS; Reagan Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci (CG's chairman); Bush I National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft; former conservative British Prime Minister John Major (head of CG's European operations); and the former right-wing presidents of the Philippines and South Korea.

In the typical revolving-door style that has made postmodern Washington an ethics-free zone, the Carlyle Group is managed and staffed by former Republican employees of the CIA, the State Department, and the DOD. The Saudi royal family also is - and the Bin Laden family recently was - a major investor in CG. Additionally, many prominent international bankers are CG investors.

Our president stands to inherit a multimillion dollar portion of whatever his father reaps through his consultations with, and investments in, CG. That might explain why our patriotic leader was so adamant both that his illegal elective war against Iraq must commence in March 2003, and that the estate tax must be repealed (which his party did in April 2005). Now when George Sr. dies, Junior can receive 100% of that blood-soaked windfall inheritance.

Also, consider Bechtel and Halliburton. Bechtel is a gargantuan multinational construction firm. The US-based Bechtel's war-profiteering activities are so prodigious that they're the stuff of legends. Knowledgeable defense experts have characterized Bechtel as "more powerful than the US Army." After 9/11, George Schultz, the Bechtel CEO and former Secretary of State, lobbied vigorously for the invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration rewarded Schultz by granting Bechtel exclusive no-bid, gold-plated contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, then reducing Iraq's infrastructure to rubble during its "shock and awe" blitzkrieg.

These Iraq War contracts enabled Bechtel to reap record profits of $17 billion in 2003, and $17.4 billion in 2004. The firm was founded by the San Francisco-based Bechtel family, who are old friends with the Saudi-based Bin Laden family. These two families have worked together on many construction projects in the Mideast. Indeed, they're currently collaborating on a $20 billion deal with the Saudi government to excavate two new ports. Furthermore, the Bin Laden family owns a $10 million stake in Bechtel Corporation's investment subsidiary, The Fremont Group. Of course, the Bin Laden's are also old friends with the Bush family. It's a small world, after all.

Halliburton has vaulted to the forefront as the USA's premier - and most corrupt - war profiteer. Before revolving-door gamesman Dick Cheney became Bush II's running mate in 2000, he was receiving a multimillion dollar salary as Halliburton's CEO. Upon becoming Vice President Cheney, he oversold the invasion of Iraq by falsely alleging that an imminent threat was posed by Iraq's nonexistent WMD arsenal. Since the invasion, his cronies at Halliburton have reaped profits of at least $18 billion from their Iraq War contracts. And Halliburton's revenues increased by 80% between 2003 and 2004.

Meanwhile, Halliburton was perpetrating countless acts of fraud, stealing multimillions through over billing, and taking millions in kickbacks to its executives. For instance, the Defense Contract Audit Agency recently concluded that Halliburton over billed US taxpayers by $212.3 million for fuel transportation in Iraq. And Halliburton is currently under investigation by both the FBI and the Securities Exchange Commission for numerous illegalities. Nevertheless, Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR continue to receive lucrative no-bid, gold-plated defense contracts from the Pentagon.

Noting this blatant cronyism, CorpWatch disgustedly concludes that "Halliburton's agenda is so merged with that of the Bush administration that questions raised by auditors, inspectors-general, and other independent agencies - not to mention corporate accountability groups - languish silently in Congress and
the White House."

Furthermore, these same major defense contractors - the Carlyle Group, Bechtel, Halliburton, and their subsidiaries - donated millions to the Republican Party and the Bush-Cheney campaign. Additionally, they paid for extravagant parties at the 2004 political conventions and the 2005 presidential inauguration. In short, war is a lucrative business that pays the elite war-profiteers and the Washington bribe-ocrats handsomely, while it impoverishes the taxpayers, drains the federal coffers, decimates the target nations, and kills the combatants and their innocent victims hideously.

Warlust eventually ravages nations just like a highly-addictive narcotic ravages people. Warfare's savagery inflicts destruction on prey nations immediately, whereas it destroys predator nations mediately. War initially produces a stimulative "high" for the predator's domestic economy. Leaders in predator nations ignore this opiate-like economic addiction to war because it serves to enrich their upper classes. Warfare is instantaneously lucrative for the military-industrial complex's depraved war-profiteers, but can cause an entire region's economy to become depraved war-addicts over time. For instance, the Pentagon's Base Realignment and Closure Commission ("BRAC" ) recently issued its report on military base closings.

In response, US Senators insisted that they CANNOT close any military bases in their states, because bases provide jobs and generate income for local economies (e.g., $42 billion annually for California's economy). And US Representatives like House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) insisted that their districts cannot survive without the income generated by military bases (e.g., $18 billion annually for San Diego's economy).

In other words, most states and large cities cannot survive without taxpayer-funded monetary injections from military bases, and this vast archipelago of bases cannot be justified without an endless succession of wars, so our regional economies are addicted to war. Hence, BRAC proposed closing only 33 out of 1,700 bases. And no bases will be closed in Chairman Hunter's militarily-dependent district, San Diego.

