Heyia; Re: State of Union Address Question
sk...@nowhere.man
Was any one else disturbed at all by the recent State of the Union
Address by US President Bush?
Hints were given at potential "pre-emptive" actions against countries
not necessarily (or convincingly) linked to the attacks on September
11, 2001. To quote President Bush: "... If they do not act, America
will." Later adding "...I will not wait on events while dangers
gather." "...If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror
states unchecked ... " etc... And I'm sure you have probably heard the
"Axis or Evil" comments, with the historical overtones that statement
implies.
Mr. Bush specifically mentioned the Philippines as one place where
beyond Afghanistan the "war on terrorism" has gone.
U.S. Special Forces are now deployed in the Philippines. There are at
least 2 "groups" operating there. One is fighting to make the
southern islands a separate Islamic nation. The second seems to be
using the situation to take hostages to hold for ransom. They have
executed at least one hostage, and are holding at least two American
citizens in a jungle camp. Videotape witness of them in appalling
conditions of deprivation and fear was played on national news
stations today with strong (heartrending) emotional appeal. The U.S.
Special Forces were supposed to help train Filipino soldiers to fight
the latter group. As part of the training, U.S. Special Operations
forces will accompany Filipino forces on combat patrols.
What is really disturbing is the similiarity to events in the 1950's.
The Involvement of the United States in Vietnam and South East Asia
started with U.S. Special Forces personel training the forces of the
South Vietnamese Army, and as part of that training, accompanied them
on combat patrols. (Consider this while reading over HR 3598. To put
it simply, it is a mandatory conscription bill. If passed, every male
citizen of age would be required to serve a term in the military. You
can view the text of the bill at www.thomas.loc.gov/).
Am I the only one who finds all of this a bit disturbing?
If you didn't catch it when it was first broadcast (I did, and found
much of it excrutiatingly presumptuous and vicious, actually setting
my teeth on-edge) the Speech can viewed here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html
A "printer friendly" (less cluttered) version is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/print/20020129-11.html
It can also be listened to (via RealAudio) here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.a.ram
And can be watched here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/webcast.v.smil
There is also a "State of the Union" Web Page:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/index.html
I pray for Peace, Love and Wisdom for all peoples, especially in these
terrible, troubling times, with war-clouds looming and saber-rattling
voices booming promises and threats, making broad assertive,
unsubstantiated and self-satisfied sweeping rationalizations, making
emotional appeals that short-circuit considered response; I ask you to
question the bias of your news sources, and be aware of your inherant
presumptions, making an active, determined search for Truth instead of
deferring to the convenience of swallowing a popular and
easily-digestable lie, no matter what it is or where it comes from.
Ask for, demand and seek reliable (knowledgeable) sources of news and
information, and substantiation of assumptions, increasing your
resource channels of news providers to insure a healthy degree of
skepticism and a balanced viewpoint from more than one perspective.
Remember the lesson of the Pentagon Papers? A public that doesn't
pursue close source-point information with independant confirmation,
and a range of viewpoints and interests, is much too easily co-opted
and deceived by the agendas of powerful special-interest forces, we
are effectively robbed of our citizen rights for participatory
responsibility, even when the "popular, general explanation" emanates
from the very heights of Governmental Power.
Namaste; Peace
Regrdz;
skye
2.1.2002
Mike Billard
<sk...@nowhere.man> wrote in message
news:3c5b2b23....@news.echoweb.net...
>
> What is really disturbing is the similiarity to events in the 1950's.
> The Involvement of the United States in Vietnam and South East Asia
> started with U.S. Special Forces personel training the forces of the
> South Vietnamese Army, and as part of that training, accompanied them
> on combat patrols. (Consider this while reading over HR 3598. To put
> it simply, it is a mandatory conscription bill. If passed, every male
> citizen of age would be required to serve a term in the military. You
> can view the text of the bill at www.thomas.loc.gov/).
>
I'll speak only to this part because it is an area I'm pretty familiar with.
Bills like HR3598 are a dime a dozen. Members pander to certain
constituencies by submitting bills they know have absolutely no chance of
passage. They do it so they can say, "See, I tried!" That may not
necessarily be the motivation behind this bill, but when I see one of this
sort, it raises my suspicions. Take a lazy afternoon and browse some of the
bills at Thomas that have been submitted over the last several years. When
you're not scratching your head in bemusement or banging it against the
table in frustration, you'll be laughing it off.
If anyone is even remotely concerned about HR3598 and its chances of
passing, let me know and I'll talk to a few people and find out what its
real chances are. But considering that it hasn't even been taken up by the
committee (let alone made it *out* of committee), I seriously doubt it's
going anywhere. But I'll look into it if anyone wants me to.
Joshua P. Hill
No, but I think the alternatives are fairly disturbing too . . . if
this busts loose, if the terrorists succed in mounting large-scale
attacks on American soil, we'll see war on a scale we haven't seen in
years. So there is going to be a fair amount of carefully targeted
pre-emptive stuff, and I'm hoping against hope that it will be
sufficiently effective.
Anyway, I don't think the danger here is one of a Vietnam-like
entanglement. Vietnam, like the Soviet adventure in Afghanistan, was a
proxy battle fought between great powers. Given domestic opposition,
there was no finishing it without risking a large-scale conflagration.
And so the faux lesson, taken to heart by the likes of Saddam and
Omar, that a third-world country can defeat a great power when its
fundamental interests are at stake. That's not to say there isn't room
for a mess here, as in the American war in the Phillippines or the
British in Afghanistan or the Israelis in Lebanon, but rather that
such things are acceptable in a "serious" war, and relatively easy to
fight, because the opposition forces have no good source of resupply.
What I fear instead is that the terrorists will kill vast numbers of
people, forcing the allies to escalate with consequences that will be
terrible for civilian populations. Look at what's happening the West
Bank now, with the Palestinians under virtual siege -- and that's
nothing compared to what will happen if the Israelis are hit with
massive attacks. Or look at what happened in India/Pakistan. The
Indians finally got the point where they were prepared to start an
all-out war if necessary to achieve their objectives. (I fear too what
the terrorists may do to civlization, but I don't believe that
civilization will let things get that far in the short term; rather,
at a certain point, the industrial powers will go apesheit, as they
did in WW II after the Axis started bombing civilian populations.)
One big question, of course, is how much of a danger these "axis"
states represent. My own feeling, and it's a rather hawkish one, is
that we shouldn't wait to find out. They've made their intentions
pretty clear, and properly done, I doubt that war against Iraq (as
opposed to Iran and North Korea) would violate international law. On
the bright side, I think we'll see -- have already begun to see --
some major action against some rather obnoxious groups, as we have in
Pakistan. When the likes of Saddam are overthrown, most of the people
in their countries will cheer, something that tends to get overlooked
in all the realpolitiking. And from what I can tell here, Bush's
intention here wasn't so much to make war, as to read the riot act.
There's plenty of room for Iran and North Korea to maneuver. Saddam,
too, though given his history I don't think he'll do it.
Josh
sk...@nowhere.man
Some more food for thought; What gets me is, the rationale for our
airstrikes in Afghanistan, and now the ground-forces, is basically,
"They are terrorists. They killed Americans on 9/11; They oppress
their own people and want to convert the world to Islam. They are
aligned with Palestinians. Palestinians are very bad too. There are
interconnected groups of Terrorists cells. They are evil. They are
plotting against us. We must defend oursleves against their attack,
and thereby also save the world against their evil. The world is on
our side because it is the side of justice. God is on our side,
because they are infidels. We have all the proof we need to know, 100
percent, that all this is true. Remember 9/11, and tremble. But we are
strong, and will prevail." This is basically the level of discussion
most Americans are capable of. If you prick their beliefs with a
pointed observation suggesting we acted precipitously before we were
sure the Taliban and AlQueda were conclusively identified as directly
responsibility, they bristle as if you had insulted them, or worse,
get downright hostile and defensive. I had a bizarre exchange with my
neighbor, who is basically a nice-guy principled (born-again)
Christian, and we get along great (he lets me borrow his riding
lawnmower to cut my grass!) One day, I asked him about the hard-ass
accusations he had made the day before about some group in California,
teachers or somebody, who counseled "forgiving" whoever was
responsible for 9/11; I asked him about the apparant contradiction of
his Christian principles, ie., "Do not kill, forgive those that
afflict you, turn the other cheek, love your enemies, etc.", and he
got all belligerant and strident, repeatedly saying that we had to
attack NOW because yada yada yada. I said, there were certainly more
than two options, attack now or never attack, but he couldn't see it,
said I was being "narrow minded"! Essentially the same thing happened
with my step-mother on the phone, when I mentioned something about how
edgy and "off" people were this past holiday season, and put it in
context that people had to be feeling the anxious about the jingoism
in the US media about administration blaming and "attacking"
Afghanistan, despite 11 of the 15 hijackers being citizens of Saudia
Arabia. I swear, my stepmother got so angry she must have seen red,
she was puffing and spitting, yelling about how she hates all Muslims,
we should kill them all, they want to kill us anyway, and yada yada
yada; THIS, from a long-time churchgoer, Church organist, member of
Sisters of Star, a "decent" if petty and unimaginative woman you would
never think could hold such hate; And this scene is repeated across
the USA, sudden impassioned patriots who "Know" this and that, but
when you ask them anything, all they "know" is that we must defeat the
terrorists; Certainly, the news has been strangely quiet about much
"proof" to justify conclusions. In my independant efforts since, I
have found many answers that don't conform to the mainstream public
impassioned beliefs, which are long on fervor, but short on details.
From a friend of mine:
"What I saw of the speech was a replay on the news. What I found both
disturbing and laughable was Dubya putting down countries because they
were
run by "a small group of unelected people" (pretty close to a direct
quote)
and using that as a justification for his jingoism. I thought, "Mr.
President, you were not elected, and you were appointed by people who
weren't
elected [the Supreme Court]." On the other hand, I don't think Dubya
has
enough of a clue towards comprehending the irony, he's just a stupid
cheerleader smiling dumbly at the wrong times and mouthing what he's
told to
say in blind trust of his oil baron daddy." Sanity
I could not have expressed that subtle but damning point any better.
Perhaps that helps explain why I was actually ill watching Bush II in
action, a masterful bigger-than-life strong-guy decorated veteran
torpedo-bomber-pilot entrepeneur businessman oil-tycoon Texan good ol'
boy WASP savvy politico Republican son of a president President: and
he had the assembled Senate and House members and press and cameras
eating out-of-his-hand, laying out how we're in the "decent fight" and
"we will not stop until we have reached our objective," and "our
mission is to insure the world will be free from terror," and "they
can't hide forever...we will bring them to justice, in order to insure
that our children (will not have to live in fear)", etc., thinking,
boy, the people are just eating-it-up, he's got them hook, line,
sinker, rod, bait pail, tackle box, fisherman, boat, trailer, parked
pickup, earlier-that-day gas station, discount store, and cafe where
the poor SOB had breakfast;
I just can no longer "go along" with superficial explanations; We've
endorsed a brutal oppressive regime that has substantially made
middle-east peace impossible, by supporting Israel to the extent we
have, which essentially IS a form of genocide, and so the
song-and-dance rationale by which we do not, cannot think of ourselves
as Terrorists, does NOT follow a consistent logic, making the War on
Terror sound like hollow rhetoric. To a considerable extent, one can
see that we are now experiencing the kind of fear and unease which all
the middle-east people have endured;
Ahh, I guess I've gone beyond the 'point of reason' so I should just
shut-up; Have you read my post reply to ananymous under the pipeline
plot part one, in which I sent him part two of "Pipelineastan";
Recommended Food-for-Thought, if you are willing to keep a balanced
perspective; Course, you might not sleep so soundly afterwards, I
haven't, so think hard;
skye
sk...@nowhere.man
wrote:
><sk...@nowhere.man> wrote in message
>news:3c5b2b23....@news.echoweb.net...
>
>>
>> What is really disturbing is the similiarity to events in the 1950's.
>> The Involvement of the United States in Vietnam and South East Asia
>> started with U.S. Special Forces personel training the forces of the
>> South Vietnamese Army, and as part of that training, accompanied them
>> on combat patrols. (Consider this while reading over HR 3598. To put
>> it simply, it is a mandatory conscription bill. If passed, every male
>> citizen of age would be required to serve a term in the military. You
>> can view the text of the bill at www.thomas.loc.gov/).
>>
>
>I'll speak only to this part because it is an area I'm pretty familiar with.
>Bills like HR3598 are a dime a dozen. Members pander to certain
>constituencies by submitting bills they know have absolutely no chance of
>passage. They do it so they can say, "See, I tried!" That may not
>necessarily be the motivation behind this bill, but when I see one of this
>sort, it raises my suspicions. Take a lazy afternoon and browse some of the
>bills at Thomas that have been submitted over the last several years. When
>you're not scratching your head in bemusement or banging it against the
>table in frustration, you'll be laughing it off.
Thanks Mike, I 'get' it; That was sort-of my understanding about how
such things go, as I did do some deep digging once trying to find out
about some e-mail legislation in sub-committe/tentative bill process,
and it was a real morass, temporal black-hole; Time is much too tight,
'lazy afternoon', haven't had one in months; But that's OK, rather be
busy now and dead later;
My developing sense of this ongoing 'War' is it will surpass
Assasination-of-kennedy AND watergate and Vietnam and Heroin
Connection Re: deep deep secrets plots counterplots and extensive
long-range planning for many, many years to come (if anyone can still
read by then); I hope I'm just being cynical and bitter, at least
until I can shake-off my funk and realize I can't do fuck-all about
the state-of-the-world cept' maybe mind my little corner of it anyway,
drive in the correct lane, and don't stand-still too long 'less I
become a too-handy target;
Again, appreciate your insight/offer;
skye
Joshua P. Hill
>Hey Josh;
>Some more food for thought; What gets me is, the rationale for our
>airstrikes in Afghanistan, and now the ground-forces, is basically,
>"They are terrorists. They killed Americans on 9/11; They oppress
>their own people and want to convert the world to Islam. They are
>aligned with Palestinians. Palestinians are very bad too. There are
>interconnected groups of Terrorists cells. They are evil. They are
>plotting against us. We must defend oursleves against their attack,
>and thereby also save the world against their evil. The world is on
>our side because it is the side of justice. God is on our side,
>because they are infidels. We have all the proof we need to know, 100
>percent, that all this is true. Remember 9/11, and tremble. But we are
>strong, and will prevail." This is basically the level of discussion
>most Americans are capable of. If you prick their beliefs with a
>pointed observation suggesting we acted precipitously before we were
>sure the Taliban and AlQueda were conclusively identified as directly
>responsibility, they bristle as if you had insulted them, or worse,
>get downright hostile and defensive
I think there's a good reason for that hostility: it implies that we
*would* do such a thing. And I for one don't think we would. (In fact,
it turns out that the CIA had massive intelligence showing it was Al
Qaeda within one day of the attack -- and while it couldn't be
released to the public, it was passed on to the UK and Pakistan, who
publicly verified its existence.)
Cf. the Anthrax thing. A case where we genuinely didn't -- and don't
-- know who did it! And the government has never tried to pin it on Al
Quaeda, Saddam Hussein, or anyone else. They just admitted that we
still don't know.
Well, people get emotional in wartime. I've heard some fairly blood
chilling things myself, though, curiously, as I've said before, the
hatred seems to have come from friends *outside* New York.
But -- again, I think they're responding to something other than
specific questions along the lines of should we do a or should we do
b. They're responding to the insinuation that we would do what we've
done without a very, very strong reason.
I know that I've asked myself many times what we should do -- whether
a or b or c is justified or necessary. And I've had lots of
discussions with others, including some where I found myself on
different sides of the same argument at different times -- sort of a
reflection I think of the difficulties of the alternatives here. But
while I may not agree with everything the administration does, I've
never for a moment believed that they would kill people unnecessarily
or lie about whose responsible, and, once it became known that Al
Qaeda was definitely responsible (I thought so from the beginning, but
it was several days as I recall before the government made the
official call) there was never any doubt in my mind that we would have
to deal with Afghanistan. You can't have a group turning out thousands
of terrorists a year sworn to murder Americans -- not when the tools
they use have grown to include weapons that kill thousands at a blow,
and threaten to kill many more. It's just not tenable. And we did know
that most of those people were being trained in Afghanistan.
Actually, from my perspective, we've swallowed an awful lot --
thousands of innocent Americans killed over the years. And we've done
very little by way of response. That's not I think because we had any
moral compunction about responding, but because we just couldn't be
bothered with the lost lives/treasure/diplomatic fallout. Every time
we did do something, people around the world screamed that we were big
meanies. Trent Lott even accused Clinton of mounting an attack on Iraq
to divert attention from the impeachment business (and Americans
wonder why people in other countries think the American government is
sleazy!). And it's now widely recognized that that was a big mistake,
because if you let a bully get away with knocking your books into the
mud pretty soon he'll be stealing your lunch money as well. So one of
the main goals of the administration has been not to appear weak or
unwilling to shed American blood, and that ties in with the necessity
of sending a clear message to wavering dictators that they won't be
able to use terrorism as a surrogate way of working off their
aggresssions.
Which is something I've always been hugely in favor of -- going after
the creeps who run these countries, rather than the people in them!
>From a friend of mine:
>"What I saw of the speech was a replay on the news. What I found both
>disturbing and laughable was Dubya putting down countries because they
>were
>run by "a small group of unelected people" (pretty close to a direct
>quote)
>and using that as a justification for his jingoism. I thought, "Mr.
>President, you were not elected, and you were appointed by people who
>weren't
>elected [the Supreme Court]." On the other hand, I don't think Dubya
>has
>enough of a clue towards comprehending the irony, he's just a stupid
>cheerleader smiling dumbly at the wrong times and mouthing what he's
>told to
>say in blind trust of his oil baron daddy."
I tend to prefer to think of him as Forrest Gump these days!
You know, I disagreed with just about everything the administration
did from the time it stole office. But I think something happens to
even the stupid and political when they're faced with attack. It's
akin to what happened in New York. I've never seen anything like it.
In the days after September 11th, anyone would have given their lives
for anyone else. And I'm not exaggerating. The city that's probably
second only to Paris in the world rudeness contest was suddenly as
considerate as pre-Thatcher London. Even crime went down virtually to
zero.
That's something about human nature -- or maybe it's the American
character? -- that people seem to miss. It can be frivolous, corrupt,
even autolytic in times of peace. But when challenged, something gels.
Just look at the rapidity with which the administration and Congress
through out so many of their standard-issue political games. Suddenly
we're running a deficit, and no one cares. Government is growing, and
no one cares. (Except Bob Barr, but then, ever since Sonny Bono died,
he's definitely been the dimmest bulb in the House!)
>
>I could not have expressed that subtle but damning point any better.
>Perhaps that helps explain why I was actually ill watching Bush II in
>action, a masterful bigger-than-life strong-guy decorated veteran
Decorated veteran? He was a dodger, LOL -- got a political slot in the
National Guard and didn't even bother to show up most of the time!
>torpedo-bomber-pilot entrepeneur businessman oil-tycoon Texan good ol'
>boy WASP savvy politico Republican son of a president President: and
>he had the assembled Senate and House members and press and cameras
>eating out-of-his-hand, laying out how we're in the "decent fight" and
>"we will not stop until we have reached our objective," and "our
>mission is to insure the world will be free from terror," and "they
>can't hide forever...we will bring them to justice, in order to insure
>that our children (will not have to live in fear)", etc., thinking,
>boy, the people are just eating-it-up, he's got them hook, line,
>sinker, rod, bait pail, tackle box, fisherman, boat, trailer, parked
>pickup, earlier-that-day gas station, discount store, and cafe where
>the poor SOB had breakfast;
Hey, I've just come up with a new term: the Rorscharch Leader.
It's not that Bush is/isn't these things -- it's that the public
*needs* him to be these things, so they project them on him.
>I just can no longer "go along" with superficial explanations; We've
>endorsed a brutal oppressive regime that has substantially made
>middle-east peace impossible, by supporting Israel to the extent we
>have, which essentially IS a form of genocide, and so the
>song-and-dance rationale by which we do not, cannot think of ourselves
>as Terrorists, does NOT follow a consistent logic, making the War on
>Terror sound like hollow rhetoric.
In that we disagree. While I don't disagree with everything Israel has
done -- the West Bank settlements, forex, are scandalous, and from my
perspective we should have told the Israelis to drop them or get their
aid from somewhere else -- the overall history in the Middle East has
been one of the Arabs trying to push Israel into the sea, and I think
it would be unconscionable for the US or the rest of the
industrialized world to ignore that.
So too for the issue of terrorism. Terrorism isn't the same as the
unintentional killing of non-combatants, attacks aren't the same as
retaliation, neither terrorism nor war are the same as genocide, and
giving aid to a nation at war isn't the same as being a party to it.
One effaces these distinctions only at serious cost to one's ability
to keep some kind of world peace and order.
>To a considerable extent, one can
>see that we are now experiencing the kind of fear and unease which all
>the middle-east people have endured;
I'm not sure why you say all of them! Most countries in the Middle
East are at peace, and when they aren't, for the most part it has
nothing to do with us or Israel (Iraq invading Iran and Kuwait and
killing the Kurds, the USSR invading Afghanistan and then the Afghans
killing themselves, Jordan kicking out the PLO, the PLO destroying
Lebanon before the Israelis and then the Syrians took over, the
ghastly repression in the ex-soviet "stans," the internecine slaughter
in Algeria, the wars with Serbia, the wars with India, Somalia, the
Sudan, etc., etc.).
>Ahh, I guess I've gone beyond the 'point of reason' so I should just
>shut-up; Have you read my post reply to ananymous under the pipeline
>plot part one, in which I sent him part two of "Pipelineastan";
>Recommended Food-for-Thought, if you are willing to keep a balanced
>perspective; Course, you might not sleep so soundly afterwards, I
>haven't, so think hard;
Well, as my mother used to say, it's never a good idea to look too
closely at your food! :-)
Josh
Arthur McNutt
sk...@nowhere.man wrote:
[snip]
>
> I pray for Peace, Love and Wisdom for all peoples, especially in these
> terrible, troubling times, with war-clouds looming and saber-rattling
> voices booming promises and threats, making broad assertive,
> unsubstantiated and self-satisfied sweeping rationalizations, making
> emotional appeals that short-circuit considered response; I ask you to
> question the bias of your news sources, and be aware of your inherant
> presumptions, making an active, determined search for Truth instead of
> deferring to the convenience of swallowing a popular and
> easily-digestable lie, no matter what it is or where it comes from.
> Ask for, demand and seek reliable (knowledgeable) sources of news and
> information, and substantiation of assumptions, increasing your
> resource channels of news providers to insure a healthy degree of
> skepticism and a balanced viewpoint from more than one perspective.