That's 1,000 less base closures than is necessary to provide adequate funding for America's indispensable social safety-net programs. And a reduction to 700 bases would still allow the USA to have three bases in each of the 50 states, and at least one in every nation in the world. Folks, that's more than enough!

Consider that the economic "high" from an addiction to war is always a Faustian bargain. It compels the addicted nation to start an endless succession of destructive wars in order to avoid severe withdrawal symptoms, which otherwise would appear in the form of recessions and depressions. Penultimately, it forces the working class to pay the highest price in blood and treasure. Their children become cannon fodder and their taxes are squandered to finance military adventures. Militaristic nations always collapse because their criminal acts of aggression are not only morally indefensible but also economically unsustainable. Ultimately, war destroys empires as well as it does people.

The Bottom Line: Might As Well Face It, We're Addicted To War.

One certainly need not be a pacifist to recognize that there is powerful evidence that the USA is economically addicted to war. If so, this would explain why our political system is dominated by the ultra-militarist War Party and the crypto-fascist Bush family (i.e., the pushers), while our economic system is dominated by the military-industrial complex and its mafiosiesque war-profiteers (i.e., the kingpins).

(Note: A portion of this article was copied from "http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8904.htm" pursuant to section 107 of the US Copyright Law. We appreciate the Information Clearinghouse's open consent to broader "Fair Use")

Sunday, July 24, 2005 

Some More 9/11 Facts

1. Did you know that 50% of all New Yorkers believe US leaders had "foreknowledge of impending 9-11 attacks" and “consciously failed” to act?

According to the Zogby poll:
"Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions" by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified "very liberal" New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of "very conservative" citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%)."


2. Did you know that when golfer Payne Stewart's Lear Jet lost contact with air traffic controllers in 1999 (and eventually crashed), a pair of F-16 Falcons intercepted the Lear Jet within 15 minutes after contact was lost? On September 11, four (4) commercial passenger jets were allegedly hijacked, and we know for certain that three of those planes were not intercepted even though they were each in the air without air traffic control contact for over 40 minutes. In fact, Flight 11 lost contact with air traffic controls for over one hour and twenty minutes before it finally hit WTC 1. Flight 77 was in the air for fifty (50) minutes prior to allegedly hitting the Pentagon. No intercepts.

So one lear jet with a golfer on board gets intercepted after 15 minutes, yet 4 commercial passenger planes dont get intercepted on a morning where the entire world is watching one plane after another smack into buildings?

3. Did you know that in the three days prior to 9/11, there was an extremely high volume of put options purchased for American Airlines, United Airlines, and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter (Morgan Stanley held 22 floors of offices within the WTC towers). In fact, "a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6."

Or what about the fact that some zealous traders, on Monday, September 10, 2001, bought 17,955 short-term S&P 500 index puts at 1,050 points (the "strike price"). Essentially, those investors were gambling that the S&P index of 500 stocks, which closed at 1,092.54 at 4pm that day, would fall by at least 42 points by September 21, when the options were scheduled to expire. Without such a significant decline, the options would have expired worthless.

Nevertheless, in a footnote on page 499 of the 9/11 Commission Report, the 9/11 Commission stated that:
"some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation."
Oh, okay, nevermind then. The footnote says its okay.

4. Did you know that, since 9/11, the government has given us three different stories for why the 9/11 commercial flights were not intercepted by military fighters? Funny thing is, the second version was finally contradicted by the 9/11 commission even though it was "in effect" for two and a half years prior thereto.

5. As for this fact, I'll give it someday soon. Its too much at once. ;-)

Its a doozy!

Saturday, July 23, 2005 

More From the Fascists.....

Click on the link for one more step towards.......FASCISM.

Probably nothing to get too worked up about, right? Its probably for our own good, after all, these fascists know what is 'good for us'. Heck, if you aren't doing anything 'wrong,' you have nothing to fear, right? Or maybe you're thinking it could never happen here. We are, after all, a freedom loving country, right? We have the American flag and baseball and, well, we are the best in the world, right? No way we'd pass a law requiring each of us to turn into a "snitch" against our fellow man, right?

How could an American senator even propose this type of legislation? It just seems unfathomable.
"If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" that they took place you would have to report the offense to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence."
This a-hole, good-for-nothing, fascist congressman from Wisconsin, James Sensenbrenner, is the same man who cut off the microphone in the middle of a congressional hearing because he didn't like what he was hearing (without motion on the floor!)...he has the balls to title the bill as the "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005"! How Orwellian is that?

Perhaps a better title would have been: "Policing Our Citizen's: The Volks Sturmabteilung Act of 2005"

So if you're keeping score at home. Cruel and unusual punishment (aka torture) is now just dandy. Arresting people and detaining them for years without formal charges being filed against them and refusing them their consitutional right to counsel is also okay. The government can now make searches and seizures without ever letting you know that they have done so. Flag burning may soon be a federal crime. Your library records may be retrieved by the government. Compelled citizen snitching....coming soon?

Yeah, the terrorists sure are scary, aren't they?

Thursday, July 21, 2005 

Iraq and Iran -- The Lovefest Continues

Once again, the Western news media has failed to report a story of utmost importance.