> Remember the lesson of the Pentagon Papers? A public that doesn't
> pursue close source-point information with independant confirmation,
> and a range of viewpoints and interests, is much too easily co-opted
> and deceived by the agendas of powerful special-interest forces, we
> are effectively robbed of our citizen rights for participatory
> responsibility, even when the "popular, general explanation" emanates
> from the very heights of Governmental Power.
>
> Namaste; Peace
> Regrdz;
> skye
> 2.1.2002
Skye, what "rights" does a citizen have for participatory responsibility?
The same "rights" as a passenger in an airplane that's having trouble
with engine #3? Sure, you're gonna die if the pilot can't either restart
the engine or compensate for it--but what the hell you gonna do about it?
You want him to stand at the cabin door and count hands as he throws out
different suggestions?
"How many think the problem's in the oil pressure? Okay that's, um, six.
Okay, now; the co-pilot tells me he thinks it might be a problem with the
main turbo fan, if you think that's it raise your hand"
We probably had no business being in World War II. FDR's "Lend-Lease"
meant we were supporting the Allies and restricting trade with Germany.
That ain't neutral in anyone's book , and the embargo of Japan meant that
we WERE going to war against them, it was just a question of when.
Japanese boys and German boys dying with bullets that are stamped: Made
in the USA made it imperative that we be drawn in--Hitler and Tojo
couldn't allow America to turn a buck on the war and not have to pay the
price for it. There were people who stood in front of the Newsreel
cameras and said the same things you are saying here---long before the
crisis came. Were they right?
"'Course it's about the oil, Stupid." Just like it was "about the
economy, stupid." Carville's distillation doesn't mean what you think it
does, though. Clinton's minister of Propaganda was talking about an
economy that was already showing sings that it would be as strong as it
proved to be for the next ten years. There was no recession, never was,
and all the players knew it. Carville couldn't afford anything diluting
his message, though. In propaganda, reality is whatever you want it to
be--especially if you're good enough at it. If you can convince people
there is a problem with the economy, then there is, even if you later
show them there wasn't and isn't.
Take a look at the computer you're typing on. It's made out of oil
(plastic). The electricity it is using is being generated by burning oil
or coal, and the turbine's bearings are lubricated by oil. Think about
cars for a minute. They burn oil. They use oil for lubrication. The
streets they travel on are tar and asphalt mixed with concrete. Your
clothes, your shoes....why, you know what Skye? You are drenched in oil.
Silly America, everything we have, everything we do, it's all dependent
on oil.
Some bright boys in 1946 got the idea that we could use Atomic power as a
major energy source. Americans need a lot of power and there is a lot of
power, all you could ask for, in critical mass. Had we moved in that
direction we might not be using so much oil now--by factors of one
hundred. Some other bright boys foresaw that with that much power we
probably wouldn't need that relic from the 1920's called the automobile
anymore, either. Perhaps our roads themselves could transport us to and
from work and over to aunt Milly's for thanksgiving. The drawings, the
equations, the plans and speculations and dreams are still there, on the
shelf, gathering dust.
What happened? Well the United Auto Workers and the Detroit Big Three and
48 and later 50 state governments all decided the automobile was the best
thing that ever happened to mankind since the Burning Bush. Well, it DID
change our mating rituals significantly. UAW and the Big Three wanted to
keep cranking out their coffins with wheels, and the State Governments
wanted to keep pouring tar and oil on the pastures year after year after
year--State Representatives, State Senators and Governors like
controlling all that money and hiring all those people 'cause, well, that
gives 'em a built-in army of campaign workers each election cycle. It's
good to have a bunch of guys and gals whose paychecks depend on you
getting elected--they tend to be good, loyal friends. Later the Federal
Government got in the act with their Super Highways.
Just like babies, isn't it? Just so long as something warm is going down
the throat it's goooood.
Also, it turns out that Atomic Power is DANGEROUS. Everything in life is
a trade off. Funny thing is, though, a lot of environmentalists turn out
to be the most adamant detractors of Atomic Power. Seems that even though
it is clean and uses a fantastically small amount of non-renewable
resources--it's DANGEROUS. We all saw the Godzilla movies in the '50's
and if Atomic power plants can create Godzilla--well--none of us want any
part of THAT. Well, we won't build any more Atomic Power Plants
but...um...then what? Oh, I guess we'll keep burning oil, pouring tar all
over our pastures, keep drenching ourselves in oil until....well...until
it all runs out. And environmentalist along with the rest of us will
stand around and wring hands until that happens. Not much of a solution,
but at least oil isn't as DANGEROUS as Atomic Power.
It's all in the alternatives, Skye. What's your alternative? Turn your
back on oil and you have to turn your back on greed (all of your wants,
needs and desires). That sounds fine, until you understand the only one
among us Monkeys who understood what it means to turn your back on greed
wasn't Jesus, it was Lao Tzu. Personally, I think Jesus was imminently
more realistic, though I've given Lao's advice a spin and see many of the
benefits of his "way."
Sure there's solar power and hydrogen and lots of alternatives, some are
practical, some aren't. None of them are cheaper yet, and more expensive
means you won't have any beer money left over for Friday night. Might
even make your rent or mortgage check late now and again. Perhaps a mix
of all those and more, combined with conservation is the answer. But
quite a few of us, including me, wonder "if that's the answer, what the
hell is the question?"
The real question right now is what the hell are we to do about the fact
that tomorrow, on Super Bowl Sunday and Madi Gras in New Orleans, there
just might be a disguised soldier of Jihad in the crowds with a six pack
of beer that isn't a six pack of beer at all but six little aluminum
containers of cholera or plague infected fleas or maybe they're filled
with potassium chloride and a fuse?
The pilot may not be able to save us, after all. And that's a shame. But
society is like that and leadership is like that. Taking a vote now won't
help, it would be just one more problem the Captain has to deal with.
And, if you are an adult, you can quietly say to yourself that the damn
idiot shouldn't have taken us up here to 30,000 ft if this kinda thing
was possible, and the damn airlines should hire better mechanics, and the
damn airlines should buy new planes if these things are wearing out like
this and the damn government auter pass a law that airplanes ain't
allowed to crash anymore 'cause it really ain't fair and it's really
scary right now, and I really don't like being scared like this...
All you really can do, Skye, if you survive, is fly with a different
captain next time, or take the bus. Whining in the back of the plane
won't do you any more good than it will anyone else to hear you. Whether
it's all about the oil, stupid, or not is irrelevant. Nobody's got a
right to kill three thousand secretaries whose only crime was showing up
to work on time September 11th, 2001. Most of them, like you, had never
heard of Osama Bin Laden before that date, few were aware of the issues
that plague the Middle East.
Well, we're all getting a crash course in Middle Eastern Affairs right
now, which was the intention of the Al-Cowards in the first place. If ya
just kill 3,000 secretaries, people will listen to you. A guy named
Gavrilo Princip thought along the same lines and on June 28, 1914 in
Sarajevo he fired off two shots aimed at righting all the wrongs he
thought the imperialist pigs had done to him and his countrymen. Over the
next four years millions were killed by those two shots of his pistol,
and, not surprising considering the irrationality of the act in the first
place, his little county continued to be used and abused to this very
date 88 years later.
Let's kill all the Al-Cowards first, then let's have a discussion about
oil.
--
---
Art
------------------------------------------------------------
"The death of fear is in doing what you fear to do."
---Sequichie Comingdeer
Jeannekhan
Enron explains why 9-11 happened.
Business, as usual, with a PR twist.
Brilliant bit, distraction extraodinaire,
capping all other moves I've read about.
Only hubris may snag some because
every track seems covered by experts.
Am still laughing about the letters that
escaped the designated shredders..;>
Everyone benefits, related spending fuels
an economy sandbagged by early bush
bully pulpit seeding so he appears savior.
Remember he created two crises: economy and energy early on?
But maybe, just maybe, plain folks will
ask why the WH gang pleads for no
investigation or deep digging as to why,
how and who allowed 9-11 to happen
after years of deterence of so many like
plans. Had California and other states
kept on paying those 300 percent increases in energy costs, then Enron
would still be okay today, but some sued
and others finagled 100 per hour vice the
3000 per mega/hour that Enron et al's
long term plan and partnerships were
counting on, then gas fell to their surprise
even after the refinery fires and shut-offs
and excess natural gas piled up as folks
conserved more... tee hee. Best laid
plans blown meant big distraction okay.
Jeanne who does not take it personally
because it is only business, but the
truth may just out in our lifetime, yippee!
sk...@nowhere.man
Josh wrote, in part:
> think there's a good reason for that hostility: it implies that we
*would* do such a thing. And I for one don't think we would. (In fact,
it turns out that the CIA had massive intelligence showing it was Al
Qaeda within one day of the attack -- and while it couldn't be
released to the public, it was passed on to the UK and Pakistan, who
publicly verified its existence.)
What is this, rubber-stamp 'verification' supposed to be compelling?
Sorry, I don't buy it; "They endorse it, therefore, it must be true."
Nope, our standards have to be higher, more principled than that;
Pakistan and India were both well aware of US plans for the region,
long before 9/11. The Afghan War was decided long before 9/11; Plans
to destroy the Taliban had been the subject of international
diplomatic discussions as well as secret negotiation for months, in
some cases even years before 9/11. As the BBC reported, there was a
crucial meeting in Geneva in May 2001 between US State Department,
Iranian,
German and Italian officials, where the main topic was a strategy to
topple the Taliban and replace the theocracy with a "broad-based
government". The topic was raised again in full force at the Group of
Eight (G-8) summit in Genoa, Italy, in July 2001 when India, an
observer at the summit, also contributed its own plans along with
other major groups, well-invested partners in the pipline development
deal goin through as we sit in our isolated bubbles trying to
interpret their gameplan;
A quick look at the map shows that areas of terror in the Middle East
and Central Asia are practically interchangeable with the map of oil.
There's "Infinite Justice, Enduring Freedom - and Everlasting Profits"
to be made: not only by the American industrial-military complex, but
especially by American and European oil giants. India, Iran, Russia
and Israel are all involved in planning to supply oil and gas to South
and Southeast Asia through India. see:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/11/02
/ED90804.DTL
"It's About Oil," by Ted Rall, San Francisco Chronicle,
11/2/01.
It's quite sobering to realize that all countries or regions which
happen to be an obstacle to Pipelineistan routes towards the West have
been subjected either to direct interference or all-out war: Chechnya,
Georgia, Kurdistan, Yugoslavia and Macedonia. To the east, the key
problem areas are the Uighurs of China's far-western Xinjiang and,
until recently, Afghanistan
But a lot more than Afghanistan is involved. What's ultimately at
stake is the future development and control of Eurasia. Zbigniew
Brzezinski, stellar hawk and Jimmy Carter's former national security
adviser, used to wax lyrical on Eurasia: "Seventy-five percent of the
world population, most of its material riches, 60 percent of the
world's GNP, 75 percent of sources of energy, and behind the US, the
six most prosperous economies and the six largest military budgets."
Brzezinski is on record stressing that the US would have to make sure
"no other power would take possession of this geopolitical space".
Numbers don't lie. According to the United States Energy Information
Administration, in 2001 America imported an average of 9.1 million
barrels per day - over 60 percent of its crude oil needs. In 2020, the
country is projected to require almost 26 million barrels
per day in imports. That's right - 26 million barrels. So
Pipelineistan, a huge oil-supply and extensive petrochemical
extractive/development industry in the Caucasus and in Central Asia -
for the West and Japan but especially for America itself - has to be
of crucial strategic-military value.
According to the European press, an extensive oil-development and
distribution agreement was the central topic of secret negotiations in
a Berlin hotel a few days after the G-8 summit, between American,
Russian, Pakistani and German officials. Since then,
Pakistani high officials, on condition of anonymity, extensively
described a plan set up by American advisers at the end of July 2001,
consisting of military strikes against the Taliban from bases in
Tajikistan, to be launched before mid-October.
Turkmenbashi reaches out: http://atimes.com/c-asia/DA24Ag01.html
It's getting harder every day to avoid the obvious, that US
corporate-controlled media, from TV networks to daily newspapers, are
exercising extreme self-censorship in remaining persistently mute
about all of these connections. Our attention had become exlusively
occupied with the "War on Terrorism." Just in the last week, our
attention has been increasingly, if not completely, co-opted by an
overwhelming newsblitz dramatically emphasizing reasons to fear
domestic terrorism, featuring images of armed patrols and beefed-up
Homeland security measures to keep us "safe". The recently-discovered
computers/-files of information/photographs of Seattle environs and
details of the Superdome, recovered from an Ql-Qada cave/cache
complex, provide compelling 'evidence' that the US is an active
terrorist target, as too discovery of a copy of the "Manual of Afghan
Jihaad",11 Volume set, some 5000 pages, reputed to have been recieved
by an Associated Press reporter from a disaffected Al Quada soldier (I
think this is much too 'convenient' a find, with WTC reference, I
really suspect it mught be a plant, just TOO damn pat), pretty
conclusively backs that up, providing every reasonable incentive for
the US to pretty-much do "whatever" it deems in its self-interest; And
through it all, I find myself amazed at how easy we collectively are
led to "obvious" and self-evident conclusions, discouraged (prevented)
from making up our own minds because of the DANGER! signals and
threats we see to our way of life, and against everything we
'stand-for', unable to even frame the concept, "planted evidence";
Christ, are we so naive that we just conveniently forget the simple
tools of ruthless, single-minded, determined powerful people? To
ignore that Propoganda and false 'evidence', and diversion,
deflection, justifications, rationalizations, are all part of the
strategist's tool-box.
*How incredible, as I am writing these words just noow 10:34 PST, with
the cable-squwack box babbling on Foxnews channel, I am hearing the
conflation of "War on Terror", and "We have a duty to open up new
markets, provide new services to pay for our war effort, finance
domestic policy" while talking about upcoming budget considerations
vis-a-vis Republican and Democratic agendas (heard the President say
last night he wants to $120 Billion in extra Military expenditure in 5
years, AND doubling the Homeland Security budget! While
telling/warning Congress to exercise wise-restraint!
Alice-in-Wonderland, I can't believe this!), economic-stimulus
incentives, and I'm thinking, "shit, this is all moving so inexorably
towards the oil-pipeline project, getting the public attuned/aligned
by degrees with subtle suggestions, getting the wheels moving,
eventually there WILL be a public statement to the effect that to
rebuild Afghanistan we are going to invest in development projects,
build an oil pipeline to sell oil to east-asia and India and China,
and the public will say, what a good and noble idea, and I'm *seeing*
all this unfold right in front of me!!"
As I understand it, "Pipelineistan" is the unfolding plan of a "golden
future: a paradise of opportunity" in the form of US$5 trillion of oil
and gas in the Caspian basin and the former Soviet republics of
Central Asia, and with critical dominant US control of distribution of
resources, and powerful political influence in the region, possibly
with installation of large military/air-force bases. In Washington's
global petrostrategy, this would essentially result in America's oil
independence from (OPEC). This is the likely heart of the matter in
the New Great Game - compared to which the original 19th-century Great
Game between czarist Russia and the British Empire was a "childish tin
soldier's diversion."
For some years two different groups, each as rivals, had their own
pipeline plan through Afghanistan, such as for natural gas from the
former Soviet province of Turkmenistan. One pipeline consortium was
headed by Union Oil of California, UNOCAL, tightly linked financially
to the Bush Family.
Under the headline "World West Asia, Taleban in Texas for talks on gas
pipeline", December 4, 1997, the BBC reported that "A senior
delegation from the Taleban movment in Afghanistan is in the United
States for talks with an international energy company that wants to
construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to
Pakistan. A spokeman for the company, UNOCAL, said the Taleban were
expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in
Sugarland, Texas. UNOCAL says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan
to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it." The BBC reported that,
despite the civil war in Afghanistan, Unocal, heading an international
consortium, Centgas, was in competition with Bridas, an Argentinian
Firm, to build the $2 billion, 1,275-kilometer-long, 1.5-meter-wide
natural-gas pipeline from Dauletabad in southern Turkmenistan to
Karachi in Pakistan, via the Afghan cities of Herat and Kandahar,
crossing into Pakistan near Quetta. A $600 million extension to India
was also being considered. The dealings with the Taliban were
facilitated by the Clinton administration and the Pakistani Inter
Services Agency (ISI). But when the civil war in Afghanistan
escalated, UNOCAL pulled out.
American energy conglomerates, through the American Overseas Private
Investment Corp (OPIC), are now resurrecting this and other projects.
Last October, the UNOCAL-led project was discussed in Islamabad
between Pakistani Petroleum Minister Usman Aminuddin and American
Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain. The official statement reads: "The
pipeline opens up new avenues of multi-dimensional regional
cooperation, particularly in view of the recent geopolitical
developments in the region." see: Reconstructing Afghanistan - on oil
and gas: http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK24Ag01.html
UNOCAL also has a project to build the so-called Central Asian Oil
Pipeline, almost 1,700km long, linking Chardzhou in Turkmenistan to
Russian's existing Siberian oil pipelines and also to the Pakistani
Arabian Sea coast. This pipeline is projected to carry about 1 million
barrels of oil a day from different areas of former Soviet republics,
running
parallel to the gas pipeline route through Afghanistan.
Only nine days after Hamid Karzai's interim government took power in
Kabul, Bush II
appointed his special envoy to Afghanistan, Afghan-American Zalmay
Khalilzad, a former aide to the Californian energy giant UNOCAL. As it
is shaping up, the American "Afghan policy" is being conducted by
people intimately connected to oil industry interests in Central Asia.
Khalilzad, a long-time Taliban supporter, attempted to moderate the
perception of Taliban as being non-jihid. About a year ago, in line
with his new responsibilities and to distance his past position,
Khalilzad was reported in the Washington quarterly as advocating four
main reasons to get rid of the Taliban regime as soon as possible:
Osama bin Laden, opium trafficking, oppression of the Afghan people
and, last but not least, oil.
Afghan diaspora sources in Paris comment that Khalilzad, part of the
Afghan ruling elite through his father, an aide to King Zahir Shah,
will be regarded as a traitor by fiercely proud and independent
Afghans. Khalilzad was studying at the University of Chicago when
Afghanistan was invaded by the Red Army in December 1979. He became an
American citizen and a special adviser to the State Department during
the Reagan years. He was a strident lobbyist for more US military aid
to the mujahedeen during the anti-USSR jihad, campaigning for
widespread distribution of Stinger missiles.
Khalilzad was undersecretary of defense for Bush I, during the war
against Iraq. After a stint at the Rand Corp think tank, he headed the
Bush-Cheney transition team for the Defense Department and advised
Donald Rumsfeld. But he was not rewarded with any promotions. The
required Senate confirmation would raise extremely uncomfortable
questions about his role as UNOCAL adviser and staunch Taliban
defender. He was assigned instead to the National Security Council, no
Senate confirmation required, where he reports to National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Rice herself is a former oil-company consultant. During Bush I, from
1989-92, she was on the board of directors of Chevron, and was its
main expert on Kazakhstan. Chevron has invested more than $20 billion
in Kazakhstan alone. As for soft-spoken 'Invisible Man' Vice President
Dick Cheney, for five years he was a director of Halliburton, a major
top-three oil-patch company present in 130 countries, with 100,000
employees, turnover of almost $20 billion, a member of the Fortune
400. Cheney did a lot of business with the murderous Myanmar
dictatorship, and invested heavily in Nigeria.
Both Cheney and Bush II spent an important part of their careers in
Arbusto, a small company directed by Cheney. Arbusto never made money,
but was handsomely supported by very wealthy Saudis. Among the
shareholders there was one James Bath, very cozy with Bush I and chief
money launderer for shady Gulf superstars, including one Salem bin
Laden, one of the 17 brothers of Osama bin Laden.
All American secretaries of state since World War II have been
connected with the oil industry, except two. One of them is Colin
Powell, but in his case the president, vice president and national
security adviser are all part of the oil industry anyway. So everybody
in the ruling plutocracy knows the rules of the ruthless game: Central
Asia is crucial to Washington's worldwide petro-strategy. So is a
"friendly" government in Afghanistan, now led by the well-dressed and
fluent English speaker Hamid Karzai. As I said earlier, however,
Karzai is likely a closet-Taliban himself, and his Northern Alliance
Ministers are widely regarded as a bunch of crooks.
The oil behind Bush and Son's campaigns:
http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/CJ06Dj01.html
I really don't think the truth of who/what was really behind the WTC
suicide-bombing will EVER emerge. But, and this is a telling point, I
haven't seen ANY references or questions in the news media commenting
on the striking similiarity it bears to Operation Northwoods, (if you
don't know, recently declassified/released info made available thru
FIA) the secret Military contingency plan of staged hijackings of
commercial airliners' and suicide attack on military bases, nuclear
energy plants and/or civilian targets in order to justify/compell an
invasion war with Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis era;
"In 1962, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman
Lemnitzer, in collaboration with his Joint Chiefs colleagues, drew up
plans to attack American civilian & military targets, including
hijacking airliners, and destroying facilities, with full consciouness
that this would result in the deaths of American civilians and
military personnel. The objective: blame Cuba, to ignite a pretext
for invasion. We now know this plan as "Operation Northwoods."
Knowledge of this plan was secret for decades, but information about
it came out earlier this year."; see:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html
"Friendly Fire -- Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S.
Cities to Provoke War With Cuba," by David Ruppe, ABCNews.com, 5/1/01
That the government would even consider such a plan should tell you
something about how far we can "trust" the folks like CIA or NSA to
tell us what's 'true'. The Mossad is well known, for instance, of
staging murder, terror acts and espionage and attributing blame in
order to influence policy and justify retribution. It is entirely
conceiveable, if not more likely, that group or groups unknown
'staged' the WTC attack to force the US and it's Allies' hand, than
that it was done by the Al-Qaeda or Taliban, SINCE they would have
been the most likely culprits to be blamed; THAT IS, the Taliban and
Al-Qaeda had NOTHING to gain from the attack, as certain
curtain-of-destruction reprisals were sure to follow. In my eyes, the
official claim/conclusion is just too 'pat' and tidy, there are so
many divergent trails of alternative explanations that aren't being
pursued, as Washington has blocked the CIA away from investigating
Taliban/Al-Qada leads in Saudia Arabia (ie. who enlisted the WTC
hijackers) (and too, Saudia Arabia has staunchly resisted any
investigations, in fact won't grant intelligence agents/investigators
Visas.)