Two weeks ago, Iran and Iraq announced a military agreement, and the American press hardly paid attention. This week, in Iran's holiest city, Mashhad, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, met with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari for a 'lovefest'.

During the meeting, Khamenei called al-Jaafari a "virtuous, religious and intellectual figure," and the Iraqi nation "a real brother of Iranians". Essentially, this is the #2 and #3 oil powers of the world uniting in friendship with the potential of a future lasting alliance. More than that, its a potential sign that Iraq will also turn theocratic. In fact, Khamenei stated:
“The Iraqi people have shown that they seek a constitution based on Islam and hopefully their representatives in the National Assembly will revive Iraq’s high position in the Islamic world by drafting such a constitution”
Personally, I find it rather funny. Our president thought we could go over there, occupy the nation, seize the oil, and spread democracy (or so he said), and here we have Iraq moving in the direction of closer ties with Iran, a nation that also has a popular Shi'a majority!

Now, I dont want to start talking 'Shi'a,' but this really is just what we deserve. We went over there based on lies, and in the end, we cleared the way for Iran to finally marry the Iraqi Shi'ia majority. In essence, we gave Iran what they failed to gain in 10 years of war with Iraq, a broader Middle East foothold and the emboldening of Islamic theocracy.

And what can we really do about it? Nothing. Our country isn't willing to support a US led attack on Iran. (thank the Lord!) Iran has been keenly playing the nuclear card against us, and yet at the same time, Iran has opened up its borders to foreign private investment. Essentially, Iran has played the 'carrot and stick' game to perfection. While Germany and France have invested in Iran and reaped the rewards of a 7% GDP growth, the United States is spending $40 billion dollars a month occupying Iraq and alienating itself further from Iran's burgeoning economy with haphazard threats that it knows it cannot seriously back up.

In my opinion, we deserve this failure. This is exactly what should happen to an imperial power intent on using force to gain wealth. Hopefully, we will learn a lesson and become a more humble nation. But I seriously doubt that will happen. More likely, our government and the angry and fearful people who support it, will likely do something even more stupid to try to save face.

It was John Bolton who stated back in September of 2003: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad, but real men want to go to Tehran."

 

George W. Bush's Confidential Order 119i-WF-213589

Two month's before 9/11, President George W. Bush signed Presidential Decision Directive 199i-WF-213589 prohibiting the FBI from investigating certain suspected terrorists with Saudi and Bin Laden ties. The BBC reported this story. Back when it happened, FBI Deputy Director John O'Neil resigned from his job because he believed the administration was blocking the FBI from investigating the Bin Laden's and others. After O'Neil resigned, he was appointed Security Director of the World Trade Center towers in New York. His first day on the job was September 11, 2001 where he was killed by the very attack that he had tried to get the government to prevent.

Just another coincidence, I suppose.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 

9/11 and Five Major Coincidences

For your consideration, I offer you these five (5) coincidences:

1. On September 11, 2001, it just so happens that the CIA was planning an exercise whereby it would crash a small jet into one of its own buildings. Don't believe me? Check this USA Today article.

2. On September 10, 2001, it just so happens that Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) deployed search and rescue teams to New York City. Don't believe me? Maybe you'll believe Rudolph Giuliani. (There is even a link there to listen to the Real Audio of Giuliani discussing FEMA.)

3. On September 11, 2001, it just so happens that George W. Bush's younger brother, Marvin Bush, was the principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. And it just so happens that, according to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down." Dont believe me? Check this out

4. On September 11, 2001, building 7 of the World Trade Center complex was intentionally pulled down even though it only had moderate fire damage and was in no danger of collapsing. Don't believe me? Well, the building's owner, Larry Silverstein, admitted on PBS that the building was intentionally pulled down. Check this out. Oh yeah, it just so happens that building 7 included offices for the CIA, Department of Defense, the Office of the Mayor, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the IRS. Don't believe me? Check out this page which includes a New York Times article. Also check out this, 22 minute video. Warning, this video may make you sick to your stomach.

Windows Media Broadband: Click Here

Windows Media Dial-up: Click Here

Apple Quicktime Broadband: Click Here

Apple Quicktime Dial-up: Click Here

5. It just so happens that 4 of the 19 alleged hijackers are still alive. Don't believe me, well maybe you'll believe the FBI, yes the FBI! Check out this BBC News article.

Yeah, I know, this is all just a crazy conspiracy theory, right? After all, its perfectly plausible that the common explanation for 9/11, which was presented to us within 48 hours of the attacks without ever being changed, modified, or altered thereafter, is exactly the way it happened. Its perfectly plausible that, at that time, under the stress of the attacks, and during the weeks of anthrax scare that followed, that we citizens were capable of adequately viewing the evidence presented to us and that we were capable of diligently questioning it all. Yeah, its perfectly rational to accept the story we have heretofor been given. Thus, you are probably better off dismissing this all as just 'insane' and forgetting all about it....