Consider this, Israel is a major (MAJOR) beneficiary (and there are
secondary, interested player beneficiaries too) of the US 'War on
Terror', in that the US has declared itself as a determined
protagonist and world-wide protector/guarantor of/for Peace. While the
US has essentially propped up Israel and served to insure it's
viability, security and influence (muscle) in the Mideast, the stakes
have suddenly become much, much greater, and effectively, we too have
now become an armed camp on the 'tough-love' long-time Israeli model,
as 'their' enemies have ALWAYS been 'our' enemies (that's what happens
when you're country is liberal with Military subsidies/appropriations,
some $100 million a year or so?) with Government "Security Alerts",
armed soldiers in the streets, sports stadiums (!!), public malls,
airports; The present domestic climate of fear, anxiety, and extreme
suspician (witness the extreme news-coverage and commentary of
security measures at the New Orleans Superbowl 36 "National Security
Special Event") and 24/7 round-the-clock 5-month "Crisis Coverage" and
"Weekend Special" national cable-news programs, "The Network Americans
Trust" with topics as diverse as "On alert for the New and Unknown",
"Potassium Iodide should be taken within one hour of a nuclear
contamination in order to be effective", and "Do you think Americans
are adequately protected against any terrorist dangers?" type
questions, and public fact of a 1.5 billion-dollar boost to NIH for
bioterrorism protection, and concern over food-pathogens, discussion
about recombinant vaccine development, and announcing plans for new
Anthrax plants and military Stage 4 biolabs, all have a terrible and
dramatic impact, making terror a common everyday local immediate and
personal issue, all of which does NOT encourage questioning ANY
contradictory information or assumptions. The American public is so
thoroughly captivated by the attention and mock-rational horror/fear
given to "Terrorists," like painting them as another species of
Aliens, that the mass public it has been whipped-into a
fever-state-pitch of unreasoning aggressive and reactionary emotion in
which the prevailing "common-cause" is the unqualified and complete
justification, determination to "Destoy all Terrorists!." "Show no
Mercy!" and "All Muslims are potential Terrorists!"
Think about it. One-fifth of the world's population is Islamic. A
billion people, give or take a couple hundred million.
In light of the past extensive discussions regarding oil development
between UNOCAL and the Taliban, as recently as 1997, I just cannot
understand what could have changed, why, or how, the Taleban would
have so completely changed 'sides', as it were, and adopted such a
monstrous plot, which has no long-term possibility of success or
benefit associated with it, except for some ambigious meaning about
"dying for Allah"; It just doesn't make sense; Compound this with the
White House stonewalling to refuse to release any and all past
Whitehouse Energy Taskforce records/energy policy reports,
specifically of the Bush I administration (as I understand this issue)
claiming/arguing irrationally that such releases as required by
current law as the GAO argues, and which all previous administrations
have accomodated, would seriously jeopardize future negotiations and
energy policy practices. Along with many other Americans, I simply do
not understand this extreme insistence on Executive secrecy
priveleges. There are indications to support suspician that such
records would substantially prove that the Afghan War was designed,
planned-for well in advance of 9/11. IF THIS IS TRUE, then any attacks
against the perpetrators of such plans would follow the same logic of
self-defense which the US argues justifies any and all actions it
deems necessary to insure its OWN security. This whole response
attitude is a slippery-slope of the worst kind, as under the
general-umbrella of "War on Terror", precedence is made and the stage
is set for the non-recognition of National Sovereignity issues by a
sufficiently equipped, mobilized and motivated military of any global
Superpower Nation. (In a very real sense, we have become that which we
so stridently oppose.) This is a brand-new-chapter, being written as
history unfolds, perhaps appropriately entitled Co-optive
International Relations. Along with the Bush II administrations
soft-shoe denials of any complicity with knowledge of Enron's
collapse, or why oversight/enforcement was so lax and the Justice
Department did not act in an expeditious manner to prevent the
bankruptcy loss of thousands of employee retirement funds, several
hundred million dollars, but dragged its collective foot and watched,
with a blind eye to Justice, as the records/paper-trail of fraud and
deceit was meticulously shredded, and millions of dollars were
transferred to offshore shell companies by top executives bailing out
with whatever they could carry. It seems to me, the rhetoric and
'evidence' of terrorism and the single-minded determination which it
engenders, with attendant co-option of the newsmedia, all act to make
past deals or evidence of meticulous Energy-policy scheming to become
a "non-issue", crowded out of our consciousness by the mood of
Patriotic ferver that has replaced reason and compassion from our
collective psyche; The official Government policy is, "We need to
maintain a high state of vigilance for a long time to come." In such a
context, the draconian whittling-away of our civil liberties through
the repressive Patriot Anti-Terrorist Legislation is explained as a
small price to pay for our security, when from another perspective,
it's just a handy bonus. Essentially, it must be recognized, that our
determination to prop-up a brutal and oppressive regime in the
middle-east that arguably institutionalized terrorism and
counterterrorism as national policy, has had a very high price, as we
are now paying the cost of having armed Israel and subsidizing its
bloodshed by proxy, by fighting the PLO within our own borders.
>Of. the Anthrax thing. A case where we genuinely didn't -- and don't -- know who did it! And the government has never tried to pin it on Al Quaeda, Saddam Hussein, or anyone else. They just admitted that we still don't know.
But it's curious, isn't it, that there hasn't been any reportage of
the anthrax; Carlyle Group connection, of an identical strain of
powdered formula some 10 orders (or more, I'll have to
check my records) of magnitude greater than naturally-occurring
varieties; (this letter 'reply' is getting long and unweildy, so
perhaps I'll address better later sometime)
>Actually, from my perspective, we've swallowed an awful lot -- thousands of innocent Americans killed over the years. And we've done very little by way of response
Josh, you are a very perceptive and well-read, educated, thoughtful
person. We all know that. In addition, you are "placed", by virtue of
your citizenship and evident 'fact' of means to make use of a wide
range of resources, as off course too access through the net to an
incredible profundity of information sources; Those undisputable facts
place a special duty of responsibility on those of us likewise, so
that there is NO legitimate excuse for our refusal, unwillingness or
plain stubborn resistance, against using our brains and our access to
information to insure we maximize our intelligent and principled
behavior, and to know, or at least to make a strong effort to know,
what is done by our government in our defacto name. If you truly
choose to be completely unaware, and wish to absolve yourself of any
responsibility for the oppressive policies and coercive practices
which are the result of US Foreign Policy actions. The cost, in terms
of lives lost, may be incalculable, but for that or any other reason
they're certainly not insignificant. A partial list (and I WILL make
an effort to think and write on this further) would include: Victims
of environmental degradation and pollution from US based corporations,
industrial injuries, illnesses and deaths from unsafe, dangerous
practices US based corporations, victims of deaths, injury from US
supplied arms, cost of death, injury of US manufactured LandMines
still in place, up to 40 years later (Indochina), victims of US
trained/supplied/subsidized Death-squads in Argentina. Nicaragua,
Chile, deaths, injuries due to US Foreign policy/proxy, Invasion of
Nicaragua, oppressive social institutions in Third World Nations, etc.
(to be continued)(unfortunately)
I mean brother Josh, aren't you being a *bit* naive here? We trained
the Salvadoran and Guatamelan repressive/brutal regimes/goon squads,
provided high-tech arms and ammunition, taught them vicious
interrogation practices, how to wipe-out an indigeneous village with
bulldozers, leave not a trace, lessons learned in Indochina and
refined since, 'we' collectively share the guilt for tens (thousands?)
of 'dissapeared; Do you THINK 'we' are lilly-white, innocents? That we
don't share the blame for Israeli-caused dead Palestinian women,
children, paid-for with our Billions? Do you suppose because 'we'
didn't pull the triggers, that everything is just hunky-dory? Why do
you suppose third-world nations have confidence in their OWN "JUST
CAUSE" belief that Americans are least of all NOT 'not guilty'? Have
you ever heard of Indonesia, and the Phillipines, where 'our' support
of undemocratic institutions, propped-up to provide cheap acquiescant
labour for US based corporations, leading to unrest and repressive
police violence and deaths of hundreds, thousands, makes you somehow
not 1/5,000,000 "guilty as indicated"???
In my extremely controversial "Reality Check @ 2000 ft. per Second" I
adressed the issue of our foreign policy coming back and biting us in
the ass; Nobody wanted to hear it, consider it, but that doesn't make
soimething untrue;
NOW, war has come 'home' and we feel what it's like to bury our tragic
dead; Can you understand, that for many, many, many sons, daughters,
husbands, wives, fathers, grandchildren, mothers, grandparents, that
they might be justified in thinking "how sad, but it's about time".
Reality check indeed; Wake up and smell the bloated, burning bodies;
War and murder, intolerance and hate are always stupid, tragic and
just wrong; We've succumbed to the temptation to glorify our valiant
armed forces as the strong right-hand of God, and for that conceit
there's ALWAYS a price, because it gives us a rationale to not
consider the point-of-view from those who are struck-down by our
(bought and paid for) bullets;
Do you think it might be true:?
Eliminate the oil, and the American presence ends in the area; the
resentment aimed at our land and our people also ends.
"The mainstream media is pro-war and full-of-opinions;"
Hardly anything controversial in THAT!
As the poet said, "a hard rain's gonna fall."
"What's it all about?"
The Raven said, "It's the oil, stupid."
Check out:
http://geocities.com/oppositeland/bush.html
And, on Enron and US Energy policy:
http://www.angelfire.com/nb/enron/
http://www.angelfire.com/nb/enron
It needed sayin', but (for now) Nuff sed;
Peace and Love (and wisdom) is my hope for all;
Deep Regrdz;
skye
2.2.2002
ars longa, vita brevis
<clik>
Joshua P. Hill
There's been lots of talk about the Taliban and Al Qaeda for quite
some time. Nothing secret about that -- it's been widely reported in
the press -- and nothing surprising, considering the role of bin Laden
in the embassy bombings, the destruction of the Cole, and so forth.
But the fact that there *was* such talk doesn't effect the question of
when the US had evidence linking Al Qaeda to the WTC one way or the
other, any more than (say) discussions of military action against
Japan before Pearl Harbor would have meant that the US had no evidence
that it had bombed Pearl Harbor.
I doubt very much that Blair, Mushareff, and others would have been
willing to put their imprimateur on false evidence. Can you imagine
the White House callilng up a bunch of foreign countries, including
the country that was closest to the Taliban, and feeling them out over
whether they would join in such a lie? The probability that one or
another of the countries would have said "no, that's ridiculous" and
gone public with the information would have been too high.
So too the probability that someone in the many agencies involved
would eventually blow the whistle, as in the Pentagon Papers or
Iran-Contra.
Anyway, my information here is based in part upon Woodward's fairly
detailed account in the Washington Post -- and Woodward is hardly a
patsy. To have pulled the wool over his eyes about that evidence, they
would have had to completely synchronize the story between multiple
sources, never an easy thing to do, and done it on a massive scale --
because his account is quite detailed, and includes a lot of things
that are dependent on the element of suprise, including the fact that
the Pentagon was ordered to draw up new plans to fit the
circumstances.
But -- above all -- had they pinned the atrocity on bin Laden and then
discovered that someone else had done it -- what the hell would they
have done then?
Nah, even if they were that evil, they wouldn't be that dumb.
>A quick look at the map shows that areas of terror in the Middle East
>and Central Asia are practically interchangeable with the map of oil.
>There's "Infinite Justice, Enduring Freedom - and Everlasting Profits"
>to be made: not only by the American industrial-military complex, but
>especially by American and European oil giants. India, Iran, Russia
>and Israel are all involved in planning to supply oil and gas to South
>and Southeast Asia through India. see:
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/11/02
>/ED90804.DTL
>"It's About Oil," by Ted Rall, San Francisco Chronicle,
>11/2/01.
Ted Rall? The same Ted Rall who depicted John Q. Public not actually
caring about the WTC and getting their rocks off on the bombing?
Not the members of the public I know, several of whom have told me
that it was only recently that they stopped getting teary when they
thought about the WTC!
But my gripe against Rall, whose cartoons I used to enjoy, aside, why
does the fact that there's oil somewhere, or strategic importance, or
any of these things, have any bearing one way or the other? One can
always imagine such things, but barring evidence that that's actually
what happened, and I haven't seen any, I don't think it's more than
that.
>It's quite sobering to realize that all countries or regions which
>happen to be an obstacle to Pipelineistan routes towards the West have
>been subjected either to direct interference or all-out war: Chechnya,
>Georgia, Kurdistan, Yugoslavia and Macedonia. To the east, the key
>problem areas are the Uighurs of China's far-western Xinjiang and,
>until recently, Afghanistan
This is numerology, I think . . .
>But a lot more than Afghanistan is involved. What's ultimately at
>stake is the future development and control of Eurasia. Zbigniew
>Brzezinski, stellar hawk and Jimmy Carter's former national security
>adviser, used to wax lyrical on Eurasia: "Seventy-five percent of the
>world population, most of its material riches, 60 percent of the
>world's GNP, 75 percent of sources of energy, and behind the US, the
>six most prosperous economies and the six largest military budgets."
>Brzezinski is on record stressing that the US would have to make sure
>"no other power would take possession of this geopolitical space".
What's left after Eurasia? South America, Africa, Australia, and
Antarctica? Eurasia has been the focus of world affairs for thousands
of years.
>Numbers don't lie. According to the United States Energy Information
>Administration, in 2001 America imported an average of 9.1 million
>barrels per day - over 60 percent of its crude oil needs. In 2020, the
>country is projected to require almost 26 million barrels
>per day in imports. That's right - 26 million barrels. So
>Pipelineistan, a huge oil-supply and extensive petrochemical
>extractive/development industry in the Caucasus and in Central Asia -
>for the West and Japan but especially for America itself - has to be
>of crucial strategic-military value.
Even if it were -- and the general consensus is that the main argument
the world powers have over Afghanistan is how not to end up with it --
that wouldn't in and of itself be a determing factor.
>According to the European press, an extensive oil-development and
>distribution agreement was the central topic of secret negotiations in
>a Berlin hotel a few days after the G-8 summit, between American,
>Russian, Pakistani and German officials. Since then,
>Pakistani high officials, on condition of anonymity, extensively
>described a plan set up by American advisers at the end of July 2001,
>consisting of military strikes against the Taliban from bases in
>Tajikistan, to be launched before mid-October.
>Turkmenbashi reaches out: http://atimes.com/c-asia/DA24Ag01.html
>
>It's getting harder every day to avoid the obvious, that US
>corporate-controlled media, from TV networks to daily newspapers, are
>exercising extreme self-censorship in remaining persistently mute
>about all of these connections.
? The allegations you mention, which IIRC have been denied, were
reported widely in the American press.
>That the government would even consider such a plan should tell you
>something about how far we can "trust" the folks like CIA or NSA to
>tell us what's 'true'. The Mossad is well known, for instance, of
>staging murder, terror acts and espionage and attributing blame in
>order to influence policy and justify retribution. It is entirely
>conceiveable, if not more likely, that group or groups unknown
>'staged' the WTC attack to force the US and it's Allies' hand, than
>that it was done by the Al-Qaeda or Taliban, SINCE they would have
>been the most likely culprits to be blamed; THAT IS, the Taliban and
>Al-Qaeda had NOTHING to gain from the attack, as certain
>curtain-of-destruction reprisals were sure to follow.
!
The same thing could be said about Iraq invading Kuwait, or the
Japanese invading Pearl Harbor, or for that matter Johnson, who we now
know was convinced from the start that the war in Vietnam was a lost
cause, escalating that conflict.
Bin Laden and Mullah Omar have made their reasoning clear. They
thought the United States had grown weak. They wanted to trap US
troops in the Hindu Kush and destroy them, as (they believed) they had
destoryed the army of the other superpower. They fully expected the US
to invade.
> In my eyes, the
>official claim/conclusion is just too 'pat' and tidy, there are so
>many divergent trails of alternative explanations that aren't being
>pursued, as Washington has blocked the CIA away from investigating
>Taliban/Al-Qada leads in Saudia Arabia (ie. who enlisted the WTC
>hijackers) (and too, Saudia Arabia has staunchly resisted any
>investigations, in fact won't grant intelligence agents/investigators
>Visas.)
That's the Saudis trying to cover their butts as usual. Things aren't
precisely good between the US and Saudi governments right now.
>Consider this, Israel is a major (MAJOR) beneficiary (and there are
>secondary, interested player beneficiaries too) of the US 'War on
>Terror', in that the US has declared itself as a determined
>protagonist and world-wide protector/guarantor of/for Peace. While the
>US has essentially propped up Israel and served to insure it's
>viability, security and influence (muscle) in the Mideast, the stakes
>have suddenly become much, much greater, and effectively, we too have
>now become an armed camp on the 'tough-love' long-time Israeli model,
>as 'their' enemies have ALWAYS been 'our' enemies (that's what happens
>when you're country is liberal with Military subsidies/appropriations,
>some $100 million a year or so?)
Unless things have changed, we're much more generous with the Israelis
than that. But we're even more generous with the Arab world, something
the Arabs find it convenient to forget, because they'd have to explain
how they keep losing to Israel with superior forces. It's an ego thing
. . . and the most convenient way out is to blame us.
I'm not sure how you get from A to B. It's been made abundantly clear
that this is not a war against Islam, but against "terror with an
international reach." Were it a war against Islam, it would take quite
different form.
And no one sane is suggesting making war on 1/5 of the world's
population.
As to the terrorist threat, I live might near a hole which makes it
real enough for me!
>In light of the past extensive discussions regarding oil development
>between UNOCAL and the Taliban, as recently as 1997, I just cannot
>understand what could have changed, why, or how, the Taleban would
>have so completely changed 'sides', as it were, and adopted such a
>monstrous plot, which has no long-term possibility of success or
>benefit associated with it, except for some ambigious meaning about
>"dying for Allah"; It just doesn't make sense
Well, if the Taliban is so sensible, why didn't they just give up bin
Laden when we asked them to? It would have been damned hard for us to
justify going in there if they had.
For that matter, if the Taliban is so sensible, why did they have
religious police walking around with whips to use on children who flew
kites or women who tried to send their daughters to school? We're
dealing with serious nutcakes here, fanatics of the simplest sort.
>; Compound this with the
>White House stonewalling to refuse to release any and all past
>Whitehouse Energy Taskforce records/energy policy reports,
>specifically of the Bush I administration (as I understand this issue)
>claiming/arguing irrationally that such releases as required by
>current law as the GAO argues, and which all previous administrations
>have accomodated, would seriously jeopardize future negotiations and
>energy policy practices. Along with many other Americans, I simply do
>not understand this extreme insistence on Executive secrecy
>priveleges. There are indications to support suspician that such
>records would substantially prove that the Afghan War was designed,
>planned-for well in advance of 9/11. IF THIS IS TRUE, then any attacks
>against the perpetrators of such plans would follow the same logic of
>self-defense which the US argues justifies any and all actions it
>deems necessary to insure its OWN security. This whole response
>attitude is a slippery-slope of the worst kind, as under the
>general-umbrella of "War on Terror", precedence is made and the stage
>is set for the non-recognition of National Sovereignity issues by a
>sufficiently equipped, mobilized and motivated military of any global
>Superpower Nation. (In a very real sense, we have become that which we
>so stridently oppose.)
Well, I agree -- if we start violating national sovereignity to build
pipelines. But I don't see any evidence whatsoever that we did.
?
>>Of. the Anthrax thing. A case where we genuinely didn't -- and don't -- know who did it! And the government has never tried to pin it on Al Quaeda, Saddam Hussein, or anyone else. They just admitted that we still don't know.
>
>But it's curious, isn't it, that there hasn't been any reportage of
>the anthrax; Carlyle Group connection, of an identical strain of
>powdered formula some 10 orders (or more, I'll have to
>check my records) of magnitude greater than naturally-occurring
>varieties; (this letter 'reply' is getting long and unweildy, so
>perhaps I'll address better later sometime)
Note that the Binladen group was a part owner of the company that
makes anthrax vaccine.
Skye, you can take this sort of thing too far! There's dirty stuff
going on all the time. But there are also limits, both practical and
moral, on the dirt.
But Skye -- what about the Israeli women and children who the
Palestinians are murdering? I think it says something that you include
one set of women and children, and not the other . . .
As to our role in these things, yes -- but you fail to ask what we
were supposed to do. Oh, I'd be the first to criticize our involvement
in any number of adventures. But the sorry fact remains that just
about every third world government is brutal and atrocious, that just
about every third world revolutionary movement is even worse. We can't
change these governments without ignoring national sovereignity and
making enemies of much of the world, and we *need* these governments
-- as strategic allies, suppliers of oil, and so forth.
Just look at what's happened since September 11th. Since the attack,
we've been forced to change our tune on Russian abuses in Chechnya.
We've been forced to tone down our rhetoric on China. We've been
forced to join forces with any number of horribly repressive -stans.
We've been forced to lift our sanctions against India and Pakistan,
which will now feel vindicated in having spent the money of their
half-starved citizens to create a nuclear "deterrent" which only
reduces the security of both sides.
But those are the realities of the situation. We needed those bases.
We need their intelligence and help. And so the little we were willing
or able to do to improve things in these governments has gone down the
tubes.
>
>NOW, war has come 'home' and we feel what it's like to bury our tragic
>dead; Can you understand, that for many, many, many sons, daughters,
>husbands, wives, fathers, grandchildren, mothers, grandparents, that
>they might be justified in thinking "how sad, but it's about time".
NO. I have never felt that way, nor has anyone I know ever felt that
way. I have never seen Americans expressing joy at the suffering of
others, as those celebrating Palestinians did after the 11th. I have
never taken pleasure in acts of terror anywhere in the world, and I
don't know anybody who has, except maybe Dale, and you likely know how
I feel about that.
>Reality check indeed; Wake up and smell the bloated, burning bodies;
>
>War and murder, intolerance and hate are always stupid, tragic and
>just wrong; We've succumbed to the temptation to glorify our valiant
>armed forces as the strong right-hand of God, and for that conceit
>there's ALWAYS a price, because it gives us a rationale to not
>consider the point-of-view from those who are struck-down by our
>(bought and paid for) bullets;
>
>Do you think it might be true:?
>Eliminate the oil, and the American presence ends in the area; the
>resentment aimed at our land and our people also ends.
Oh yeah, but you'd have to eliminate Israel, too, because there's a
powerful moral problem there. And, the thing is, you can't eliminate
the oil. Even if we were wise enough to go for energy independence --
and I don't think we are -- the rest of the world would have a much
harder time of it.
As I understand it, one of the first things our European allies asked
for after the 11th was reassurance that we *wouldn't* abandon the
Middle East.
Skye, we're stuck with it -- stuck with being the biggest guy around,
until China takes over that mantle -- and may that wonderful day come
as soon as possible! We learned the hard way in the early 20th Century
that isolationism doesn't work, and so we're stuck. If 20 nations go
to war, we'll get the blame. If 20 nations are faced with a shared
responsibility, 19 will bow out, knowing that we'll be enough. If we
side with one side, the other will hate us, and if we try to be
impartial, they'll either gripe that we aren't doing enough or are
favoring the other side. And everywhere there's misery, corrupt
politicians and stupid theocrats and horrid dictators will find it a
lot better for their purses and necks to blame us than to accept the
blame themselves. And the sorry truth is, I don't think there's much
that we can do about it . . . though I certainly think we could be
doing *more.*
That, not their day-to-day handling of the war, is the big gripe I
have with the Bush administration. It's the "vision thing" all over
again. They're superb businessmen, superb bureaucrats -- but in the
practical manner of American businessmen, they're managing localities,
without envisioning eventualities.
Josh
Arthur McNutt
sk...@nowhere.man wrote:
> Josh wrote, in part:
>
> > think there's a good reason for that hostility: it implies that we
> *would* do such a thing. And I for one don't think we would. (In fact,
> it turns out that the CIA had massive intelligence showing it was Al
> Qaeda within one day of the attack -- and while it couldn't be
> released to the public, it was passed on to the UK and Pakistan, who
> publicly verified its existence.)
>
> What is this, rubber-stamp 'verification' supposed to be compelling?
> Sorry, I don't buy it; "They endorse it, therefore, it must be true."
> Nope, our standards have to be higher, more principled than that;
My Dad brought back a German helmet from WW II. It had the name Hermann written on the inside liner.
I asked him how he got it, and quite evasively, I realized later, he told me he "just found it lying around. Eh--they were everywhere."
Dad was a combat medic with the 1st Armored Division. They were at Kasserine Pass when Rommel launched a counter attack and almost drove the allies from Tunisia back to Casablanca. After that, they were under Patton through the
rest of the North African Campaign and the Drive Though Sicily and he got himself transferred right after the bloody Anzio landings in Italy. He was awarded the Silver Star for killing a German Machinegun team single-handedly
with a grenade. He deserved it because he had had to traverse about a 100 yards of open hillside terrain in order to get close enough to blow the living guts out of those two Germans. A few others had already tried and had
gotten only 10 feet before they were mowed down.
Was Hermann a Nazi? Most of those who fought under Rommel were NOT, as Rommel himself was not. He had been given the dregs and left overs of the War Machine. As a result they fought a different species of war than their comrades
fighting in Russia. For a time there in the desert, it would be true to say some Englishmen had gathered more respect for Rommel and his men than they had for their own commanders and there own army.
I have a feeling my Dad pulled it off Hermann's lifeless head as a trophy. I think he killed Herman. Maybe hand to hand, maybe he shot Hermann in the back. Maybe he blew him up with a grenade, though the helmet didn't have a
scratch on it. Maybe he bayoneted him, as my Dad was good with a knife and taught all three of his boys twenty years later the basics of knife fighting.
What kind of trial did Hermann receive? Did he have the counsel of his choice? He probably wasn't a Nazi and would have been shocked at what had been going on at Dacau for the past year. Hermann may have been drafted. He might
have had Jews in his family tree.
You calling my Dad a murderer?
Well sure, back then Monkeys were stupid enough to wear uniforms. Even the uniforms of their own country. In China, it is an open secret that most of the North Vietnamese Army (after 1968) were in reality members of the Army of
the People's Republic of China dressed in NVA uniforms. As big as China is, most have relatives or know people who died or were maimed in Vietnam. They were never there officially, our Government never called them on it, though
we knew, but the people in China know, just ask one (quietly).
They are all Pirates out there, they fly the Jolly Roger, but they keep a whole panoply of flags on board, 'cause they know it'll confuse us just enough, just long enough to get done what they want done. Osama Bin Laden wants to
be King of Saudi Arabia, for instance, and if the World Trade Center had just hung tough and not collapsed, he might well have gotten the job done.
Yemen can claim not to know anything about what happened to the Cole. Afghanistan can claim they were being run by the Taliban. Saudi Arabia can claim plausible deniability. And this is why, NO ONE has ever bit into the shit
sandwich of fighting terrorism before (except tactically). Those who fight it will be known as murderers and pirates. Like going into Cambodia to clear out the murdering cockroaches hiding behind international convention along
the Ho Chi Minh trail---YOU will be the international criminal if you do so---YOU are the the one in the wrong. Whoever fights terrorism will be accused of being in bed with the ones they are killing. It is a hypocritical
undertaking at best. But so it is with all wars, and while I may be wise enough to realize I am no more moral than the enemy, better him than me 'cause I was sleeping in my bed 9/11/01, just like they were sleeping 12/7/41.
It goes with the territory 'cause the evidence we have will be on the order of what a Mafioso has to justify a hit. Looks like, smells like, it must be, and if not, well this is hardball. And if I don't hit him now...well
there's lots more secretaries running around with targets on their foreheads. In the end, the friend of my enemy is my enemy. You act like it hasn't always been this way.
Thanks Dad. Hermann, rest in peace, old son. Turns out the World was far better off without you. Not that we're any great shakes either...
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 2002-02-03 amcn...@home.com said:
>My Dad brought back a German helmet from WW II. It had the name
>Hermann written on the inside liner.
>
> [...snip...]
Oops! Art, your software's 'preferences' setting
might have changed. Once again, it appears that a
CR/LF sequence is not being generated at the auto-
linewraps. Wasn't able to see all of this message. :(
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>Well sure, back then Monkeys were stupid enough to wear uniforms. Even the uniforms of their own country. In China, it is an open secret that most of the North Vietnamese Army (after 1968) were in reality members of the Army of
>the People's Republic of China dressed in NVA uniforms. As big as China is, most have relatives or know people who died or were maimed in Vietnam. They were never there officially, our Government never called them on it, though
>we knew, but the people in China know, just ask one (quietly).
My understanding is that we suspected the Chinese were involved at the
time, but didn't get confirmation until with the last few years. It
seems there were as many Chinese in North Vietnam as Americans in the
South, and that the Russians flew the North Vietnamese MIGs as they
had in the Korean War. But neither crossed the border, since, among
other things, their capture would have blown their cover.
Josh
Arthur McNutt
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
I knew guys who were over there who found evidence of such and tried to pass it up the chain of command, thinking it was a pretty damn important development. They (I know two individuals, pretty anecdotal 'cept they don't even know
each other) were told that Division wasn't interested and they had better fuckin forget about it good, and just keep their damn noses clean if they knew what was good for 'em.
Especially in light of the EP-3 incident, the United States has never and most likely will never acknowledge that the PRC fought United States Soldiers masquerading in NVA uniforms.
I assume they crossed the border frequently since many were killed and maimed. No PRC ID was ever found on any bodies. As for the Russian pilots, I've also heard rumors of the same. They never crossed the border, but then, this
would have been suicide for them, where it was merely extremely dangerous for our pilots to fly north.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>I knew guys who were over there who found evidence of such and tried to pass it up the chain of command, thinking it was a pretty damn important development. They (I know two individuals, pretty anecdotal 'cept they don't even know
>each other) were told that Division wasn't interested and they had better fuckin forget about it good, and just keep their damn noses clean if they knew what was good for 'em.
Interesting. I wonder why? Because it would have made the war seem
even more hopeless in the public eye?
Josh
Arthur McNutt
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
Bingo, in part. Nixon also wanted to maintain the secrecy because China was key to Vietnam either way. After the Mongolian incident in 1968 we knew that China was entering the war with her own troops and China and Russia were no longer
allies. Nixon also knew that he could afford nothing getting in the way of the UN deal he was cooking. Getting China in the UN meant the end of the Vietnam war, Period. That is if Nixon coulda' kept the presidency.
If he woulda played it any other way the war would REALLY have escalated. Instead, despite how the boys and girls who got their feelings from anti war rallies would have it, Nixon was able to solve Vietnam and pull troops out steadily
for almost his entire term. I believe he foresaw China could be a neutral friend in the cold war, and in a cold war, a neutral friend could be as good as an ally.
Let them keep their cowardly lie. They didn't want a repeat of Korea anymore than anyone else. But they were no going to allow S. Vietnam. Nixon changed their minds and who knows what was right or wrong it worked...almost.
Arthur McNutt
Pesky HTML was set for outgoing messages. I should be typing in raw text
now with a default of 72 character line breaks. If this isn't getting
and staying better I'll switch back to MT Newsreader. Damn Netscape does
some stuff well, at some stuff it stinks. The price was right, though...
sk...@nowhere.man
Hey Arthur;
Your letter of yesterday just blew me away; I read it and, it just
caught me at the right time, when I was trying to clear my vision, and
it was like the doubt and darkness and anxiety and cloudiness I've
been fighting with in my own way just started lifting, and I managed
an astonishingly-liberating kind of breakthrough allowing me to see
things in a real bright, sharp light. This letter, yours, confirmed
the truth of what I saw. I may not be expressing this very well, but
it's like a cloud has lifted, and while I haven't abandoned my
compassion for all the PDB's on all sides of various borders, looking
forward as you suggested, I can actually see honour and virtue in the
struggle that lies ahead. I really DO see this united stand we're
taking is a damn good thing, and now that you have pointed out the
reality of this thing that we are attempting, overthrowing the
oppressive regimes of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea, I can
say it's about time. And you know what, I'm strangely but wonderfully
relieved. I had been carrying a lot of assumed pain and a bitter,
searing cynicism, thinking that all good intentions were hopelessly
diluted or screwed up and fucked-up, and bound for failure, as so many
of our half-assed efforts have done nothing to relieve the suffering
for more than a few moments. I knew of the terrible atrocities being
committed in Afghanistan, genocide and unconscionable brutality, but
didn't see how we could do anything without taking the guilt for more
suffering and pain.
Well, I say now that I can finally see the debt we owe our honoured
dead of 9/11, and for the first time since then, I can honour these
heroes with my tears; Thanks for helping me see, for seeing once
again, that some things are worth fighting for, and believing in. And
you know, this might sound kinda corny, but I feel damn proud and
happy that the US is making a strong principled stand in support of
the dignity of human rights, the rule of law, freedom, respect for
women, and freedom of religion.
It's really good to have faith that we might have the will now to make
a difference. The sacrifice of our fellow Americans on 9/11 has to be
seen as the price we are willing to pay in blood to follow through and
succeed in our struggle. 9/11, as you suggest, marks a very courageous
moment when what is best and most honorable within us rose to the
challenge of a vision worth living AND dying for. Not that I needed
more inspiration once my vision cleared and the pieces fell into
place, but the CNN Documentary "Behind the Veil" that aired today made
me feel there has to be no turning back the Taliban ruling elite have
lost any recourse to our mercy.
I'm going to have to reflect more on how this fits in with my faith in
the cosmic Christ.
>They are all Pirates out there, they fly the Jolly Roger, but they keep a whole panoply of flags on board, 'cause they know it'll confuse us just enough, just long enough to get done what they want done. Osama Bin Laden wants to be King of Saudi Arabia, for instance, and if the World Trade Center had just hung tough and not collapsed, he might well have gotten the job done.
I SEE that now. My great resistance was in thinking of all the
innocent dead and suffering, women and children, especially the
special horror of landmines, as a legacy of intervention. But it's
clear now that the suffering is likely to be much, much greater if the
Taliban are not brought now. I guess it's a question of lessening the
pain
>Yemen can claim not to know anything about what happened to the Cole. Afghanistan can claim they were being run by the Taliban. Saudi Arabia can claim plausible deniability. And this is why, NO ONE has ever bit into the shit sandwich of fighting terrorism before (except tactically). Those who fight it will be known as murderers and pirates. Like going into Cambodia to clear out the murdering cockroaches hiding behind international convention along the Ho Chi Minh trail---YOU will be the international criminal if you do so---YOU are the the one in the wrong. Whoever fights terrorism will be accused of being in bed with the ones they are killing. It is a hypocritical
undertaking at best. But so it is with all wars, and while I may be
wise enough to realize I am no more moral than the enemy, better him
than me 'cause I was sleeping in my bed 9/11/01, just like they were
sleeping 12/7/41.
>It goes with the territory 'cause the evidence we have will be on the order of what a Mafioso has to justify a hit. Looks like, smells like, it must be, and if not, well this is hardball. And if I don't hit him now...well there's lots more secretaries running around with targets on their foreheads. In the end, the friend of my enemy is my enemy. You act like it hasn't always been this way.
Counter that with my perception of bumbled snafus, and plain barbaric
policy (as in Guatamala), I have a healthy distrust of Government for
knowing the middle way. Also, I have a reluctance to consider ANYONE
my 'enemy'. I finally realized that because of 9/11, there's just no
way to avoid hoping we go just as far as we need to to insure
broadbased democratic reform.
Appreciate this wonderful answer/letter;
skye
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 2002-02-04 amcn...@home.com said:
>Pesky HTML was set for outgoing messages. I should be typing in raw
>text now with a default of 72 character line breaks...
Lookin' good.
sk...@nowhere.man
>to destroy the Taliban had been the subject of international
>diplomatic discussions as well as secret negotiation for months, in
>some cases even years before 9/11.
>There's been lots of talk about the Taliban and Al Qaeda for quite
some time. Nothing secret about that -- it's been widely reported in
the press -- and nothing surprising, considering the role of bin Laden
in the embassy bombings, the destruction of the Cole, and so forth.
>But the fact that there *was* such talk doesn't effect the question of
when the US had evidence linking Al Qaeda to the WTC one way or the
other, any more than (say) discussions of military action against
Japan before Pearl Harbor would have meant that the US had no evidence
that it had bombed Pearl Harbor.
Hey Josh;
Hey, thanks for this reality check; I guess I really needed to look
hard at several points of view, and ya know what, it's getting much
clearer, I'm seeing that in many ways (many many many even) ways, we
are compelled to take this stand; It's like, the difficulties I'd been
having with accepting this new, radicalized role for the US, with all
that implied, from using our military aggressively to accepting that,
as hard as it may be, we are likely to be an armed-camp society for
some times to come;
Your comments yesterday and my reply set the stage for more deep
pondering, as I chewed over what you said; But it was the really
direct and amazingly-clear response to me by Art McNutt of 2/2 on the
State of Union thread really opened my eyes to reality, made me see
and, more importantly, ACCEPT the way things are, that allowed a great
weight to come off of me, and for the first time, I could actually
honour the Heroes of 9/11 and feel their loss and sacrifice. It was a
long-needed release I really needed, and I feel SO much better and at
peace with the world. And ya' know what, I find I really do respect
the Prez., for his leadership at a time when it was really needed.
That's not to say that I don't think there are things about 9/11 that
we may NEVER know, but the telling thing is that I can see that even
in the worst-case scenario of collusion and deceit at the
highest-level, a damn-good case can be made to justify it ('National
Security' is SUCH a flexible contingency ya' know); There's JUST
enough 'plausable deniability', don't know exactly how much but even
for purposes of argument, "if" it was just 2%, that's enough. But the
most important thing is, where do we go from here; I will reprint here
most of what I wrote to anon that explains my sudden 'seeing it like
it is',
I'd say, for reasons of argument, that my suspician about WTC
duplicity is 2% wrong in overall conclusion; BUT, the thing NOW is, I
think I got a good damn handle on WHY, if it happened at all
digfferently than a genuine Terrorist attack, and I realize that
second-guessing at this stage is a fools game, definitely non-helpful;
And ya' know, I gotta (and I DO!!) admire the sweep and daring, the
sheer illimitable hutzpvah of the whole damn shew (if it IS a
rigged-deal); The thing is purrin' like a Mark II Abrams geosynch
chronometer, almost feels like we're nestled in the arms of Jesus,
with such high-minded far-ranging analytical technique, well-thought
laid-out precise planning, and high-priced sacrifice advance-payment,
how/why could anyone seriously object or have 'second-thoughts'? I
guess it's pretty obvious why it had to be done the way it is, even
for such cynics like me the logic has so much going for it, once you
think it part-way thru to any length and 'get' the bigger picture, the
real objections to what 'might happen' are so far down the road as to
be incalculable (and therefore not presently addressable except for
the matter of principle) while the potential up-side benefit, in terms
of alleviating suffering and horror, granting opportunities for
sweeping broad-based installation of democratic institutions to
replace despotic totalitarian regimes, getting rid of the Taliban and
Al-Qaeda (I hate them, or rather, despise them!) and giving America an
opportunity for our citizens to reach for/develop their potential and
make a difference, honour our heroes and be proud once again of our
Heart and vision, living and fighting and dying with dignity for
something we believe in that is greater than our individual selves,
and so on; (And that's not saying anything about the economic stimulus
investment to the good ol' military-industrial complex, giving a
well-needed stimulus to the US economy, especially i the light of
'Enronitus').
As one might say, I have 'seen the light!', but I couldn't 'get there'
to here without asking a LOT of questions, thinking it through; My
'talk" with Josh was pretty insightful, and Art McNutt got my
attention and helped me connect the dots, his amazingly-lucid and
direct observations/talking 'to' me, let me have a kind of
breakthrough moment, like a weight was/had been lifted, and so I could
see the compelling reason of what WTC really meant, and so get behind
the US and what President Bush was saying; My real difficulty was in
not 'getting' the reason for a Terrorist Bombing of 9/11, the sure
reprisal made reason senseless, and so 'illogical, and I was overcome
by thinking of all the fresh blood spilt on foreign ground because of
'reprisal' and 'revenge'. But hell, now I clearly see there ain't no
"reasoning" to/with a terrorist, and in reality the whole world has
been hostage to that kind of limited/defunct thinking, subject to Rule
by Force instead of Law; And I realized, too, what we really needed,
this is really Pearl Harbour all over-again, only different, both
worse and better; It's that critical 2% that makes all the difference,
changes the equation completely; "Plausable deniability", which
doesn't stick in your throat like swallowing the possibility of a lie,
made more palatable by the heroes of 9/11; Y'know, I was finally able
to shed tears and mourn their loss, and so honour their sacrifice so
our hands wouldn't be tied, that our own sentimentality or confusion
or doubt would keep us from doing what must be done, taking a stand
and fighting injustice because we have to, that's who we are;
I know, that because of an accident of geography/history, and the
price paid with sacrifice and bravery and determination and struggle,
to hang together as a nation, that America today, and all of us as
Citizens, without really choosing to, nevertheless we are poised to
either make a difference and show leadership and vision, or fall by
the wayside as an experiment in liberty that failed; The first lesson
in Political Realism is, power must be used, or it will destroy itself
(or be destroyed from without); I see now that the foot-dragging
special-interest of people w/o courage or faith in anything (or
little), and those who are blind or timid or just plain stupid or too
delicately principled or stymied by "politically correctness" and so
essentially paralyzed, too often lack the will to act and commit our
will and resources to address Evil, even when injustice rules or is
threatened, and events occur that diminish human dignity anywhere in
the world, such as in Afghanistan, because they needed the reason and
incentive, call it 'permission' or inspiration, for them, for all of
us, to do what we can. 9/11, WTC provides us with the reason and
justification to take responsibility, and take a proactive stand to
defend ourselves. It is the inspiration for our acting when necessary,
representing/standing for/as a kind of NEW world torch of liberty and
justice holding a beacon of hope, lighting the way to peace and
freedom, for all the world to see, and know;
The US is ready and able, for the first time in a generation, to lead
the fight against injustice and terror, like the Air Force's 5th
Wing's motto, "Anyplace, Anytime".
And I AM damn proud to be an American, and damn it feels good, too.
And SO, did I get that 'substantially' get things right after all?
Ah, sorry to babble; Jus thot you'd want to know.
Best Regrdz;
skye
Chad Lilly
been shot in the back of the head by a lone gunman before finishing the last
line.
Check this guy out . . . he writes (IMO), the truth he sees, no matter what
CNN force-feeds idiots on a daily basis.
http://www.nomorefakenews.com/
Chad Lilly,
www.InnerCirclePublishing.com
<sk...@nowhere.man> wrote in message
news:3c5b2b23....@news.echoweb.net...
Joshua P. Hill
>Hey Josh;
>Hey, thanks for this reality check; I guess I really needed to look
>hard at several points of view, and ya know what, it's getting much
>clearer, I'm seeing that in many ways (many many many even) ways, we
>are compelled to take this stand; It's like, the difficulties I'd been
>having with accepting this new, radicalized role for the US, with all
>that implied, from using our military aggressively to accepting that,
>as hard as it may be, we are likely to be an armed-camp society for
>some times to come;
Yeah, and for me it gets even worse, because I really don't see a
light at the end of the tunnel. I don't even want to consider what
will happen to the world if the terrorists progress to blowing up
nuclear plants or spreading disease on a wide scale.
>Your comments yesterday and my reply set the stage for more deep
>pondering, as I chewed over what you said; But it was the really
>direct and amazingly-clear response to me by Art McNutt of 2/2 on the
>State of Union thread really opened my eyes to reality, made me see
>and, more importantly, ACCEPT the way things are, that allowed a great
>weight to come off of me, and for the first time, I could actually
>honour the Heroes of 9/11 and feel their loss and sacrifice. It was a
>long-needed release I really needed, and I feel SO much better and at
>peace with the world. And ya' know what, I find I really do respect
>the Prez., for his leadership at a time when it was really needed.
>That's not to say that I don't think there are things about 9/11 that
>we may NEVER know, but the telling thing is that I can see that even
>in the worst-case scenario of collusion and deceit at the
>highest-level, a damn-good case can be made to justify it ('National
>Security' is SUCH a flexible contingency ya' know); There's JUST
>enough 'plausable deniability', don't know exactly how much but even
>for purposes of argument, "if" it was just 2%, that's enough. But the
>most important thing is, where do we go from here; I will reprint here
>most of what I wrote to anon that explains my sudden 'seeing it like
>it is',
You know, before the 11th I didn't like anything about the Bush
administration, and liked less about Bush. But I have to confess
they've done a good job of dealing with the immediate problem. Now if
only they would start thinking about the long term. Like Bush Sr.,
these guys are wonderful at coalition building, but seem completely
unable to enunciate a positive vision for the future. They've
alienated the public in allied countries (though not the allies
themselves), failed to make an attempt to bridge the gap between the
third world and first, failed to promulgate non-unilateral mechanisms
to deal with this new threat. And yet the task seems to me fairly
hopeless even *with* those things.
I can think of no government other than Nazi Germany that has ever
mounted such an attack on its own people (the burning of the
Reichstag). Even in the improbable event that a country was willing to
attack itself that way, the chance that such a heinous act would not
be reported by one or another whistleblower is zip.
The worst bit of high-level treachery I've ever seen in this country
was Nixon's pre-election approach to the North Vietnamese, and even
that doesn't compare.
Josh
sk...@nowhere.man
<josh...@snet.net.remove.this> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 00:32:57 GMT, sk...@nowhere.man wrote:
>
>>Hey Josh;
>>Hey, thanks for this reality check; I guess I really needed to look
>>hard at several points of view, and ya know what, it's getting much
>>clearer,
Heya!