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 

Treasongate's Relationship to the Downing Street Memos

Let us not forget, this entire Karl Rove scandal (aka Treasongate) is all about the Bush administration's series of lies which took this nation to war in Iraq. In fact, "Treasongate" deals with the worst lie of them all-- the lie which falsely accused Iraq of trying to buy uranium from Niger for an eventual nuclear bomb. Even the CIA later said that the President had no business making that claim.

So when the Bush administration smeared Joe Wilson and outed his wife, Valerie Plame, they were doing it because Joe Wilson was justifiably criticizing the most dramatic portion of the Bush administration's case for taking out Saddam, the potential "mushroom cloud".

You see, Treasongate goes hand-in-hand with everything we have learned from the Downing Street Memo. And vice versa, the Downing Street Memo corroborates the motive for Karl Rove's outing of Valerie Plame-- essentially "the facts and intelligence [were] being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq.

So when you see the RNC chairman babbling on about the subtle nuance between "naming" and "identifying" a CIA operative, or when you see the Bush supporters pointing their dirty fingers back at Joe Wilson, or when you see the president back-pedaling from his prior positions, just remember-- there was no uranium, there were no WMDs, Joe Wilson was right, and the Bush administration used the outing of Valerie Plame to silence Joe Wilson as part of their policy to fix the "facts and intelligence...around the policy".

Sunday, July 17, 2005 

Bombing Civilians: A Brief History and Perspective

In 1937, Adolph Hitler's Luftwaffe indiscriminately bombed the Spanish town of Guernica, killing 1,650 civilians. The New York Times reported, "The object of the bombardment seemingly was demoralization of the civilian population....not a military objective." Soon after, America rightfully denounced the bombing as a "monstrous crime".

But this wasn't the first time anybody had bombed civilians. The French, Germans, and British had all partaken in limited civilian bombings in World War I -- killing thousands.

In 1925, France and Spain defeated a Berber uprising in Morocco by use of civilian bombings. American volunteers, under French command, bombed the city of Chechaouen, similar in size to Guernica. And from 1926 through 1928, the US Marines utilized civilian bombing to force regime change in Nicaragua. There was no public outcry within the United States for either of these actions. For some reason, these were not considered crimes.

But when Japan bombed civilians in Shanghai in 1932 and claimed thousands of lives, the New York Times reported that those bombings brought a "literal avalanche of denunciation" upon Japan (and rightfully so!) In fact, it is said that the Shanghai bombing caused Americans "to view the Japanese as 'butchers' and 'murderers'." And again in 1937, when Japan again bombed Shanghai, the bombing was viewed correctly by Americans as "an atrocity of the most appalling kind."

In 1938, as a result of all of these civilian massacres (and others), the League of Nations unanimously passed a resolution outlawing "the intentional bombing of civilian populations." In 1939, nearing the outbreak of World War II, FDR made a public plea that the warring parties refrain from the "inhuman barbarism" of bombing civilian populations, acts which "sicken[ed] the hearts of every civilized man and woman," and "profoundly shock[ed] the conscience of humanity." As a result, Hitler pledged he would limit his air force to attacking only military targets. And British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stated that "Britain will never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children and other civilians for the purpose of mere terrorism."

In 1940, however, the British War Cabinet approved plans for "indiscriminate" bombing of civilian German targets even before the Germans had ever bombed British civilians. But Hitler drew first blood with the bombing of British civilians in August of 1940. Then, in a series of back-and-forths, the Germans and British exchanged civilian bombings in the cities of Munich, Coventry, Mannheim, and London.

By July of 1941, Winston Churchill wrote, "There is one thing that will bring [Hitler] down, and that is an absolutely devastating exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland." (Emphasis Added.) Soon enough, the British exterminated 42,000 people in Hamburg.

It wasn't until 1945 that the United States broke its oath to refrain from the bombing of civilians. With the protest of General Doolittle who went so far as to claim that such a course of conduct would amount to "terrorism," America went ahead with civilian bombings in Berlin. Then Dresden (killing approximately 60,000 civilians). Meanwhile, in the Pacific theater of the war, the US military brass decided that precision bombing of Japanese military targets was having limited success. Thus, tactics were changed.

Between November of 1944 and August of 1945, 160,000 tons of ordinance was dropped on 64 Japanese cities. 83,000 were killed in Tokyo alone! The Japanese condemned the American bombings of civilians (and rightfully so!).

August 6 will commemorate the 60th anniversary of the United States' atomic bombing of Hiroshima. On August 6, 1945, 70,000 lives were taken in the blink of an eye-- almost all were civilians, including a score of American prisoners of war held captive there. Within a few days of the bombing, 90,000 were dead. And the final count is put at about 200,000.

On August 9, 1945, another atomic bomb was dropped, this time on Nagasaki. This second bomb killed about 75,000 people.

While we most certainly must assign guilt to the then-fascist governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan for the indiscriminate killings of civilians, we must also hold the United States and Great Britain accountable. After all, by the end of the war, more than 1 million German and Japanese civlians had been killed, and another 7 million Germans and 8 million Japanese had been bombed out of their homes. Of these victims, it is estimated that twenty percent were children.