Damn, Well, I spent some time at > alt.thebird < ng and got my head
shook-up real good again; Also, checked out > www.nomorefakenews.com <
There's things that stick-out wrong have puzzled a lot more folks than
me; just found my wildcard supposition that Zionists planned/executed
WTC /Pentagon attack is NOT so off-the-wall; "The same force that
tortured the Davidian is the very same force that committed the acts
of terrorism on 9/11. This force is known as ZIONISM. We need most of
all to educate ourselves and another to the racism and cruelty of this
thought form. Know that ZIONISM is NOT a religion, nor is it a race of
people. It uses these concepts, but it itself is an ideology of
haltered and racism.
http://www.ummah.net/unity/palestine/history/history2.htm"
I ain't or ever said this OR that, just that there was cause to not
buy-into the most-immediate first-impression conclusion; The
net-effect of knee-jerk Patriotism is Lockjaw Freespeech; Face it,
world-politics is tied to economics, economics is tied to oil and nat.
resources, the world's major players are all ideologically
determined/highly motivated and VERY sophisticated players, and things
are OFTEN "not" what they appear; Add to that America has written MOST
of the chapters on PSYOPS, but they don't own the playbook; When you
consider the likelyhood that Enron was NOT an isolated incident, and
that there are VERY powerful, wealthy and organized groups of people
who know how to advance their interests, and you have to ask, "What
are other possible (reasonable) explanations; This whole Bin Laden
being a fugitive which served to provide a "target" for our
united-front attack represents a terrible failure of American
Intelligence, arguably the best in the world. I STILL DON"T get why
FBI Dep. Director Neill, the country's foremost counterterrorist
expert, was called off investigating the Taliban/Al Quada this past
summer while high-level oil-development/pipeline negotiations were
taking place. Very Odd. BUT WE KNEW where Bin Laden was. It is just
TOO WEIRD that Neill's first day of work as WTC Security Chief was
9/11. The timing of Enron's collapse, the 7th largest corporation,
with 9/11 and the "War on Terror" is TOO coincidental to overlook.
"Think CRIME SCENE. Then you are on the right track. Does the evidence
add up to the story being told by the official authorities?" Take Mike
Ruppert, the ex-LAPD narc. Mike looks at everything as a crime scene.
That's what makes him so good. Mike's latest effort on his site
(www.copvcia.com) re: the US mil/intell officer who has knowledge of
loads of terrorists being brought into the US under the auspices of
government officials--it starts to curl your hair right away. It
changes the dimensions of the game right off the bat.
Wayne Madsen, former intell employee at NSA, opens the lid on the
extended meaning of the CIA green light to assassinate foreign
terrorists. This blanket permission, accorded on or about 9/15, may
explain some recent deaths in foreign lands. (Of course, the CIA has a
record of killing people that goes way back.) To be looked into--the
murder of Theys Eluay, "West Papuan independence leader (Indonesia)."
Eluay was assassinated in November, after he was kidnapped by
KOPASSUS, a special Indonesian ops group trained by the CIA and US
Special Ops personnel. Eluay was a "thorn in the side of Freeport
McMoran, a Lousiana-based mining company that has pillaged West
Papua's natural resources..." Henry Kissinger is a board member of
Freeport with the title of director emeritus. Addullah Syafii. An
assassinated member of the Free Aceh Movement. Aceh is a region in
northwest Sumatra. The Movement "has been at loggerheads with
ExxonMobil, which has extensive drilling and refining operations in
the territory."
Apparently Syafii was carrying a letter from the Aceh governor which
contained a microchip that allowed COPASSUS soldiers to track him and
murder him. Elie Hobeika was going to testify against Ariel Sharon at
an upcoming Belgian war crimes tribunal. A Mossad car bomb in Bierut
killed him. "The CIA, now closely allied with Mossad, is said to have
given the approval for the action." Chief Bola Ige. On 12/23, this
attorney general of Nigeria was killed in his bedroom. Ige was
championing tribes which have "grievances against exploitative Western
oil companies that have spoiled their lands with pollution and have
pocketed most of the oil revenues for themselves and corrupt Nigerian
politicians...A lucrative CIA and Pentagon front operation, the
private military contractor MPRI, has been training special units of
the Nigerian armed forces." These Nigerian troops have been putting
down anti-oil protests on the coast of Nigeria. Michael Boskin, who
was the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush the
Elder, is on the ExxonMobil board. Condoleeza Rice, who is now the
president's National Security Advisor, once served on the board of
Chevron, which is also quite active in Nigeria.
Terrorists defined as those who get in the way of corporate takeovers
in the so-called Third World. Madsen predicted the Indonesian murders
several months ago. He believes all of the above assassinations were
"likely known to the CIA and allowed to take place unhindered.." In
other words, green-lighted. Makes ya think. By clearly targetting
"Terrorists" as 'The Other Guy', it makes a whole lotta things
convenient. There's a lot of folks who have good reason to think the
CIA and FBI have done alot-of terrorist-like things; Israel, who of
ciurse is subsidized with US $$, regularly tortures and denies the
civil-rights of Palestinians; Isn't it very 'Odd' that it's against
the law for Palestinians to buy land in Israel? Or to sell to another
Palestinian? Isn't that a form of genocide? The Jews demanded a
homeland from the World Court, which resulted in the formation of
Israel in 1959; Since then, Palestinians have become
stateless/displaced persons; It's not too hard to understand to see
this doesn't conform with "Rule of Law"; Israel's strongly resisted
ANY concessions to a Palestinian homeland. How can that situation ever
get resolved? Which ties in with the Zionist/WTC connection;
But a number of sources are starting to put pieces together according
to where they lead, rather than depending on the most-direct
cause-effect reasoning; This resonates with my instincts, in that,
because of my cynical, critical, analytical/outsider/contrarian
attitude, I EXPECT things to NOT be simple and readily apparant;
That's always been my problem with Bin Laden/Taliban/WTC conclusions,
it's almost as if it was DESIGNED to be accepted w/o serious question;
I read Jon Rappoports site, www.nomorefakenews.com, and picked out
THIS gem:
One theory about Enron has it that the collapse of the 7th biggest US
company was a classic mob bust-out. What does that mean? It means, you
take over a company, inflate its value (stock price) by shady
means--in this case getting the feds to deregulate energy prices--you
then charge new and improved top prices for your product (energy), and
then at the height of the action you sell all your high-flying stock,
walk away and let the whole show fall into the ocean. Enron looks like
it fits that pattern. But right now the odds are probably 60-40
against such a scheme. Why? Because there is too much exposure for the
players involved. Even more illegal money could have been made by
holding Enron together, covering up its crimes, and moving forward.
The company could have been sold, reorganized in a quiet fashion. At
this point I'd say that Enron is a case of the mob being attacked from
the outside. Very high-level forces have seen fit to take Enron down
for a bigger reason: destabilization of the US (and world) economy.
One more torpedo aimed amidships. Destabilization is a classic OP. It
is a prelude to more fascism coming down from the top. People FEAR the
effects of destabilization, and rightly so, and then they do exactly
the wrong thing. They beg for protection, for security, AT ANY HUMAN
COST.
It's one thing to stage a bust-out with the S&L industry. But Enron
was a very major player in another industry, perhaps the biggest of
all: OIL. Oil players don't like to have chaos in their back yard. We
could very well be seeing a war within the energy cartel. In which
case, the "outside" players who really dropped the dime on Enron were
the Saudis. That brutal oil regime has supported terrorism for quite
awhile. The Saudis have been battling other parts of the energy cartel
for decades in order to maintain control of the single biggest pool of
drilled oil in the world. The puncturing of Enron was a sent message:
Don't mess with us. Don't try to take us down (e.g., blame us for
9/11). We can do damage you haven't even dreamed of. We are looking at
3-4-5-6 dimensional chess here. Because there is still another aspect.
Beyond the Saudis. Those men who REALLY run the world are able to back
up far enough from the fray to gracefully manipulate LOTS of other
players. Those men want DESTABILIZATION. They cue up their strategy,
make their moves, and all of sudden the Saudis are really acting on
behalf of THEM. The Saudis are doing what they think they need to do
for their own future--but the true effect is a higher effect: A
further breakdown of confidence in the trading markets that prop up
the economy. In every OP of this kind, you place as many layers of
buffer as you can between yourself and the place where the rubber
actually meets the road. The public never dreams that such
calculations are possible. The public believes that such
sophistication is reserved for chess tournaments. And why does the
public have such an amateur view of things? Because, as propaganda
expert, Ellis Medavoy says, "The job of the media cartel is flattened
out analysis. The media are constructed to see events in two
dimensions. Every day in every way, the media achieve a brand of mind
control, in which the public is taught to perceive one move, two
moves, but never more. This is operant conditioning. The media
function as the public mind and the public eyes--and the media present
a situation like Enron as AN UNFOLDING CRIME OF SINGLE-SPACED
REVELATIONS ALONG A FLAT SURFACE. The public buys in" If the mind is
trained to see two dimensions, and the world operates in six or seven
dimensions, the success of the really big crimes is a slam-dunk.
Kinda makes ya wonder, doesn't it? So, the $379 Billion Military
Budget is REALLY a shot-in-the-dark reaction to a serious financial
threat; It's quite possible, Enron is the first-fatality of a
stock-market crash over the next 12-18 months engineered by "invisible
threat"; (The Vietnam War ONLY cost $150 Billion!!!!!)
There's apparently some NG's that have some serious problems with
'official' agents of discreditation/hassle, trying to stifle Free
Speech; There's also some striking parallels with what is happening
vis-a-vis the increase of 'control agencies', as in Bush's talk at the
Pitt. Masonic Temple today, in which he said (among other
things)(effectively 'circle wagons'): 2. Secure our borders. 3. Get
good info on our ports. 4. Good Airpoprt security. 5,.Sharing Info.
between Fed. State, County, Local Government., improving telecomm.
capability. 6. Improve/invest in First Responder services. 7. Be
prepared to fight Bioterror war (Damn, this chills me! I've got to
think this is a manufactured threat/horror, blowing any real danger
out of proportion--like we 'could' protect against anything/anywhere;
I don't think our 'real' enemies are that visible/easily defended from
-- IF my theory about unnamed or Zionist forces, because to a large
extent that could very well BE the US itself;) 8. $1.6 Billion
investment in hospitals Bioattack research/development; One Billion $
is going to State and Local gov. for Homeland security;
The thing is, the WAR deflects most serious debate about the budget;
It's like a done-deal almost, subverting local programs.
>You know, before the 11th I didn't like anything about the Bush
>administration, and liked less about Bush. But I have to confess
>they've done a good job of dealing with the immediate problem. Now if
>only they would start thinking about the long term. Like Bush Sr.,
>these guys are wonderful at coalition building, but seem completely
>unable to enunciate a positive vision for the future. They've
>alienated the public in allied countries (though not the allies
>themselves), failed to make an attempt to bridge the gap between the
>third world and first, failed to promulgate non-unilateral mechanisms
>to deal with this new threat. And yet the task seems to me fairly
>hopeless even *with* those things.
I agree; It's almost as if, as Jeanne suggests, the WAR happened in
the nick-of-time to prevent any "long view", because the 'threat' is
so close and immediate and compelling; One thing I've been very
critical of the US is over our poor history of forging links and
developing diplomatic solutions; And now, of course, there is a real
potential for us to fall into a kind of isolationism. It's funny, on
CNN Talkback the audience was pretty unanimous in not thinking that
apprehending Bin Laden was a very high priority now, but that we
needed to think further ahead; And now I see they're, via John
Ashcroft (of the nipples) in breaking news on CNN now indicting thru
Grand Jury, Walker Lindh for being misguided, I think as an example,
but the Talkback crowd were pretty vocal that he should be released on
Bail, as he IS a US citizen, and the interviewer was a bit flustered
the crowd wasn't more vocal and bloodthirsty.
>
>>I'd say, for reasons of argument, that my suspician about WTC
>>duplicity is 2% wrong in overall conclusion;
>
>>I can think of no government other than Nazi Germany that has ever
>mounted such an attack on its own people (the burning of the
>Reichstag). Even in the improbable event that a country was willing to
>attack itself that way, the chance that such a heinous act would not
>be reported by one or another whistleblower is zip.
I don't agree; I DON'T count it high that it was planned by any
official US agency, but I think you can make a case for it; AND, I am
sure that Psyops techniques are sufficient, and we have operatives
capable of following thru, to mount such a thing. Dissociation,
brainwashing, supreme sacrifice, absolute secrecy, National Security,
etc. After all, Operation Northwoods WAS a US plan. The key is in, as
Ellis said, making sure there's enough buffer-zone between the
planners and the actors, layers of diversion and 'plausable
deniability'; You set up a half-dozen fronts, cells, so everybody is
isolated, the main players may THINK they're getting direct orders
from Bin Laden, but someone else is calling the shots; That's done all
the time in espionage; BUT: Consider this, the genius of such a plan
IS that one on the outside can SUPPOSE it MIGHT have been an inside
job, or as Art McNutt said so clearly, when you engage w/terrorism
you'll always be accused of sleeping with your enemy;
Y'know, although I feel myself a True Patriot in that I belive in the
principle of peace, liberty, and justice for ALL, (and free-speech and
civil-rights and rule-of-law) I don't necessarily buy into the idea
that everyone in Government is WONDERFUL or should necessarily be
believed; It boils down to, is what we "say" about 'truth shall set
you free' really believed and valued, or is it lip-service? Do you
think the GOV is CAPABLE of covering up scandal or not? I mean, look
at the regulators and the self-serving Greed behind Enron's collapse,
and many people losing their life's savings. The media/Feds/Economist
experts are trying to do "damage control" rather than REALLY finding
out what shape corporations are in; The glibness by which Anderson Co.
participated in the deceit/lawbreaking suggests it's far more
prevalent than ANYBODY wants to admit. Is that "Honest"?? Or, the
increasing loss of our liberties such as thru the fear-driven passage
of the Patriot anti-terrorist bill.
Some choice words from Ellis Medavoy, propaganda expert, "A PR person
working for the bad guys drools at the chance to construct a whole
world in a vacuum. A fully encased world that no one can enter from
the outside. ADD: "If he can arrive at that goal, he can plant stories
in the press which come from 'official sources,' and no one can punch
holes in those stories. "Now we have this situation where prisoners
are being detained in Cuba by the US. We're being told that these
detainees have already provided information to the US which has
thwarted terrorist attacks. "That is a piece of PR. Propaganda. No one
can get inside that story. Everything official since 9/11 is that way.
The people doing PR for the US government through the Justice Dept.
and the Pentagon can say they have found indisputable evidence, in
caves, that bin Laden planned and ordered the 9/11 attacks. Which is a
lie. "You plant evidence, and then you find evidence. Then you release
stories to the press, and the press gobbles those stories up. "The
really perfect model of all this is the medical model. That was my
home turf for many years. You get certain studies done which are
false. Which are trumped up science. The studies are published in
reputable journals. From there, you can get stories planted in the
press about new diseases, new drugs, and so on.
He also said: "This whole business is planned. From step one all the
way through to the end. The researchers are the dupes. Their methods
allow them to find exactly what you want them to find. And the
researchers don't have to lie too much to get at what they think is
the truth. "Pretty soon you have a new disease with a name that scares
the hell out of everybody. You have a list of symptoms. You have toxic
drugs to treat the disease. The drugs tend to cause the symptoms you
have just 'discovered.'"A closed world in a vacuum. The PR people work
their press contacts and the stories appear. Epidemic on the loose.
Medical teams flying in. And so on. New research dollars released by
the government.
"The public lives inside the vacuum. The world is created for them.
You would be amazed at how easy it is to create that world once you
launch a few lies. The lies roll downhill and give rise to new lies.
It's a machine in progress.
"9/11 only needed a handful of lies to start everything. When I look
at this Enron thing, I can see the outlines of my former profession at
work. As the story emerges in pieces, it's obvious that this takedown
of Enron was planned to happen. And now that plan is being made to
look like a series of exposures and whistleblowings in progress. "The
art of PR is making everything look like a natural escape of gas, bit
by bit, when in fact the whole leak is planned from before the
beginning. "People are hired to create that 'natural' effect. That is
their job. To get the public on the hook like a fish. When I did my
work on AIDS, I was involved in making a time line of stories that
would appear in sequence. A very convincing, air-tight sequence. You
see? It isn't just lies. It's a sequence of lies. This is how the
future is manufactured. And the public is riveted to each detail. The
public is trained like a dog to accept each big story as it is fed to
them, bit by bit. But that's not the way it happens. That's the
illusion.
"A magician keeps the audience focused on a sequence of moves. And as
long as the public is focused that way, the overall effect is missed.
It's invisible."
>
>The worst bit of high-level treachery I've ever seen in this country
>was Nixon's pre-election approach to the North Vietnamese, and even
>that doesn't compare.
>
I myself still lean towards something like the Saudi's or Zionists,
which is modern age Phariseeism. People have long suspected, whispered
about a secret 'shadow government', arranging things behind the
scenes, as the Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign
Relations, and ones you NEVER hear actually named but referred to
indirectly, collusion at the highest levels;
>
>Josh
Highfields, an investment group created with $500 million in Harvard
endowment $$, was short-selling Enron stock (betting it would go down)
at a time when Enron execs were encouraging their own employees to BUY
Enron (bet it would go up). Guess who was right? Highfields. It raked
in $50 million on the move. Exactly what did Highfields know? And who
told them? Pug Winokur, a mover in the Harvard Corporation AND the
head of Enron's finance committee? Harvard Watch also charges that
Enron bought influence at Harvard, which resulted in major-heavy
hitters urging energy-price deregulation. That deregulation allowed
Enron to overcharge for energy, and it also allowed Enron to
essentially rig the market in selling energy futures--a business in
which Enron was heavily engaged.
Interesting to note that George Bush, Sr., in 1999, made a speech for
Global Crossing, the telecom giant that just collapsed into
bankruptcy. Bush took stock in Global Crossing in lieu of his normal
$80,000 fee. The stock, which was more or less of the IPO variety,
soon swelled in value to $14.4 MILLION. Quite a lecture fee. Who knows
what quid pro quo was involved in that deal.
from Jon Rappoport:
All the ways to invent corporate profit make playbook strategies for
the upcoming Superbowl seem like a game of checkers played by two
amoebae. Corporations hire big accounting firms to invent profit.
"Thirty years ago, I wanted to grow up and play quarterback for the
Jets. Now here I am working at Andersen, blue-skying profits as a
cover for corporate bagmen so they can snake off in the night with big
bucks. Whoda thunk it?" It's a familiar American story. The dream
derailed. One part that isn't told is the part that INTELL CARTEL
types play in all this. They worm their way into big companies and
help cook the books, drain off some excess dollars for their own
projects. Curing THAT infection requires a medicine the US government
does not have the guts or smarts to develop. It's your basic mob
operation. But instead of stealing delivery trucks and smashing
windows to obtain protection money, the mobsters just move in with
their computers and begin the process of changing the profit picture.
It's up, it's down, it's sideways. The map becomes the territory.
"Let's just flip over those seven graphs, Jim, and we'll have a whole
new portrait of company performance in the last quarter." A free tip
to any business college that really wants to swell enrollment. Just
offer a course in corporate numbers scamming, and hire somebody with
inside knowledge to teach it in great detail. You'll have a thousand
new students by nightfall.
So, I'm using the ng alt.local.village.idiot to dump reprints if you
want to cruise over sometime, I found it a long time ago, a
dead-letter box NG, although there are/were a coupla echo-posts there;
Cruise by to read if ya want to see what I've found;
Regrdz;
skye
5 Years to overhaul the Lawyers Code of Ethics!!
and:
Winnick was once a protege of Mike Milken, the sleazy junk-bond king
("I'm just redistributing wealth"). Apparently, McAulife, who had been
screaming about how Enron left so many "little people" in the
financial lurch and wasn't it terrible that Enron had so many
high-level Repub connections, has shut his yap for a few minutes.
Early analysis of the Global Crossing fall attributes the disaster to
"fall-out from the dot.com crash." Sure. And the pot holes on a city
street near me? That was dot.com collateral damage as well.
The other day Congressman Bernie Sanders was interviewed on Fox. He
said that Enron had bought all sorts of influence in the fed
government. Challenged to prove this, Sanders grinned and said
something like, "The whole Congress, both houses, is bought and paid
for with corporate monies. Both parties. Do you think all those
millions of corporate dollars given to candidates are just donated out
of the goodness of the companies' hearts?"
The threads on the screws are coming apart.
Arthur McNutt
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
[snip]
>
> You know, before the 11th I didn't like anything about the Bush
> administration, and liked less about Bush. But I have to confess
> they've done a good job of dealing with the immediate problem. Now if
> only they would start thinking about the long term. Like Bush Sr.,
> these guys are wonderful at coalition building, but seem completely
> unable to enunciate a positive vision for the future. They've
> alienated the public in allied countries (though not the allies
> themselves), failed to make an attempt to bridge the gap between the
> third world and first, failed to promulgate non-unilateral mechanisms
> to deal with this new threat. And yet the task seems to me fairly
> hopeless even *with* those things.
Well, yeah, I'm sorry he doesn't walk on water too. But at least he
isn't Plato.
>
> The worst bit of high-level treachery I've ever seen in this country
> was Nixon's pre-election approach to the North Vietnamese, and even
> that doesn't compare.
>
>
Well, sure there was Kosovo, a little diversion from having his blank
caught in the blank (not the cookie jar--well not LITERALLY anyway).
Never understood how a President could get away with something a lowly
Postal Clerk would have been fired on the spot for--but then they
changed the meaning of High Crimes to mean when your up on high it ain't
a crime.
Arthur McNutt
sk...@nowhere.man wrote:
Well, yes.
But then there is another just as plausible under-current that the
Theorists-with-Axes-to-Grind haven't even given a second thought to--
In March when the final plans were set and the fuse was lit, the PRC
created an incident with an American spy plane, an EP-3 IIRC. It escaped
the 24-7 talking heads of the press that it had been concocted for a
reason. The incident itself was as thin as Kate Moss--check that is was
a GOOFY and thin as Carrot Top. No one at the time could guess the
reason, at least no one at CNN, though they are bloated with theories
about Enron and how it fits so neatly into everything from the budget
debates to the Crushing of our Towers and the Gouging of our Citadel.
Pssst. Bush has been President one year, BTW.
Every administration since Kennedy has, in the first three months of
office, been forced to deal with a crisis in the far east, usually
originating in North Korea (Except Clinton's for some deafeningly quiet
reason). These were quite obviously directives from Beijing, and usually
involved Korean fighters shooting down American planes (military or
civilian). China likes to put the new boy through his paces, so they can
get a handle on how he will face a REAL crisis.