Before the outbreak of WWII, America was morally justifiable in its condemnation of the Guernica terror bombings of Spanish civilians. Unfortunately however, within years the US itself had perfected the terror on a much grander scale. Therefore, while Americans rightfully object to the failure of the Japanese to apologize to China for its war crimes or to cite them in the historical record taught to Japanese schoolchildren, Americans should not gloss over their nation's own attendance to terror bombings in WWII (and beyond!).

In fact, the failure of our society to recognize these faults may have impaired our own moral vision to the point where we confuse our reckless interventions abroad as noble and morally righteous endevours. Perhaps many of our fellow citizens fail to pay sufficient attention to the fact that we too have exterminated hundreds of thousands of civilians, be they Japanese, German, Vietnamese, Panamanian, or Iraqi. How could we still be so outraged by civilian attacks when we participate in such attacks in places like Nagasaki, Fallujah, or My Lai? How could we still be so outraged by barbarism when we participate in it?

Civilians are civilians.

Thursday, July 14, 2005 

The Power of Nightmares


Tonight's post is simply a movie recommendation. I highly recommend everybody watch the BBC three-part documentary The Power of Nightmares by Adam Curtis of the BBC.

CLICK ON THIS LINK
(It will take you to a free site where you can view the movie via download or streaming)


This movie has been aired all over Europe and even in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it has not been aired by any of the Big 5 media conglomerates inside the USA. Its a fantastic piece that goes back and looks at the evolution of radical islam and neoconservatism. I think this is a movie everybody needs to see.

(Please remember to visit my sponsors links if you like the site)

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 

The Reichstag Fire, 9/11, and Anthrax

What was the Reichstag Fire?

The Reichstag fire is an extremely pivotal event in the establishment of Nazi Germany. It began on the night of February 27, 1933, when a Berlin fire station received an alarm that the Reichstag ("Parliament") building was ablaze. The fire seemed to have been started in several places, and by the time the police and firemen arrived a huge explosion had set nearly the entire building on fire. Looking for clues, the police quickly found Marinus van der Lubbe, half-naked, cowering behind the building. Van der Lubbe was a mentally ill former Dutch Communist and unemployed bricklayer who had been floating around Europe for the last two years prior to 1933.

Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring arrived soon after, and when they were shown Van der Lubbe, a known Communist agitator, Göring immediately declared the fire was set by the Communists and had the party leaders arrested. Hitler took advantage of the situation to declare a state of emergency and encouraged aging president Paul von Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Fire Decree, abolishing most of the human rights provisions of the 1919 Weimar Republic constitution.

Prior to the fire, and during the election campaign in which Hitler eventually won, the Nazis had run on a platform of hysterical anti-communism, insisting that Germany was on the verge of a Communist revolution, and that the only way to stop the revolution was to pass the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act was a special power allowed by the Weimar Constitution to give the Chancellor (in this case, Hitler) the power to pass laws by decree, without the involvement of the Reichstag. The Enabling Act was only supposed to be used in times of extreme emergency. In fact, Hitler's platform during the campaign comprised little more than demands that voters increase the Nazi share of seats so that the Enabling Act could be passed.

The Reichstag Fire allowed Hitler to accelerate the banning of the Communist Party and was used to confirm Nazi claims of a pending Communist revolution. The Nazis argued the Reichstag fire was meant to serve as a signal to launch the revolution, and warned the German public about the grisly fate they would suffer under Communist rule. Eventually, the Nazis got their wish. They managed to pass the Enabling Act-- essentially turning Adolph Hitler into the Supreme Ruler of Germany. Eventually, Hitler managed to "parlay" this supremacy into the genocide known as the Holocaust.

Years later, after the fall of the Third Reich, at the Nuremberg trials, General Franz Halder claimed Göring had confessed to setting the fire:
"At a luncheon on the birthday of Hitler in 1942, the conversation turned to the topic of the Reichstag building [fire] and its artistic value. I heard with my own ears when Göring interrupted the conversation and shouted: 'The only one who really knows about the Reichstag is I, because I set it on fire!' With that he slapped his thigh with the flat of his hand."
What was 9/11?
9/11 was an extremely pivotal event in the establishment of a Neoconservative America. It started one morning when four (4) planes were hijacked..... And from all accounts, it was an open and shut case. Although there was no 'half-naked person cowering behind the wreckage,' like the Reichstag's Van der Lubbe, there was, within a few days following the hijackings, amazingly detailed dossiers on each of the hijackers. Luckily, each of the hijackers left copies of the Koran, box cutters, and aircraft piloting manuals in the trunk of their rental cars parked at the airport. But even more amazing, on September 12, Senator Orrin Hatch said "the US was monitoring bin Laden supporters and overheard them discussing the attack." [AP, 9/12/01] (Somehow, this little tidbit has always been lost in the shuffle. I wonder 'why'?).