Kindof like a Recon operation. You send in a couple of guys towards that
village up ahead. You watch and see them get shot at--cold, but that way
you get a handle of how many enemy guns are in the village and where
they are located. Se la Guerre.
What "real" crisis could they have been foreseeing?
Iraq is now all but officially a client state of the PRC. Premier Zhu
Rongji has been working hard on Iran and other states in the region.
Iran is pretty close to accepting the engagement ring.
China is most displeased with the India/Pakistan situation.
The more the monkeys scream in their cages and point at each other, the
more I look to the east. Osama Bin Laden was never the power, nor the
brains. All he ever wanted to be was to be King of Saudi Arabia,
something his father wanted for at least one of his boys (Osama's Dad
was a lot like the Saudi's answer for Joe Kennedy). Salami Bin Larder
was one of the money players, certainly, but it was never about him, and
the Government never told you it was. The talking heads told you it
was, 'cause they think its juicy and all they care about is the juicy story.
Well, they have 168 hours of dead air to fill every week.
Who benefits from a war on terrorism in the Middle East? What great and
sinister military power could have changed a rag-tag bunch of idiots
with AK-47's and C-4 who can't even blow up their own shoes properly
into a team of brilliant and dedicated terrorists with a vision that
exceeded their wildest dreams? Not nearly enough serious critical
analysis has been spoken to involving the brilliance of the operation,
not the least of which was its pristine simplicity. Who was it who
quietly went to war against the United States masquerading as a client
state's soldiers? Who wants Pakistan to go to war with India? Who would
like to test the US's ability to wage a two front war so they could
finally incorporate Formosa?
Not much has changed in Cathay since the Mings ruled there. 'Cept
there's something like 1.2 billion of 'em now.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>Well, sure there was Kosovo, a little diversion from having his blank
>caught in the blank (not the cookie jar--well not LITERALLY anyway).
Not only is there no evidence of that, despite Sen. Lott's little
outburst, but the Pentagon was quite clear in confirming that they had
suggested the timing on the basis of operational concerns, not the
White House.
This sort of circumstantial "evidence" has in recent years been
bandied about by both left and right, and I believe strongly that it
is harmful to the image of the country both at home and abroad, while
making it more difficult for the state and the public to deal with
genuine abuses.
Now, having tarred Clinton with a ludicrous range of accusations, it's
the GOP's turn to be on the receiving end, with the Enron scandal. You
know how it works: GOP politician received campaign contribution, and
talked to people at Enron. Therefore GOP politician is guilty of doing
something nefarious, just as Clinton was supposedly guilty of doing
something nefarious because he invested some money with someone who
turned out to be a crook.
But neither side seems able to recognize its own behavior.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>Who benefits from a war on terrorism in the Middle East? What great and
>sinister military power could have changed a rag-tag bunch of idiots
>with AK-47's and C-4 who can't even blow up their own shoes properly
>into a team of brilliant and dedicated terrorists with a vision that
>exceeded their wildest dreams? Not nearly enough serious critical
>analysis has been spoken to involving the brilliance of the operation,
>not the least of which was its pristine simplicity. Who was it who
>quietly went to war against the United States masquerading as a client
>state's soldiers? Who wants Pakistan to go to war with India? Who would
>like to test the US's ability to wage a two front war so they could
>finally incorporate Formosa?
>
>Not much has changed in Cathay since the Mings ruled there. 'Cept
>there's something like 1.2 billion of 'em now.
If you want some more fuel for your China business, Debka claimed that
Chinese operatives were bopping about with Al Qaeda even after the
American bombing began, and that Chinese weapons were found in the
Taliban/Al Qaeda stock.
OTOH, there's good intelligence dating from the time of the attack
that says it was planned by the Egyptian. And while I've no doubt that
China would like the US to be inconvenienced as much as possible, I
don't think China wants actual harm to the US economy. It's the source
of their growth right now, and they know it; serious economic
difficulties in the US or a cutoff of trade would be extremely hard on
them. Hence I think their muted response to our bugging of their
presidential jet -- whichi apparently had Jiang enraged -- and their
toning down of anti-American rhetoric after the 11th.
As to whether they had a direct role in the WTC, well, I think there
were nine shooters on the grassy knoll, myself.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
>On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 19:28:15 GMT, Joshua P. Hill
><josh...@snet.net.remove.this> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 00:32:57 GMT, sk...@nowhere.man wrote:
>>
>>>Hey Josh;
>>>Hey, thanks for this reality check; I guess I really needed to look
>>>hard at several points of view, and ya know what, it's getting much
>>>clearer,
>
>Heya!
>Damn, Well, I spent some time at > alt.thebird < ng and got my head
>shook-up real good again; Also, checked out > www.nomorefakenews.com <
>
>There's things that stick-out wrong have puzzled a lot more folks than
>me; just found my wildcard supposition that Zionists planned/executed
>WTC /Pentagon attack is NOT so off-the-wall; "The same force that
>tortured the Davidian is the very same force that committed the acts
>of terrorism on 9/11. This force is known as ZIONISM. We need most of
>all to educate ourselves and another to the racism and cruelty of this
>thought form. Know that ZIONISM is NOT a religion, nor is it a race of
>people. It uses these concepts, but it itself is an ideology of
>haltered and racism.
>http://www.ummah.net/unity/palestine/history/history2.htm"
I got a few sentences into the article. How can anyone believe such
garbage?
>Terrorists defined as those who get in the way of corporate takeovers
>in the so-called Third World. Madsen predicted the Indonesian murders
>several months ago. He believes all of the above assassinations were
>"likely known to the CIA and allowed to take place unhindered.." In
>other words, green-lighted. Makes ya think. By clearly targetting
>"Terrorists" as 'The Other Guy', it makes a whole lotta things
>convenient. There's a lot of folks who have good reason to think the
>CIA and FBI have done alot-of terrorist-like things; Israel, who of
>ciurse is subsidized with US $$, regularly tortures and denies the
>civil-rights of Palestinians; Isn't it very 'Odd' that it's against
>the law for Palestinians to buy land in Israel? Or to sell to another
>Palestinian? Isn't that a form of genocide?
No, of course not. It's a result of partition. Israel is a democracy,
and if the Palestinians moved in, they would rapidly achieve a
majority, at which point there would be two Palestinian states.
Similarly, if the Israelis have their way with their settlements, the
Palestinians will be pushed into little pockets of the West Bank, and
there will be two Israeli states.
Sheesh, am I the only one who still bothers to check out both sides of
a story?
> The Jews demanded a
>homeland from the World Court, which resulted in the formation of
>Israel in 1959; Since then, Palestinians have become
>stateless/displaced persons
Palestine was always the homeland of the Jews! What the Zionists did
was ask that in light of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the
British mandate, the Jews be given an independent state, and that's
exactly what the UN did when it partitioned the area in 1948 (not
1959), create an independent state for the Jews, along with a state
for the Palestinians. That was a no-brainer given the world's
revulsion at the holocaust, its guilt over the horrible fate of Jews
who had been turned away by the British when they attempted to escape
Hitler, and outrage at the ongoing deportation of holocaust survivors
who attempted to go to Palestine. There are some remarkable newsreels
of the British loading Jewish deportees onto cargo ships in huge cages
lifted by big cranes. This sort of stuff outraged and disgusted the
world, to the point where even Stalin became a strong supporter of the
new state.
Unfortunately, the Arabs attacked Israel the moment it was created.
They were repulsed, but Egypt and Jordan retained control of the West
Bank and Gaza until 1967, when Isarel was forced to strike after the
Egyptians ended the truce by evicting UN peacekeepers.
>; It's not too hard to understand to see
>this doesn't conform with "Rule of Law"; Israel's strongly resisted
>ANY concessions to a Palestinian homeland. How can that situation ever
>get resolved?
?
Isarel is squarely on the record as favoring a Palestinian homeland,
and Palestinian statehood. I don't think the Israelis have gone far
enough, personally, but Camp David was pretty close to what the
ultimate agreement will have to be (Israel abandons the settlements,
returns to pre-1967 borders and returns most of Jerusalem, keeping
only the Jewish quarter/Temple Mount; Arabs respect Israel's right to
exist and need for security; Palestinians except cash settlements in
lieu of "right of return").
> Which ties in with the Zionist/WTC connection;
That is so bizarre. I mean, the chance that Israel would attack its
most important ally is second in my book only to the notion that the
United States would attack itself!
>But a number of sources are starting to put pieces together according
>to where they lead, rather than depending on the most-direct
>cause-effect reasoning; This resonates with my instincts, in that,
>because of my cynical, critical, analytical/outsider/contrarian
>attitude, I EXPECT things to NOT be simple and readily apparant;
Good God, why not? That's as much a bias as assuming that everything
*is* readily apparent.
I hate to say it, but since I'm seeing so much of this stuff lately --
figuring out what *really* happens is *work.* One has to form a
sophisticated model of things, of human behavior, of social
assumptions -- of what's said, and what isn't said -- of when people
are honest, and dishonest, and who's honest and isn't -- of when
people act from self-interest, and when they act from altruism, and so
on and so forth. It requires a good knowledge of history, a good
knowledge of public affairs, a good knowledge of human behavior, and
it's a task that's never complete.
But people who *don't* take the trouble to do that are forever chasing
ideological wills-o'-the-wisp.
>The thing is, the WAR deflects most serious debate about the budget;
>It's like a done-deal almost, subverting local programs.
This is tail wagging the dog stuff.
>I agree; It's almost as if, as Jeanne suggests, the WAR happened in
>the nick-of-time to prevent any "long view", because the 'threat' is
>so close and immediate and compelling; One thing I've been very
>critical of the US is over our poor history of forging links and
>developing diplomatic solutions;
As my father pointed out today, we aren't very good at it. Just as
Europeans tend to have better language skills because they deal
constantly with people from neighboring nations, they have more
experience with diplomacy than we do.
> And now, of course, there is a real
>potential for us to fall into a kind of isolationism.
I think the potential for that is zip. Look at Bush attempts to do
that -- he wasn't going to engage in nation building, he was going to
have a "humble" foreign policy, etc., etc. And now it's "this is not
negotiable" and "dead or alive."
It's not that we won't keep trying to return to isolationism. The US
has never much liked the rest of the world, and I don't blame us. We,
after all, pretty much all share the experience of having come from
there. But we can't avoid entanglement, as much as we might like to.
Our military spending is now equal to the spending of the next 15
nations *combined,* which means that whenever something comes along,
we're going to get dragged into it.
Why is Bush so anxious to avoid putting troops in a peacekeeping
situation? Well, the answer is obvious -- half the time we've done
that in recent years, someone has blown them up, and we've lost lives
and prestige. So he's saying to the allies, "look, guys, you offered
help, now if you can keep the peace while we do the fighting," but
they don't want to provide enough troops. So what's going to happen?
American troops will have to go in. What's the alternative?
> It's funny, on
>CNN Talkback the audience was pretty unanimous in not thinking that
>apprehending Bin Laden was a very high priority now, but that we
>needed to think further ahead; And now I see they're, via John
>Ashcroft (of the nipples) in breaking news on CNN now indicting thru
>Grand Jury, Walker Lindh for being misguided, I think as an example,
>but the Talkback crowd were pretty vocal that he should be released on
>Bail, as he IS a US citizen, and the interviewer was a bit flustered
>the crowd wasn't more vocal and bloodthirsty.
Bin Laden was never a very high priority. An emotional need, yes, but
the campaign was never shaped as an attempt to get him.
>>>I'd say, for reasons of argument, that my suspician about WTC
>>>duplicity is 2% wrong in overall conclusion;
>>
>>>I can think of no government other than Nazi Germany that has ever
>>mounted such an attack on its own people (the burning of the
>>Reichstag). Even in the improbable event that a country was willing to
>>attack itself that way, the chance that such a heinous act would not
>>be reported by one or another whistleblower is zip.
>
>I don't agree; I DON'T count it high that it was planned by any
>official US agency, but I think you can make a case for it; AND, I am
>sure that Psyops techniques are sufficient, and we have operatives
>capable of following thru, to mount such a thing. Dissociation,
>brainwashing, supreme sacrifice, absolute secrecy, National Security,
>etc. After all, Operation Northwoods WAS a US plan. The key is in, as
>Ellis said, making sure there's enough buffer-zone between the
>planners and the actors, layers of diversion and 'plausable
>deniability'; You set up a half-dozen fronts, cells, so everybody is
>isolated, the main players may THINK they're getting direct orders
>from Bin Laden, but someone else is calling the shots; That's done all
>the time in espionage; BUT: Consider this, the genius of such a plan
>IS that one on the outside can SUPPOSE it MIGHT have been an inside
>job, or as Art McNutt said so clearly, when you engage w/terrorism
>you'll always be accused of sleeping with your enemy;
I think you've been watching too many Hollywood movies! The chance of
reaching a critical mass of people in a government agency willing to
*attack their own country* is ludicorously small. I mean, how many
people do you know personally who would be willing to do such a thing?
And what makes you think that the people in government are any
different? And if they were, what is the probability of assembling a
group willing to do so, with nobody who would say "this is nuts" and
blow the whistle?
It's astronomically miniscule, of course.
>"A magician keeps the audience focused on a sequence of moves. And as
>long as the public is focused that way, the overall effect is missed.
>It's invisible."
This guy is just plotting a novel, and calling it fact.
>>The worst bit of high-level treachery I've ever seen in this country
>>was Nixon's pre-election approach to the North Vietnamese, and even
>>that doesn't compare.
>>
>I myself still lean towards something like the Saudi's or Zionists,
>which is modern age Phariseeism. People have long suspected, whispered
>about a secret 'shadow government', arranging things behind the
>scenes, as the Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign
>Relations, and ones you NEVER hear actually named but referred to
>indirectly, collusion at the highest levels;
"Trilateral commission" -- now there's a blast from the past!
>Interesting to note that George Bush, Sr., in 1999, made a speech for
>Global Crossing, the telecom giant that just collapsed into
>bankruptcy. Bush took stock in Global Crossing in lieu of his normal
>$80,000 fee. The stock, which was more or less of the IPO variety,
>soon swelled in value to $14.4 MILLION. Quite a lecture fee. Who knows
>what quid pro quo was involved in that deal.
"You sit on my board of directors, I'll sit on yours."
The thing that some people don't seem to understand is that few, if
any people, are entirely bad, or entirely good. The people who control
the White House now are a particularly sleezy bunch. If you've ever
had close dealings with their type, you know that they're like. But
they aren't the sort of people who would attack their own country.
Josh
Arthur McNutt
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
[denials]
Actually, the Enron thing sticking to the R's is a press thing. Revenge
for Whitewater, but louder. Monkeys are funny to watch. Daschel calls
hearings and we find that its sticking to Dems too, well, it'll all fade
back into the wood work where it belongs. Enron is Daschel and
McAuliffe's Kosovo. A target of opportunity with headline potential.
Like the Exxon _Valdez_ vs the _Agean Sea_---the Press only sees what
they want to see. It's not called tunnelvison for nothin'. Maybe they
lean left, maybe not, to me they are mostly Banded Rudderfish, following
sharks wherever they go. Sometimes the sharks just lead them there.
If Nixon his Evilness timed peace talks with elections, Clinton timed
Kosovo (or whatever might have come his way) to grab positive headlines
just like he took the sudden trip to Africa on the spur of the moment
with no agenda in mind the first week they couldn't get Monica out of
the headlines. Old Layer trick that.
NATO instead of the UN? Why would he do that? What foundation was there
for NATO to fight in Kosovo? Unless maybe he was mostly concerned with
running the light show HIS way, no questions asked. (The fact that they
were about to get defunded--that's why and that's why NATO played the
game the way they were told to).
No UN meant no real attempt to stabilize the region afterwards. No UN
meant he wouldn't have to explain why he was flagrantly exaggerating the
evidence against Malosonofavich. Malosonofavich was a real work of art,
so it all turns out good in the end. But he was painted as a Bull when
he was only a bull-dog. Too bad he didn't go back into Somalia instead
of Kosovo--Salami Bin Larder was hiding there at the time, IIRC.
No American President has taken military action before and over ruled
his commanders because he was afraid to take a single American casualty
(except Kennedy--and for him one casualty meant megatons in
reprisal--Gary Powers was one too many). Why would he go in in the first
place, but refuse to fly missions according to doctrine just on the
off-chance he'd have to face up to an American death? The way he did it
he was assured of lots of collateral damage on the ground (dead babies),
but none in the air (no dead Americans).
Malosonofavich was dead in the water after the first Tomahawk, so Billy
knew he could break doctrine and still get a pat on the back.
None of that smells too much like he was concerned about the danger of
the new Hitler of Europe. That's Okay, Josh, I don't think Albright saw
it that way either.
Sure, it's just mean spirited right wing conspiracies that blame Kosovo
on a blow job. I'm not Republican, I work for the Democrats, I'm a
Libertarian by temperament. What I don't understand is why he didn't get
fired, when a lowly federal employee like a postal clerk would have most
certainly--union or no. And the type of personality that would get
blowjobs while talking to world leaders and congressional leaders on the
phone is the same type of guy who would do just what I've just
described. Mick Jagger in a Harts Schaffner & Marx.
IMNSHO
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>[denials]
>
>If Nixon his Evilness timed peace talks with elections, Clinton timed
>Kosovo (or whatever might have come his way) to grab positive headlines
>just like he took the sudden trip to Africa on the spur of the moment
>with no agenda in mind the first week they couldn't get Monica out of
>the headlines. Old Layer trick that.
The thing is, we have evidence that Nixon approached the North
Vietnamese -- and what he did was far worse than timing peace talks
with the elections, which is the sort of thing that, as you point out,
any pol would do. But all the evidence suggests that Clinton didn't
time Kosovo. And, as I said, I'm on an evidence kick.
>NATO instead of the UN? Why would he do that? What foundation was there
>for NATO to fight in Kosovo? Unless maybe he was mostly concerned with
>running the light show HIS way, no questions asked. (The fact that they
>were about to get defunded--that's why and that's why NATO played the
>game the way they were told to).
NATO was involved because it was a European problem.
>No UN meant no real attempt to stabilize the region afterwards. No UN
>meant he wouldn't have to explain why he was flagrantly exaggerating the
>evidence against Malosonofavich. Malosonofavich was a real work of art,
>so it all turns out good in the end. But he was painted as a Bull when
>he was only a bull-dog. Too bad he didn't go back into Somalia instead
>of Kosovo--Salami Bin Larder was hiding there at the time, IIRC.
>
>No American President has taken military action before and over ruled
>his commanders because he was afraid to take a single American casualty
>(except Kennedy--and for him one casualty meant megatons in
>reprisal--Gary Powers was one too many). Why would he go in in the first
>place, but refuse to fly missions according to doctrine just on the
>off-chance he'd have to face up to an American death? The way he did it
>he was assured of lots of collateral damage on the ground (dead babies),
>but none in the air (no dead Americans).
Yes. But he did that because there was strong opposition to us going
in in the first place. Kennedy didn't have to deal with isolationism.
>
>Malosonofavich was dead in the water after the first Tomahawk, so Billy
>knew he could break doctrine and still get a pat on the back.
>
>None of that smells too much like he was concerned about the danger of
>the new Hitler of Europe. That's Okay, Josh, I don't think Albright saw
>it that way either.
I've never seen any reason to doubt that Clinton, like just about
everybody else, was repulsed by Serbian atrocities, as well as being
concerned about European stability. And our allies very much wanted us
there. The Hitler stuff was just speechmaking to justify intervention.
>Sure, it's just mean spirited right wing conspiracies that blame Kosovo
>on a blow job. I'm not Republican, I work for the Democrats, I'm a
>Libertarian by temperament. What I don't understand is why he didn't get
>fired, when a lowly federal employee like a postal clerk would have most
>certainly--union or no. And the type of personality that would get
>blowjobs while talking to world leaders and congressional leaders on the
>phone is the same type of guy who would do just what I've just
>described. Mick Jagger in a Harts Schaffner & Marx.
The only ones with the power to fire a president are Congress, and
there's nothing in the constitution about blow jobs! Then too, the
nature of the job puts serious constraints on presidential poontang.
Anyway, I'm not sure that I agree with you about the type of guy bit
-- men of great power tend to have great sexual appetites, in part, at
least, because they have high levels of testosterone, and in part
because they tend to be self-interested, but there are certainly many
exceptions to that rule. And if one attempts to draw a correlation
between presidential sexual behavior and presidential success, it
doesn't seem to work:
Truman Devoted family man
FDR Had an affair
Kennedy Slept around like crazy
Nixon Faithful, and by all accounts a devoted family man and
a warm man in his personal life
Bush Sr. Had an affair
Clinton Had an affair; as governor, slept around like crazy
There's no correlation that I can see.
Josh
Arthur McNutt
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
I'm big on proof too. You're not entirely right in your answers,
especially about NATO being involved in a Civil War, but let's let it
rest. All this Enron guilt by association has me edgy. Wanted to shed
dome light on the guys with the spot lights.
And if one attempts to draw a correlation
> between presidential sexual behavior and presidential success, it
> doesn't seem to work:
>
> Truman Devoted family man
> FDR Had an affair
> Kennedy Slept around like crazy
> Nixon Faithful, and by all accounts a devoted family man and
> a warm man in his personal life
> Bush Sr. Had an affair
> Clinton Had an affair; as governor, slept around like crazy
>
> There's no correlation that I can see.
>
Probably not. Correction on the last, the affair was affairs, perhaps
hundreds from what Monica was told (which made her all the more
interested). Then there's the rape which Clinton couldn't comment on
because the statute of limitations would have been nullified. Everybody
including the GOP leadership wanted to give him a pass on that one--not
because there wasn't anything to it, but because there too evidently
was. That would have been a 30-06 pointed straight at the institution of
the Presidency. Even they were given pause. Nothing's worth that,
especially not that turd.
You should read Starr's testimony transcripts, not just the
highlights--We had to read every word as I was working at the head
quarters of the Dem party at the time, doing my mercenary propaganda
gig. If the elections had been held in August...But then they decided a
High Crime means those in High Places get away with it--like you
said--'cause of the extraordinary *high* pressures of the job. Heh. They
should trade places with *me* sometime. I don't cheat on my wife--she's
my best friend--'couldn't imagine it. And Ian and Lazarus, my 5 and 6
years olds wouldn't forgive me even if she could. Not even for a roll in
the hay with Catherine Deneuve--can't fathom it. But maybe *I* can
AFFORD *my* ethics. Unfair of me, isn't it, to project myself on the
Great Man who introduced the term 'A Lowinsky" to Jr. High Schoolers
with a Alfred E. Neuman grin on his face.
As far as the rest is concerned, I don't think you understand how you
made my point by that list. Though I'll let that lie too, like a good
sleeping dog.
Try this: I don't give a rat's turd how "successful" he's going to be in
the job. Success for a President can be to introduce a bunch of
legislation like Al Gore was planning on doing. I'm told by sources high
in the party that with just 25,000 new laws we will officially be in
Utopia--'course we'll be bankrupt, but we'll be in Utopia.
I want him to be trustworthy and honorable. Jimmy Carter was tolerable
he was just a little dense for an Atomic Engineer. Some guys down in
South America still sign them selves when they mention Carter's name. He
saved a few lives, which is good, to say the very least. Kinda like
Albert Einstein, had he been let loose as president. Is that too much to
ask--someone not gullible, but who will break his back trying to keep
his word? I don't want a Daddy or Mommy in the office, I want a straight
shooter, someone I wouldn't mind having at my back in a bar fight. Paul
Tsongas was probably that kind of man, but we want Presidents slicker
than that. Has to do with TV. George Bush could very well prove to be
that kind of man. Only time will tell. Like every American President,
he's got a war outside and inside his country to face. Great Presidents
stood up to it. Regular human beings litter the pages of history with
their failures.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>
>
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
>I'm big on proof too. You're not entirely right in your answers,
>especially about NATO being involved in a Civil War, but let's let it
>rest. All this Enron guilt by association has me edgy. Wanted to shed
>dome light on the guys with the spot lights.
>
> And if one attempts to draw a correlation
>> between presidential sexual behavior and presidential success, it
>> doesn't seem to work:
>>
>> Truman Devoted family man
>> FDR Had an affair
>> Kennedy Slept around like crazy
>> Nixon Faithful, and by all accounts a devoted family man and
>> a warm man in his personal life
>> Bush Sr. Had an affair
>> Clinton Had an affair; as governor, slept around like crazy
>>
>> There's no correlation that I can see.
>>
>
>Probably not. Correction on the last, the affair was affairs, perhaps
>hundreds from what Monica was told (which made her all the more
>interested).
You're right -- I meant had an affair as president (hence the note
about governors)
> Then there's the rape which Clinton couldn't comment on
>because the statute of limitations would have been nullified. Everybody
>including the GOP leadership wanted to give him a pass on that one--not
>because there wasn't anything to it, but because there too evidently
>was. That would have been a 30-06 pointed straight at the institution of
>the Presidency. Even they were given pause. Nothing's worth that,
>especially not that turd.
As with so many accusations leveled at Clinton, I never saw any real
evidence of that. If I had, I would have been at the head of the line
of those callilng for his impeachment.
>You should read Starr's testimony transcripts, not just the
>highlights--We had to read every word as I was working at the head
>quarters of the Dem party at the time, doing my mercenary propaganda
>gig. If the elections had been held in August...But then they decided a
>High Crime means those in High Places get away with it--like you
>said--'cause of the extraordinary *high* pressures of the job. Heh. They
>should trade places with *me* sometime. I don't cheat on my wife--she's
>my best friend--'couldn't imagine it. And Ian and Lazarus, my 5 and 6
>years olds wouldn't forgive me even if she could. Not even for a roll in
>the hay with Catherine Deneuve--can't fathom it. But maybe *I* can
>AFFORD *my* ethics. Unfair of me, isn't it, to project myself on the
>Great Man who introduced the term 'A Lowinsky" to Jr. High Schoolers
>with a Alfred E. Neuman grin on his face.
No, I didn't read the whole thing. What I did see struck me as the
worst kind of humbug -- if Starr had prosecuted Jack the Ripper, the
fellow would have gotten off with an apology! Had the GOP shown some
restraint, I have a feeling Clinton would have been history.
>As far as the rest is concerned, I don't think you understand how you
>made my point by that list. Though I'll let that lie too, like a good
>sleeping dog.
Sometimes it's better to say "I disagree" than "I don't think you
understand" . . .
>Try this: I don't give a rat's turd how "successful" he's going to be in
>the job. Success for a President can be to introduce a bunch of
>legislation like Al Gore was planning on doing. I'm told by sources high
>in the party that with just 25,000 new laws we will officially be in
>Utopia--'course we'll be bankrupt, but we'll be in Utopia.
>
>I want him to be trustworthy and honorable. Jimmy Carter was tolerable
>he was just a little dense for an Atomic Engineer. Some guys down in
>South America still sign them selves when they mention Carter's name. He
>saved a few lives, which is good, to say the very least. Kinda like
>Albert Einstein, had he been let loose as president. Is that too much to
>ask--someone not gullible, but who will break his back trying to keep
>his word? I don't want a Daddy or Mommy in the office, I want a straight
>shooter, someone I wouldn't mind having at my back in a bar fight. Paul
>Tsongas was probably that kind of man, but we want Presidents slicker
>than that. Has to do with TV. George Bush could very well prove to be
>that kind of man. Only time will tell. Like every American President,
>he's got a war outside and inside his country to face. Great Presidents
>stood up to it. Regular human beings litter the pages of history with
>their failures.
I've never doubted that Jimmy Carter was a decent and honorable man --
or that he was a lousy president! So too, I think, Gerald Ford.
Unfortunately, the presidency depends on *more* than decency and
honor.
I think Dubya is a fairly straight shooter myself -- only fairly,
given that he was willing to throw any pretense of honesty out the
window in his campaign against McCain, and had to know something about
what went down in Florida. And we've had some great presidents who
weren't exactly supergeniuses, e.g., Washington and FDR. But he's in
bed with some people who aren't all that straight, and that can bring
down leaders who rely too much on what others tell them -- in the end,
they're sometimes betrayed by the flakier among their advisers, as
Reagan apparently was in Iran-Contra, as Bush may be if there turns
out to be anything genuinely sleazy about the administration's
relationships with Enron (genuinely, as opposed to the guilt by
association stuff).
Josh
McNutt
Joshua P. Hill <josh...@snet.net.remove.this> wrote:
[snip]
>
> As with so many accusations leveled at Clinton, I never saw any real
> evidence of that. If I had, I would have been at the head of the line
> of those calling for his impeachment.
Yeah, right. something like that is always gonna boil down to her
testimony against his. Billy was smart enough not to deny it, though *I*
would have. She presented no contradictory evidence, and her story
checked out.
Not proof, but Clinton's deafening silence on the matter speaks volumes.
Had he denied it he would have moved the statute of limitations to the
date of his denial. Every one knew why he wouldn't say anything about
it--cause it would all come out in court at that point--and they gave
him a pass--Thank God. Wouldn't you think he'd deny it just once AND
THEN shut up?
A lot of the reason you keep saying there is no evidence is because of
the way they stonewalled, and ignored various discovery statues. The
Clintonians never wanted to remind anyone that they were the two best
Lawyers in DC at the time. Because of the way they handled things,
though, the most we can ever say about their regime is that it leaves a
whole helluva lot of question marks.
Here's Clintons legacy as President:
???????????????????????????????????????????????
>
> >You should read Starr's testimony transcripts, not just the
> >highlights--We had to read every word as I was working at the head
> >quarters of the Dem party at the time, doing my mercenary propaganda
> >gig. If the elections had been held in August...But then they decided a
> >High Crime means those in High Places get away with it--like you
> >said--'cause of the extraordinary *high* pressures of the job. Heh. They
> >should trade places with *me* sometime. I don't cheat on my wife--she's
> >my best friend--'couldn't imagine it. And Ian and Lazarus, my 5 and 6
> >years olds wouldn't forgive me even if she could. Not even for a roll in
> >the hay with Catherine Deneuve--can't fathom it. But maybe *I* can
> >AFFORD *my* ethics. Unfair of me, isn't it, to project myself on the
> >Great Man who introduced the term 'A Lowinsky" to Jr. High Schoolers
> >with a Alfred E. Neuman grin on his face.
>
> No, I didn't read the whole thing. What I did see struck me as the
> worst kind of humbug -- if Starr had prosecuted Jack the Ripper, the
> fellow would have gotten off with an apology! Had the GOP shown some
> restraint, I have a feeling Clinton would have been history.
>
Well, all I can say is it wasn't a pleasant read. Kinda like peaking
into OJ and Nicole's lifestyles, if ya wanna call that a lifesyle.
Whatever else you might think about it, it proved he had perjured
himself, and lied quite publicly--no matter if the charges were
legitimate or weighty in the public mind. I'm sure the Gops put Paula
Jones up to her lawsuit, but a man in the position of that much power
should not have to lie, besmirch her character, and finally lie under
oath in order to fight her or squash her.
These things are what is meant by High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Lott
deserved to loose the Senate. He did his contry a disservice by dropping
the ball short of the endzone. The value of integrity in our culture
droped another notch because of him, and we can't really afford it. If
he was gonna do that all along, as he most obviously was--he should've
put his foot down in the GOP backrooms--the smoke-filled rooms when they
were getting their gameplan ironed out.
Clinton can join the ranks of the other footnotes to the legal history
of the 20th Century--John Delorean, OJ Simpson and W C Clinton. All Peas
in a Pod.
They liked to jibe and pick on Starr, but he was appointed by Clinton
because of his immaculate credentials and well known non-political
objectivity. They did their best to besmirch these immaculate
credentials, and continue even to this day to do so.
Not any one of those things but all of those things seem to indicate
that that inveterate Democratic insider Chris Mathews is correct in his
appraisal of the man and his administration. I concur.
> >As far as the rest is concerned, I don't think you understand how you
> >made my point by that list. Though I'll let that lie too, like a good
> >sleeping dog.
>
> Sometimes it's better to say "I disagree" than "I don't think you
> understand" . . .
>
You're right, this borders on rude. Let me just say, that I don't rank
those Presidents the same way you assumed. You may be thinking that
most people think FDR was a great president, or even a good president--
I don't concur. You may be thinking that Nixon was an evil and corrupt
President, and again, I don't concur--especially if one compares his
presidency to the one just previous to his. In fact, what I was saying
is that your list and comparison of who couldn't manage fidelity in
their marriages and who could actually might just prove there IS a
correlation. Not that this was ever MY assertion. Infedelity is a hint
at the extent that someone is greedy, and greed is the evil from which
all of our sins are born (speaking secular sins here, BTW). Like the
light on the dash, it may indicate a problem--but you need to tap on the
light, and get out to check just to make sure. I wouldn't buy a car with
errant lights on the dash, however.
Jonathan M.
"Arthur McNutt" <amcn...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3C606615...@home.com...
>
>
> "Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > You know, before the 11th I didn't like anything about the Bush
> > administration, and liked less about Bush. But I have to confess
> > they've done a good job of dealing with the immediate problem. Now if
> > only they would start thinking about the long term. Like Bush Sr.,
> > these guys are wonderful at coalition building, but seem completely
> > unable to enunciate a positive vision for the future. They've
> > alienated the public in allied countries (though not the allies
> > themselves), failed to make an attempt to bridge the gap between the
> > third world and first, failed to promulgate non-unilateral mechanisms
> > to deal with this new threat. And yet the task seems to me fairly
> > hopeless even *with* those things.
>
> Well, yeah, I'm sorry he doesn't walk on water too. But at least he
> isn't Plato.
But a President that can't pronounce 'nuclear' is a bit worrisome.
> >
> > The worst bit of high-level treachery I've ever seen in this country
> > was Nixon's pre-election approach to the North Vietnamese, and even
> > that doesn't compare.
And how is President Bush 'treacherous"? I don't see that at all.
> >
> >
> Well, sure there was Kosovo, a little diversion from having his blank
> caught in the blank (not the cookie jar--well not LITERALLY anyway).
> Never understood how a President could get away with something a lowly
> Postal Clerk would have been fired on the spot for--
But you republicans have forgotten who does the hiring and firing
of Presidents. I should remind you it is not Ken Starr. A 'fireable
offense is for the people to decide every four years, only criminal
acts are for the politicians and courts to judge.
But this truth of democracy was lost in the zeal to get
President Clinton in any way possible. A marital issue
was turned into a criminal one with endless and
absurd litigation. The repubs knew that if they investigated
every aspect of his life, personal or professional, that sooner
or later they would box him into the "big lie'!
HE LIED! Obstruction of Justice and so on. And what
exactly was the big lie that the repubs paralyzed the country
for, embarrassed their nation to discover and spent
a quarter of a billion dollars chasing? (Starr plus Congress)
Yes, they got him to lie about a blow job.
Congratulations repubs, you managed to define the highest
form of pettiness, opportunism and hypocrisy this country
has ever seen.
Congratulations repubs, you managed to dispense with one
of our most basic rights, which is that the police should
start with a crime first, then look for the guilty. And replaced
it with the notion the police should start with a ...person
instead and keep looking and looking until they find
some crime, any crime will do. Even if it's only
one a wife should judge.
Congratulations repubs, you managed to so fully and
intrusively investigate President Clinton that his honesty
and integrity, outside of marriage, are as clean
and documented as any person in the history of this
country. I remember they had over 100,000
files working at one point. Hundreds of staffers, hundreds
of FBI out chasing every lead on the President for years,
an obsessed and all-powerful prosecutor, and from one end
of the county to another going back some twenty years.
Who here could stand to such intense scrutiny
and not be found to violate some law greater than
infidelity and refusing to admit such? Oh yeah and
his wife made some fast bucks with some sleazy
developer in the '70's. I forgot!
And the developers wife, oh yes, seeing her in leg-irons,
held in solitary and restricted from the press for months
was special wasn't it? And remember the heartwarming
scenes when Monica's Mom met the Inquisitor?
Thanks for the memories repubs!
President Clinton, the American people, did not deserve
to be harmed and humiliated by ruthless, dogmatic
and spiteful politicians looking to gain votes at the public's
expense. President Clinton's ever soaring approval
ratings during the 'trial' and on to his last day, an
unprecedented peacetime approval rating, is a clear
rejection of the repubs chosen form of campaigning,
using busloads of lawyers wielding blank checks courtesy
....the US taxpayer.
And thanks repubs, for yet another republican recession driven
by a President that steps us back into the red, shouts recession every
chance he gets, and whose oil buddies get the light
turned their way and ...bang goes the economy, in the dumps.
Jonathan
s
Arthur McNutt
Jonathan M. wrote:
> "Arthur McNutt" <amcn...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3C606615...@home.com...
>
>>
[snip a condemnation of the GOP]
>
> And thanks repubs, for yet another republican recession driven
> by a President that steps us back into the red, shouts recession every
> chance he gets, and whose oil buddies get the light
> turned their way and ...bang goes the economy, in the dumps.
>
>
I know this wasn't directed at me, 'cause I ain't no Republican, though
I've been known to vote that way now and again. I have reasons not to
get behind either party--but I go with the them who's for my freedoms.
After Watergate they came up with a solution to "end" corruption in the
election process and gave birth to the term "Soft Money." I used to work
for the head of the Democratic Party in my state, and he is also the
longest sitting Speaker in the history of our House. I know what soft
money is, I saw him write the checks. Soft money is many millions of
dollars the chairman of the party can raise and spend to buy candidates.
Now, since soft money, the parties speak with one voice--no
desenters--not even Hollings---not even Lieberman.
That is the only grounds you have for what you are stating. No Democrat
spoke out against Clinton--and ALL Republicans did. No descenters either
way--'cept for a few cowards and independently funded boys and girls
here and there--but even they wouldn't dare take independent ACTION.
Soft money is the Party's money so they all speak the party's line.
Otherwise his own people would have thrown him overboard long ago--as
Nixon's former friends finally did to him. WJC hurt them even more than
they will ever know. And I have heard with my own ears those sentiments
spoken by players in the Dem party. Privately, they, the ones who would
best KNOW don't even think as you have written here, but they encourage
you all they can to believe that. If you want to know what they think
PRIVATELY, listen to Chris Matthew's sometime. He echoes their
sentiments with resounding fidelity.
BTW, we are a Republic, not a democracy so it's a little hard for what
we do as a nation to be a test for democracy. And blow jobs, while not
being against the law (thankfully) and I'm all in favor of them 1,000%
I'm not delighted to know he was receiving them from young ladies he barely
knew while on the company payroll. Whether it was right or not that the
GOP called him on that was NEVER the issue--it was the spin. The
issue is full and immediate
disclosure. Clinton's not sure there is such a thing even to this day.
Time will tell if Dubya believes in the concept.
This is a poultry group, not a bash Clinton or Bush I or II or Reagan or
Nixon group. It's good to air this out, but it is better to find the
poetry in what the leaders and politicians do and did. Not to hate any
of it, but to Grok it in its' fullness. IMO.
b.cl...@symbolism_over_substance.org
write@instead (Jonathan) wrote:
>President Clinton, the American people, did not deserve
>to be harmed and humiliated by ruthless, dogmatic
>and spiteful politicians looking to gain votes at the public's
>expense. President Clinton's ever soaring approval
>ratings during the 'trial' and on to his last day, an
>unprecedented peacetime approval rating, is a clear
>rejection of the repubs chosen form of campaigning,
>using busloads of lawyers wielding blank checks courtesy
>.....the US taxpayer.
Ah feel yore pain.
Joshua P. Hill
>In article <gqd36ucvqhncfd7sr...@4ax.com>,
> Joshua P. Hill <josh...@snet.net.remove.this> wrote:
>
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>> As with so many accusations leveled at Clinton, I never saw any real
>> evidence of that. If I had, I would have been at the head of the line
>> of those calling for his impeachment.
>
>Yeah, right. something like that is always gonna boil down to her
>testimony against his. Billy was smart enough not to deny it, though *I*
>would have. She presented no contradictory evidence, and her story
>checked out.
>
>Not proof, but Clinton's deafening silence on the matter speaks volumes.
>Had he denied it he would have moved the statute of limitations to the
>date of his denial. Every one knew why he wouldn't say anything about
>it--cause it would all come out in court at that point--and they gave
>him a pass--Thank God. Wouldn't you think he'd deny it just once AND
>THEN shut up?
>
>A lot of the reason you keep saying there is no evidence is because of
>the way they stonewalled, and ignored various discovery statues. The
>Clintonians never wanted to remind anyone that they were the two best
>Lawyers in DC at the time. Because of the way they handled things,
>though, the most we can ever say about their regime is that it leaves a
>whole helluva lot of question marks.
I dunno -- this argument reminds me of those people who are saying
that because there's oil in the middle east and the US wanted to build
a pipeline in Afghanistan and was attempting to deal with Al Qaeda the
real reason we're in Afghanistan is oil and the pipeline.
Scenarios are a dime a dozen, as are accusations against politicians.
That's not to say that some of the accusations and scenarios aren't
true, but if the possibility of truth were a sufficient reason for
belief, we'd believe anything we wanted.
>Well, all I can say is it wasn't a pleasant read. Kinda like peaking
>into OJ and Nicole's lifestyles, if ya wanna call that a lifesyle.
>
>Whatever else you might think about it, it proved he had perjured
>himself, and lied quite publicly--no matter if the charges were
>legitimate or weighty in the public mind. I'm sure the Gops put Paula
>Jones up to her lawsuit, but a man in the position of that much power
>should not have to lie, besmirch her character, and finally lie under
>oath in order to fight her or squash her.
No argument on that, but then, the Dems never argued with that either.
As you said, the Paula Jones thing was a setup, a way of getting
Clinton into court and forcing him to make embarassing revelations
about his sex life, because for political reasons a president can't
take the fifth as a normal defendant would. And Clinton tried to
finesse his way out, asking the court about the definition of sex, and
then ended up perjuring himself in court and before the grand jury.
All pretty bad stuff, and as I said, if Clinton hadn't been accused of
everything under the sun and the Starr hadn't used tactics that made
him look more like a persecutor than a prosecutor, I'm sure it would
have brought him down. As it was, you had a lot of Democrats saying
"enough is enough."
>These things are what is meant by High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Lott
>deserved to loose the Senate. He did his contry a disservice by dropping
>the ball short of the endzone. The value of integrity in our culture
>droped another notch because of him, and we can't really afford it. If
>he was gonna do that all along, as he most obviously was--he should've
>put his foot down in the GOP backrooms--the smoke-filled rooms when they
>were getting their gameplan ironed out.
>
>Clinton can join the ranks of the other footnotes to the legal history
>of the 20th Century--John Delorean, OJ Simpson and W C Clinton. All Peas
>in a Pod.
>
>They liked to jibe and pick on Starr, but he was appointed by Clinton
>because of his immaculate credentials and well known non-political
>objectivity. They did their best to besmirch these immaculate
>credentials, and continue even to this day to do so.
The general consensus is that Starr didn't live up to those
credentials, and so destroyed his career, said at one point to have
included the possibility of an appointment to the Supreme Court, as a
result.
His failure was particularly stunning given the fine job that's been
done by previous special prosecutors. He lost all objectivity.
>Not any one of those things but all of those things seem to indicate
>that that inveterate Democratic insider Chris Mathews is correct in his
>appraisal of the man and his administration. I concur.
>
>> >As far as the rest is concerned, I don't think you understand how you
>> >made my point by that list. Though I'll let that lie too, like a good
>> >sleeping dog.
>>
>> Sometimes it's better to say "I disagree" than "I don't think you
>> understand" . . .
>>
>You're right, this borders on rude. Let me just say, that I don't rank
>those Presidents the same way you assumed. You may be thinking that
>most people think FDR was a great president, or even a good president--
>I don't concur. You may be thinking that Nixon was an evil and corrupt
>President, and again, I don't concur--especially if one compares his
>presidency to the one just previous to his. In fact, what I was saying
>is that your list and comparison of who couldn't manage fidelity in
>their marriages and who could actually might just prove there IS a
>correlation.
That's what I thought you meant. Let's just say we disagree, and leave
it at that!
> Not that this was ever MY assertion. Infedelity is a hint
>at the extent that someone is greedy
You know, I don't think that's the case. It's not just a matter of
those presidents, but from what I've seen in private life, there's at
best a partial correlation. Outside factors can intrude, and social
factors can have a role. And while I agree that in some (but not all)
cases infidelity corresponds to greed, I don't think that greed is
really the be-all-and-end-all of evil. Forex, Bin Laden isn't greedy,
in a material sense, anyway (he has the greediest *ego* of anyone I've
ever seen), but he's about as evil as they come. Extreme moralists --
religious and political fanatics -- are I think the cruelest, most
callous group on earth. Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot . . . Robespierre, bin
Laden . . . that Iranian mullah who says it would only take one
nuclear weapon to destroy Israel, and sure, the Israelis would respond
in kind, but there are more Arabs than Israelis . . . he'd sacrifice
millions of his own people, never mind the people of Israel . . . but
I don't think you could call any of these monsters greedy . . .
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:59:00 -0500, "Jonathan M." <write@instead>
wrote:
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>After Watergate they came up with a solution to "end" corruption in the
>election process and gave birth to the term "Soft Money." I used to work
>for the head of the Democratic Party in my state, and he is also the
>longest sitting Speaker in the history of our House. I know what soft
>money is, I saw him write the checks. Soft money is many millions of
>dollars the chairman of the party can raise and spend to buy candidates.