Prior to taking control of Washington, the Neocons were already planning on invading Iraq. But there was no public support for such a campaign prior to 9/11. Moreover, prior to 9/11, on three occasions, President George W. Bush publicized his envy of dictatorships:

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." - Bush describing life as the governor of Texas. (Governing Magazine 7/98)

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked. (CNN 12/18/00)

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it," [Bush] said. (Business Week 7/30/01)
On October 2, 2001, The Patriot Act is introduced in Congress. The next day, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D) accuses the Bush administration of reneging on an agreement on this anti-terrorist bill. [Washington Post, 10/4/01] Anthrax letters are sent to Leahy and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D) on October 9. [CNN, 11/18/01]

For the next few weeks, the country is freaked out (and rightfully so!) by a series of anthrax letters that reach not just the two Democratic Senators, but also various media companies who have been previously labeled as "liberal" by the right wing. During this scare, it is speculated that the letters are being sent from al-Qaeda or perhaps Iraq. During this scare, the Anthrax story is front page news, discussed almost 24 hours a day on the various news channels.

After an FBI investigation, it turns out that the Anthrax letters contain an anthrax strain which originates from a US Army base and that the likely source of the letter is a US government insider. But for some strange reason, this AMAZING FACT is hardly covered by the major media outlets. And after the revelation, the story becomes hardly discussed eventhough, to this day, the anthrax case has not been solved. (or has it?)

Nevertheless, 9/11 and the anthrax scare are used by the Neocons and President Bush to take the country to war against Iraq. It turns out that Iraq had absolutely no connection to the 9/11 attacks nor the anthrax attacks.

This seemingly neverending White House-sponsored orgy of 9/11 rhetoric, recrimination and revenge is treacherously similar to the Nazi orgy. (of course, it is not identical, but the similarities are certainly worthy of recognition.) Few Americans believe the Bush Administration had a part in bringing down the World Trade Center (whether directly or via gross negligence) in 2001. But the conviction is widespread throughout Europe and the Muslim world, and perhaps for good reason.

Similar to Germany's Hitler, Bush also came to power with a minority of votes (remember, he didn't even win the popular vote in 2000) and has since exploited the terrible tragedies of September 11 in much the same way the Nazis exploited the Reichstag fire. Bush has used American fear and anger, which has resulted from the tragedies of 9/11 and anthrax, to push an extreme rightist (Neocon) agenda aimed at devouring civil liberties, muting dissent, fattening a war machine (see Halliburton and Bechtel), and arrogating the right to unilaterally attack other countries without tangible and/or legal provocation.

Concurrently, with all of this, the Neocons have shamelessly mounted assaults against the natural environment, social security, human rights, organized labor, and a wide range of international treaties, including the Geneva Convention. Combining fear with elements of patriotism and religion, the Bush regime has strong-armed its way into an overtly militaristic and imperialistic policy aimed at taking over the world's greatest oil assets, including the Iraqi oil fields and the Afghanistan pipeline.

Ironically, the conservatives profess themselves to be staunch opponents of Big Government. Yet so-called "Patriotic conservatives" and Neocons have trashed virtually every guarantee of individual freedom on which American greatness has been built. Under the guise of fighting terrorism and national security, the administration has become the ultimate anti-Constitutional terrorist-- going so far as detaining hundreds of people for years without charges ever being brought against them, without trials, hearings, or the right to counsel. And even more disgusting, these so-called patriots support the use of torture-- ultimate acts of barbarism and terrorism.

 

Goebbels & Rove -- Propaganda R' Us


Who is Joseph Goebbels?

Joseph Goebbels was Hitler's Propaganda Minister. He was a prominent figure in Hitler's regime, known for his skilled rhetoric and zealous oratory. He played a large role in the assumption of Nazi control, and helped the Nazis retain power by creating propaganda to present the Nazi ideology to the German people in a favourable light. According to Wikipedia, he was also a committed anti-Semite, involved with Kristallnacht in 1938, and later connected with the Nazi Endlösung (Final Solution) to the Judenfrage ("Jewish Question"), especially the deportation of Jews from Berlin.

Joseph Goebbels was able to muster public support for "Kristallnacht" ("The Night of Broken Glass") by, among other things, making a huge deal out of a Jewish man who killed a low level German diplomat. After the killing, Goebbels ordered the German newspapers to give (super-double) extra special attention to the story of the Jew killing the non-Jew. Even going so far as ordering the newspapers to cover the story on the front page.

Goebbels is also famous for his technique, known as "argumentum ad nauseam". Bascially, this is the policy of repeating a lie so often until it is believed to be true. For example, when Goebbels took control of the Der Angriff (literally, "The Assault") newspaper, he attacked Berlin Police President Bernhard Weiss, calling him "Isidor" Weiss. Isidor is, to German ears, an insulting name with strong anti-semetic connotations. This was done to such an extent that the public believed Isidor to be his real name, and he therefore became a figure of fun and ridicule.

Who is Karl Rove?
Karl Rove is George W. Bush's propaganda minister. He is a prominent figure in Bush's regime known for his skilled rhetoric and robotic talking points. He played an instrumental role in the assumption of Neocon control. Currently, he helps the Neocons retain power, even in light of impeachable offenses, by creating propaganda to present the Neocon ideology to the American people in a favourable "patriotic and Christian" light.

Karl Rove was able to muster public support for an unwarranted invasion into Iraq by convincing the American public (via lies, lies, and more lies) that Iraq was associated with the 9/11 attacks against America. Among the lies, Rove created and helped perpetuate myths relating to Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs, anthrax, and other biological weapons.

After 9/11 and the anthrax attacks (which were actually perpetrated by a US government insider, not an al-Qaeda operative!), Rove still managed to transform American fear into American rage. (Once again, it should be noted that Rove and his minions sent Colin Powell before the United Nations waving around a vial of fake anthrax eventhough the only anthrax scare to hit America was homegrown at Fort Derrick in Maryland, not Iraq)

Rove is also famous for his technique, known as "argumentum ad nauseam". Bascially, this is the policy of repeating a lie so often until it is believed to be true. For example, Rove and his minions repeatedly mentioned links between 9-11 and Iraq, even though this is, and always was, an outright lie. Nevertheless, they repeated the lie so often that even after they finally confessed to the lie, a recent poll concluded that 64% of Americans still believed the lie!

Additionally, he is famous for another technique, known as "commitum the treaseaum". Basically, this is the policy whereby Rove will use any means to squash an opponent, even going so far as committing treason. For example, in supposedly fighting a war for America's security, Rove disclosed the identity of a CIA operative, thereby severely comprimising America's security.

So there you have it. Two men. Seperated by time and space, but not ideology and methodology. Joseph Goebbels and Karl Rove-- Great Fascist Heroes!

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 

The Second Biggest Story of Last Week

Did anybody notice that Iran and Iraq entered into a military agreement with each other last week? It happened on the day of the London bombings. In fact, it wasn't even reported in the United States until the next day. And by the time the story did makes its way here, it was hardly dealt with properly. But the story is so telling! The story indicates just how defeated we are in the Iraqi campaign.

Basically, Iraq is choosing its alliances, and it wishes to draw closer to Iran. Iraq is thumbing its nose at America and making friends with its neighbor, going so far as to allow Iran to train Iraq's military! Is there any question that we are on the verge of seeing an emboldened Iran in the Middle East? Basically, the US did for Iran what Iran could not do during its long war with Iraq- it destroyed the Sunni (anti-Iranian) government and empowered the Shi'a (pro-Iranian) population. Brilliant!

Basically, American taxpayers and soldiers paid for (and died for) Iran's entry and expansion into Iraq.

Is it any wonder that this story was hardly covered by the American media? Its basically the beginning of the end in Iraq.

Monday, July 11, 2005 

9/11, Pearl Harbor, and Operation Northwoods


Did the Bush administration play any role in causing 9/11? There have been many cases presented in the blogosphere and independent media for the Bush administation's role in 9/11. There have been fantastic timlelines set forth. And rigorous exhibitions of coincidence.

But is it possible? Would our government actually take part in (or put up with) acts of violence against it's own people? That just sounds too crazy, right? Sounds like the kind of stuff crazy conspiracy theorists imagine, right?

WRONG!

Actually, its completely possible. In fact, its been done before.


On December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Prior to the attack, the American population was not in favor of American military participation in WWII. After the "sneak" attack, however, the American public was united and resolute to go to war against Japan. It wasn't until years later that it was discovered that President Roosevelt was not only aware, in advance, of the "sneak" attack, but that Roosevelt was willing to 'absorb' the attack for the purpose of manufacturing consent. So not only did the United States goad Japan into the war (with the oil embargo), but the United States goaded Japan into the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, possessing the knowledge of 'where' and 'when' the actual attack would take place.

And now, we come to Operation Northwoods......



Operation Northwoods was a government plan devised and approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and likely to be carried out with the help of the CIA, in order to manufacture consent for a war against Cuba in the early 1960's. The documents exhibit a considerable willingness on the part of our government to severely endanger and/or kill its own civilians. In particular, the Joint Chiefs recommended the following actions:

  • Using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba.
  • Start false rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
  • Stage mock attacks, sabotages and riots and blame it on Cuban forces
  • Sink an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base - reminiscent of the USS Maine incident at Havana in 1898, which started the Spanish-American War - or destroy American aircraft and blame it on Cuban forces.
  • "Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
  • Destroy a fake commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday"
  • Stage a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees:
    "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."


    So you see, there are certainly examples of our government's willingness to expend human civilian life for the sake of a war effort. Who can say that 9/11 wasn't in that vein? It certainly must be considered. But who is considering it?

  • Friday, July 08, 2005 

    The Right Needs Therapy, Not the Terrorists

    A few weeks ago, Karl Rove said the Left wanted to "offer therapy and understanding" to the 9/11 attackers. His statement set off a storm of controversy. For all intents and purposes, he categorized half of Americans as apologists for terrorism.

    Yesterday, a terrorist attack rocked London, killing 50 and injuring 700. Well, what did the people on the Right have to say about it?

    When Brit Hume, the right wing talk show host for Fox News first learned about the London attack he also saw the futures market lower and said "time to buy".
    "I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy."


    In other words, after hearing about a disaster which could have potentially killed hundreds, Brit Hume's first thought was 'profit'!

    Then there was Fox News Military Analyst Colonel David Hunt. He was interviewed on the Bill O'Reilly Show. On the show, Hunt called on the United States to employ a computer hacker to hack into banks in the Middle East and steal hundreds of millions of dollars. He called it "BIBLICAL JUSTICE". As for O'Reilly, he was in agreement with the guy (of course!).

    So far, we have one guy who thinks about profits, and another guy who believes he has the inside track on divine justice. (I guess they never heard of "Thou shall not steal" Maybe thats why these same people insist on putting a copy of the Ten Commandments everywhere humanly possible-- because they keep forgetting what the commandments command!)

    Lastly, we have Paul Harvey. Paul Harvey has been a voice on the radio for as long as I can remember. He has always been that lovable old man who "tells it like it is", and he has always shown his propesnity for conservatism. Well, yesterday, on his Disney-owned radio show, Paul Harvey became unhinged.

    Along with advocating nuclear war, Paul Harvey said:
    "Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and into this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans.

    Yes, that was biological warfare. And, we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever.

    And, we grew prosperous. And, yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves.

    And so it goes with most great nation-states, which -- feeling guilty about their savage pasts -- eventually civilize themselves out of business. And wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry, Up-and-Coming who are not made of sugar candy."


    OK, so we have one guy who sees terror and immediately thinks about making money. We have another guy who advocates grand theft on a mass scale under the guise of "Biblical Justice", and another guy who makes light of and condones America's usage of biological warfare against Native Americans and the 250 years of slavery in American lands. That is "compassionate conservatism" for yah!

    These men are certifiable, are they not? I think Karl Rove was mistaken, we don't think the terrorists need therapy and counseling, we think the Right needs therapy and counseling.

    Gooood Day!

    Thursday, July 07, 2005 

    Civilians are Civilians, People are People

    I find it quite remarkable how we in the West can be so shocked by attacks on civilians. Its not as if we aren't killing civilians ourselves. I feel utter sadness and sympathy for all victims of terrorism. But I refuse to be taken further down the road of hate, retribution, and pseudo-justice.

    There are some media personalities who are now talking about "nuking Saudi Arabia" in retaliation for today's terrorist attack. Excuse me? Civilians are civilians. Lets not forget this.

    Please read the post immediately prior to this post. I wrote it hours before the London bombings. Its almost as if the bombings were on some sort of cue. Bush's approval ratings are down. The G8 meetings are putting the administration in embarassing situations (who wants to talk about Africa and the environment when there is an uber-war going on). A day after London is awarded the 2012 Olympics. Mayor Giuliani happens to be in London. The terror level is now raised. And today, all the news stories about Valerie Plame, Karl Rove, the War in Iraq, they all take a back seat. In its place, we get to hear from the raving psychopaths again. We get to hear from the people who are hell bent on being hell bent.

    Why hasn't one mainstream media source reported on today's military agreement between Iran and Iraq? Why do we have to go to an Arabic website to get such news? Its on days like this that news needs to be monitored like a hawk. Its on days like this, when our attentions are diverted, that the real news takes place.

    Wednesday, July 06, 2005 

    Is Anybody Paying Attention?

    On June 20, 2005, it was reported that CIA chief Porter Goss has an "excellent idea" where Osama is hiding. Unfortunately, however, Goss held that legal notions of state sovereignty prevent the United States from swooping into Osama's sanctuary and abducting him.
    "When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play"
    Funny thing, however. Four days later, on June 24, it was reported that thirteen (13) alleged CIA agents abducted a muslim cleric in 2003 from his home in Italy (a sovereign state) and flew the cleric to Egypt for interrogation and alleged torture. A clear violation of Italy's sovereignty, right?

    Is anybody paying attention? Why didn't anybody point out this obvious contradiction? Let me get this right, we are willing to violate one of our closest ally's sovereignty in order to kidnap some anonymous cleric, but we don't want to offend the sovereignty of Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan, or Uzbekistan for the prize of catching Osama bin Laden? Is this some kind of twisted joke? Since when did international law get in the way of this administration?

    Like I've asked before, does our current administration truly want to catch Osama bin Laden? If we caught or killed him, wouldn't that be like killing the goose who lays the golden eggs? The neocon agenda has more to gain from a living, plotting, and dangerous Osama Bin Laden than a dead or captured Osama Bin Laden. Thats not an opinion, thats a fact. The neocon policy of worldwide petrol-hegemony (at any cost!) thrives on Osama Bin Laden.

    Isn't it better to keep him out there, keep the fear machine cranking, perhaps raise the terror level from time to time when the President's polls are in deep trouble? Perhaps he can release a videotape from time to time to remind us that we need to spend more money waging wars against brown people who sit on top of the world's oil supply.

    This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is too obvious to be a conspiracy theory! Its plain as day if someone cared to look. The dots are there to be connected.

    There is the old saying about "following the money" to solve a case. Well, follow the money. Who has gained the most from 9/11?

    Is anybody paying attention?

    All Bark. No Bite.
    The Bulldog Manifesto


    Headlines from the Impeachment 

Blogosphere
    Provided by First Sustainable
    Add this box to your site
    Add your feed to this box