>Now, since soft money, the parties speak with one voice--no
>desenters--not even Hollings---not even Lieberman.
Interesting point too.
Josh
Jonathan M.
>
>
> Jonathan M. wrote:
>
> > "Arthur McNutt" <amcn...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C606615...@home.com...
> >
> >>
>
>
> [snip a condemnation of the GOP]
And it was such a good rant too, felt good!
>
>
> >
> > And thanks repubs, for yet another republican recession driven
> > by a President that steps us back into the red, shouts recession every
> > chance he gets, and whose oil buddies get the light
> > turned their way and ...bang goes the economy, in the dumps.
> >
> >
>
> I know this wasn't directed at me, 'cause I ain't no Republican, though
> I've been known to vote that way now and again. I have reasons not to
> get behind either party--but I go with the them who's for my freedoms.
>
> After Watergate they came up with a solution to "end" corruption in the
> election process and gave birth to the term "Soft Money." I used to work
> for the head of the Democratic Party in my state, and he is also the
> longest sitting Speaker in the history of our House. I know what soft
> money is, I saw him write the checks. Soft money is many millions of
> dollars the chairman of the party can raise and spend to buy candidates.
> Now, since soft money, the parties speak with one voice--no
> desenters--not even Hollings---not even Lieberman.
The issue of campaign finance I tend to side with the repubs for the
most part. Although I agree the money is out of control the idea
of the government instructing how and when anyone can
express their views is offensive to me. Especially with political
speech, an area where the most freedom should be.
>
> That is the only grounds you have for what you are stating. No Democrat
> spoke out against Clinton--and ALL Republicans did. No descenters either
> way--'cept for a few cowards and independently funded boys and girls
> here and there--but even they wouldn't dare take independent ACTION.
> Soft money is the Party's money so they all speak the party's line.
Has it occurred to you that we are well-served by strong parties?
And that the American people desire such? The ills you correctly cite
from all the money and the power it gives are largely irrelevant in
comparison with the immense strengthening of democracy and the
power of public opinion it has brought. The last election is a clear
example of the expansion of the will of the people. It was a tie for
a very simple reason, both candidates have learned to poll-watch
with such intensity that they were virtually identical. The politician
became irrelevant as we shape and control them now.
The money, polls and careful tailoring to opinion drives
both candidates to a common center of mass and a tie
is a sign that the public's views are so dominant in the process
that the parties can't defy them.
The last election is a vindication for the people as they are
ruling as never before. The perfection of the tie means the
power of the people has perhaps become too strong,
because of all the money, long and 'scientific' national
campaigns. This is not a bad thing!
If you look at the larger picture, instead of the gritty
details, a different view is gained and all the money is
a good thing in reality, as having both sides swimming in
all they can use cancels each other out and the people
are left to decide in the end.
Excessive regulation of a process that is at the heart of freedom
and democracy is a recipe for reversing the trend and allowing
the politicians to set the agenda, to gain control of the direction
of our government, instead of having to follow religiously the
whims and demands of public opinion.
Strong campaign finance laws would kill the forest to clean the
weeds, I don't think it is wise that we should have
to ask permission from the govt to give our money as we
like, speak as we like, and let them stop nature from taking
it's course.
We all would agree I think that when five minds work on
a problem, instead of one, a better result is usually obtained.
The collective opinion of a hundred million voters displays
a wisdom far beyond that of ...any one man. To have such
a wisdom driving politics to such an extent, because of the
money, is in the process of creating the most complete
and true form of democracy the world has yet seen.
This reality is displayed in the unceasing strength and resilience
of America in comparison to the world. As our democracy continues
to improve America will continue to pull away and increasingly
lead the rest of the world.
You may be correct that one can buy candidates, votes and
elections, so what? You can't buy contributions, the contributors
must be convinced. In a ...free society democracy will find a way
to work just as natural forest will find a way to thrive.
The last election, to me, was as beautiful, elegant and
reassuring as anything I've seen. You must look first
at what a system does, instead of looking first at
what it ..is. A system' s health is displayed in it's
behavior, not by it's components.
Jonathan
s
Arthur McNutt
Jonathan M. wrote:
> "Arthur McNutt" <amcn...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3C61FEA2...@home.com...
>
>>
>>Jonathan M. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Arthur McNutt" <amcn...@home.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3C606615...@home.com...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>[snip a condemnation of the GOP]
>>
>
>
> And it was such a good rant too, felt good!
Glad to have been your psych couch!I feel better after my rants too.
[snip]
>
> The issue of campaign finance I tend to side with the repubs for the
> most part. Although I agree the money is out of control the idea
> of the government instructing how and when anyone can
> express their views is offensive to me. Especially with political
> speech, an area where the most freedom should be.
>
>
Let's get something straight--I think the campaign finance reform act of
, um, 1974, I believe, was the cause of many more probs than it ever
could have solved in the first place. McCain/Feingold as it reads today
would be worse, exponentionally worse. And it would not address any of
the probs it hypocritically *says* it would.
[snip]
>
> Has it occurred to you that we are well-served by strong parties?
Wheew! I had to stop to wipe my eyes. My sides hurt. THAT was a good
one!!! But then I worked inside for a while, too. Sorry.
Let me just insert here, that the parties strength can be deluded by an
engaged electorate. The more we pay attention, the less they can do.
SO PAY ATTENTION, PLEASE!!!!! (this isn't directed at you, Jonathan,
BTW--you obviously pay attention)
> And that the American people desire such? The ills you correctly cite
> from all the money and the power it gives are largely irrelevant in
> comparison with the immense strengthening of democracy and the
> power of public opinion it has brought. The last election is a clear
> example of the expansion of the will of the people. It was a tie for
> a very simple reason, both candidates have learned to poll-watch
> with such intensity that they were virtually identical. The politician
> became irrelevant as we shape and control them now.
I think a guy decides to kill a guy it ain't the gun's fault. If a guy
decides to take money from the Unions or Trial Lawyers or Tobacco and
then he proceeds to go after their enemies and give them special
favors--well, that's his call. I like the idea of disclosure. Not
violating freedom of speech to know who bought who. I certainly agree
with Jeanne here.
As for the last election--I don't know too many people now who don't
agree with the results NOW. Al might have won, *might* have won, had he
asked for a full recount. Instead, he was "too clever by half" and asked
for a limited recount in counties he'd already won (almost unheard
of--and almost a bald confession he was afraid he DIDN'T win). HE's the
one who defeated himself, though it still isn't clear if he would have
got the votes or not. Glad I don't have a hypocrite of HIS species
calling the shots right now: "We need to count all the votes (in the
heavily dem districts, that is--ALL of THOSE votes--but none of the
others, please.) By the time he got done dickin' around we had a
constitutional crisis on our hands. Alpha Male my left foot.
As for listening to the polls, I take the line from Edmund Burke to
heart--about how it is often in the constituent's best interest for a
Representative to vote his own conscience rather than what he is told
the constituents want him to.
>
> The money, polls and careful tailoring to opinion drives
> both candidates to a common center of mass and a tie
> is a sign that the public's views are so dominant in the process
> that the parties can't defy them.
Actually, the tie indicates exactly how polarized this country has
become. We are nearly evenly split on most issues. Most of these issues
have to do with Government's role and its limits. And our freedom.
Hence, the pollsters job gets more easy every year. "It's all about the
independent voters, stupid." Problem with independent voters is they are
mostly disengaged with the system and don't pay a helluva lot of attention.
>
> The last election is a vindication for the people as they are
> ruling as never before. The perfection of the tie means the
> power of the people has perhaps become too strong,
> because of all the money, long and 'scientific' national
> campaigns. This is not a bad thing!
Eh. Who knows, maybe you're right.
>
> If you look at the larger picture, instead of the gritty
> details, a different view is gained and all the money is
> a good thing in reality, as having both sides swimming in
> all they can use cancels each other out and the people
> are left to decide in the end.
Money non-pluses me. I've seen 'em get bought and sold, though. Problem
isn't so much with the players--it's with us 'cause we all know the
words to the Brady Bunch Song but not the name of our Representatives.
Wadda we expect? And believe me, they LIKE IT THAT WAY. "Here's the
story, of a lovely lady..."
>
> Excessive regulation of a process that is at the heart of freedom
> and democracy is a recipe for reversing the trend and allowing
> the politicians to set the agenda, to gain control of the direction
> of our government, instead of having to follow religiously the
> whims and demands of public opinion.
>
> Strong campaign finance laws would kill the forest to clean the
> weeds, I don't think it is wise that we should have
> to ask permission from the govt to give our money as we
> like, speak as we like, and let them stop nature from taking
> it's course.
Wouldn't do anything but benefit those already in power--which is why
those in power are proposing it. Luckily, it is probably a violation of
1st Amendment anyway.
>
>
> We all would agree I think that when five minds work on
> a problem, instead of one, a better result is usually obtained.
> The collective opinion of a hundred million voters displays
> a wisdom far beyond that of ...any one man. To have such
> a wisdom driving politics to such an extent, because of the
> money, is in the process of creating the most complete
> and true form of democracy the world has yet seen.
No, we would not agree that five minds work better than one. Let's leave
it at that, shall we?
>
> This reality is displayed in the unceasing strength and resilience
> of America in comparison to the world. As our democracy continues
> to improve America will continue to pull away and increasingly
> lead the rest of the world.
There is only one reason we are strong--our freedom. Our greatness, the
greatness of any people is dependent on their freedoms; To the extent of
those freedoms.
>
>
> You may be correct that one can buy candidates, votes and
> elections, so what? You can't buy contributions, the contributors
> must be convinced. In a ...free society democracy will find a way
> to work just as natural forest will find a way to thrive.
That's why it is covered in the 1st Amendment. This is WHY they wrote
the 1st Amendment.
>
> The last election, to me, was as beautiful, elegant and
> reassuring as anything I've seen. You must look first
> at what a system does, instead of looking first at
> what it ..is. A system' s health is displayed in it's
> behavior, not by it's components.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> s
>
>
>
>
---
Art
sk...@nowhere.man
as Art McNutt penned so eloquently, attempting to place his forefinger
right on the squirting arterial fountain:
>Skye, what "rights" does a citizen have for participatory responsibility? The same "rights" as a passenger in an airplane that's having trouble with engine #3? Sure, you're gonna die if the pilot can't either restart the engine or compensate for it--but what the hell you gonna do about it? You want him to stand at the cabin door and count hands as he throws out
different suggestions?
Hey Art:
So, so sorry I haven't written/replied this letter sooner; I had good
intentions, but I got distracted and behind things. Your letter here
was very well-written, if a *bit* over-the-top in some ways, and not a
little beautiful even; More importantly, it SPOKE to me and on
important issues, almost as much by what it DIDN'T say as by what it
DID: I'll admit,You ALMOST had me convinced to run, not walk, to my
nearest (local) Recruiters Office, and offer my -admittedly
negligable- skills in support of my country's aims; Seriously, you
gave me much to chew-over and ponder;
I'd say the "rights" FOR participatory responsibility are a deliberate
and thoughtful acceptance and committment to the duties re:
citizenship; The operative word is "for" and not "of", but more
significantly, the context of "rights" is a two-way contract, with
obligations that extend beyond privelege; The 'rights' in the airplane
example is a duty to not compound the problem/issue, as by engaging
the pilot in off-topic discussion or otherwise distracting him from
attending to the urgent crisis; Perhaps the word "rights" was not
expedient, but it implies a certain diligence in being informed and
involved, and NOT just "going along for the ride", as so succinctly
provided by your accident-in-the-airplane analogy; But IN that
example, it suggests that I should (have an obligation to) speak-up if
my experience as, say, a technical copyeditor or bookbinder or Flight
Mechanic, would have made me familiar with "Lockheed/Marietta
Manufacturers Technical Service Bulletin 36B-A754-C dated Jan 1992
Release Re: Turbofan Accidental/Emergency Shutdown Problem/Testing and
Repair Guidelines and Special Recommended Emergency Restart
Procedures"; Indeed, I think I would have a clear duty to speak and
offer to help if I thought it useful, wouldn't I? (ie., "Bypass the
main generator fuse buss shunt to "Relay" at switch Aux.12B, turn
fuel-line antiicing Heat Control #3 to "standby", make sure compressor
actuator stator load is set to Max Pitch Manual, etc...")
>"How many think the problem's in the oil pressure? Okay that's, um, six.Okay, now; the co-pilot tells me he thinks it might be a problem with the main turbo fan, if you think that's it raise your hand"
It's not "just" or "only" a matter of democratic "vote", where
majority 'rules'; The issues are much more profound and far-reaching;
On the other hand, if I had nothing practical to add or contribute to
the pilot, I'd have the right/responsibility to behave myself and not
contribute to a state of panic, and even to help in any way I could,
such as by physically restraining the freaking-out Manufacturer's Rep
passenger so he wouldn't knock down the stewardess, which would likely
distract the pilot or co-pilot from their efforts to figure out what's
wrong, etc,
>We probably had no business being in World War II. FDR's "Lend-Lease" meant we were supporting the Allies and restricting trade with Germany. That ain't neutral in anyone's book , and the embargo of Japan meant that we WERE going to war against them, it was just a question of when.
Probably true, maybe we had no moral business in WWII, but given our
position as a major world state/power in 1940-41 international
politics/economy, we could hardly AVOID becoming involved more and
more;
Embargo, as economic foreign policy, IS a form of warfare. But also,
how realistic/practical is it to second-guess history, especially from
the perspective of sixty-plus years later? But of course Pearl Harbor
makes suh a question moot, as it served as a 'cause' to unite a
fragmented/divisive isolationist-prone country with competing
interests/perspectives, and gave us the incentive/reason/justification
to pull together in harmony, with a single determined resolve, to
defend ourselves and the principle of liberty, democracy, progress,
and offer our enlightened cooperation to the allied powers; Ditto with
Japan embargo signalling our intent to battle; Right? Wrong? Sure
depends on what your operant criteria are; "Was the war Necessary?" is
at LEAST as important as asking "Was it right?" The world's population
was reduced by what, 40 to 50 million, or more? Great destruction,
loss of physical infrastructure, great population displacements,
effect of horror at recognizing the scale of human barbarism,
atrocities, inhumanity, political extremism of Soviet State via Stalin
that killed 20 million Soviets through his post-war
experiments/solution for expanding State control of production, etc.
Also, great political incentive to build unilateral mechanisms, ie,
United Nations, NATO, World Court (grew out of need to/experience
with, prosecuting War Criminals @ Nuremburg), critical need to
abandon/restructure colonialist institutions, follow-thru with our
'promises' to defend the principle of freedom and liberty, "allowing"
enlightened democracy (which of course we 'bungled' and fudged and in
many instances resisted honoring, showing the hypocrisy of emphasizing
our OWN self-interest at the cost of many nations having to struggle
out of colonialist rule), stimulated economic cooperation, rebuilding
infrastructure of Europe/Eastern Eurasia/Japan, creating/radically
expanding National Information/Intel Services, and so on; America
'came out' of the war-experience well-positioned to take the lead, to
develop Superpower status and gain savvy political experience in
exercising Foreign policy based on security and economic interests;
>Japanese boys and German boys dying with bullets that are stamped: Made in the USA made it imperative that we be drawn in--Hitler and Tojo couldn't allow America to turn a buck on the war and not have to pay the price for it. There were people who stood in front of the Newsreel cameras and said the same things you are saying here---long before the crisis came. Were they right?
Moral "answers" aren't specifically about being right-or-wrong in any
objective, long-term, pragmatic sense, are they? It's certainly
relative, necessarily, to the individual, society, and times depending
on the context, level of analysis, taking into account the basis for
the code of ethics the morailty is based on; National morality is
hardly ever, IF ever, the same as individual morality, as the
terms/criteria are based on much broader/ larger/longer-ranged
perspectives;
Post-war opportunity contributed to economic prosperity and expansion
of a highly-trained highly-motivated middle-class, which fueled 'the
good life' and material progress, and R&D with discovery/invention,
and investments and education and immigration and growth and increased
efficiency of production capacity and achievement of one of the
world's per-capita highest-standards-of-living, and on-and-on; Fine,
right? Except, the age of dissaffection/dissillusionment set in the
late-50's, 60's, over pent-up frustration/dissapointment with
unjust/long-denied civil-rights and feminist interests fueling civil
dissobedience, social unrest, confrontation with vested well-defended
status-quo WASP conventions, increasing Cold War along with youth
rebellion/R&R/alienation, repudiation of middle-class values,
dissapointment/disaffection with materialism and conspicious
consumption, protest against pragmatism and the delegitimazation of
spiritual principles and spiritual faith;
But it's problematic considering whether we could have avoided
entering the war, even with eventual realization of the halaucaust
and methodical genocide occurring.
An observer from outer space might well ask, "If America is indeed a
Christian nation, as it typically professes (ie., God Bless America)
then doesn't this make contemporary Christianity a religion of
crusades and wars?" If Christianity is not a religion of war, what
are mainstream American Christians doing to prevent and ameliorate
serial conflict/wars' damage to less fortunate Third-world
peoples/peasants who are too-often war's most usual (and
uncompensated) victims of American/Allied unmatched and essentially
unlimited destructive power? The answer is, far from helping, most
professing Christian leaders throw gas on the fire. To the extent that
affluence, wealth, utilitarianism, intolerance, bigotry, greed, fear,
hate, revenge, and so forth interfere, confound Spiritual practices,
the questions raised are very important; Who within the ranks of those
who call themselves Christians are responsible for promoting war, and
why do they do it?
Re: The WWII example (you gave above) of protestor's arguing the war
is "wrong", is not quite the same as what I'm doing, is it?? In that
I'm asking questions, searching my and the collective conscience, and
engaging in a lively debate/discovery of related issues; I Haven't
quite come to the conclusion the War is "wrong", have I? But even if I
had, or do, in the bigger picture that would be part of my Free
Speech's exercise of opinion, wouldn't it? And, more importantly, do
you dispute the duty citizens have to examine and question the
policies of their elected officials (leaving aside the thorny issue of
whether President Bush II was really elected or apponted)??
Discussing/commenting on the issues which the War on Terrorism raises
is part of the tedious but necessary process of participatory
democracy, isn't it? The ISSUE is exercising the freedom to speak,
which is an obligation to 'think' about things at a level beyond
'surface skating';
>"'Course it's about the oil, Stupid." Just like it was "about the economy, stupid." Carville's distillation doesn't mean what you think it does, though. Clinton's minister of Propaganda was talking about an economy that was already showing sings that it would be as strong as it proved to be for the next ten years. There was no recession, never was, and all the players knew it. Carville couldn't afford anything diluting his message, though. In propaganda, reality is whatever you want it to be--especially if you're good enough at it. If you can convince people there is a problem with the economy, then there is, even if you later show them there wasn't and isn't.
I substantially agree with the conclusion you reach by this level of
analysis; But that's part of my problem I have with the conclusion the
"WAR" is necessary and unequivocably 'right'; There is an embedded
assumption thereby, impervious to ready analysis/criticism, that War
is "right" to protect/insure our economic/political interests, to
secure access to natural resources and markets, to make critical
public policy decisions regarding substantial investments in our
military-industrial capacity, emphasizing bioterrorist and homeland
defense, and so forth, including decisions that limit our protected
freedoms and civil-rights, that increase domestic surveillance and
formalize practices of profiling and invasive/arbitrary security-risk
screening, that are increasingly turning our nation into an
armed-camp, that priveleges/prioritizes increasingly
suspicious/defensive attitudes and threat expectations, and so on; The
net effect of all these developments is to compell us on a course that
is irrevocable and demanding, requiring more and more of our efforts
and committment; The consequences to all these things, are not quite
as simplistic or benign or certain as Prez. Bush II's optimistic
proclamation that "we shall prevail!", apparently because the
alternative is unthinkable; Clearly, we are arguably the world's
greatest superpower, and 'we gonna kick us some ass, man, you betcha!'
My first and greatest objection to a broad-front aggressive "War on
Terrorism" is the cost in human pain, suffering and death, what is so
often (much too often) trivialized and/or discounted as 'collateral
damage'; Essentially, the "war" legitimizes, justifies, and excuses
civilian/non-combatant deaths and injury as part of the "cost" of
combatting terror, which is (as we tentatively agree) really a war
over oil and resources; I have a lot of problem with this, as it
directly contradicts my faith in the Creator and strictures that
require all life to be respected and venerated; To what extent is
'our' self-interest in defending our way of life and the priveleges of
affluence responsible for aggravating or causing the war on terror?
More directly, to the point, what would God likely say/think about the
"War"? Would Christ tag along with popular opinion, endorse the
President's convictions, silently or vocally support the effort to
send in troops, drop bombs, fire guns, causing death, destruction,
pain, agony, suffering?
This question is compounded by the close association typically made
that America is a "Godly" nation, that God typically blesses us and
favors our stand FOR liberty and freedom; Surely, the "War on
terrorism" is a popular wide-front public issue that most Americans
believe in and support (apparently) without reservation; Talking-head
commentary by political pundits even recognize that with damn few
exceptions ALL liberals are behind the President and the War effort; I
am resistant to 'going along' with something just 'cause it's popular,
and I am a bit of a contrarian anyway, with an avowed tendency to at
least TRY to understand the minority/unpopular/alternative POV; If
nothing, it at least serves to frame the terms of a competing
agonistic perspective (by which to work towards a kind of objectivity,
anyway);
>Take a look at the computer you're typing on. It's made out of oil (plastic). The electricity it is using is being generated by burning oil or coal, and the turbine's bearings are lubricated by oil. Think about cars for a minute. They burn oil. They use oil for lubrication. The streets they travel on are tar and asphalt mixed with concrete. Your clothes, your shoes....why, you know what Skye? You are drenched in oil. Silly America, everything we have, everything we do, it's all dependent on oil.
Well, 'thanks' for the natural-resource/environmental science lesson
(sic), but I'm hardly UNaware of these points; My objection to the
typically-unexamined assumption that America "deserves" protections
and first-rights access to "oil" in order to perpetuate its (our)
heavily oil-dependant lifestyle speaks directly TO our involvement in
a "War on Terrorism". Again, your argument/position or point-of-view
seems to emanate from/encompass a political-realism rationale; I'll be
the first to admit it's (reasons, consequences for War on Terror) is a
convoluted calculus at best, trying to analyze whether the over-all
good outweighs the bad; Will the complications/terrible either-or
decisions we'll have to make turn us into insensitive brutes? Will we
be able to preserve our sense of inherant dignity and morality? Will
we be able to keep our "good-guy" identity in the face of likely
atrocities and war-related horrors? Doesn't the experience of war
teach that the lessons of brutality and violence are typically learned
too well, so eventually defenders of liberty and freedom begin to look
and act suspiciously like the "enemy"??
I have a deep-rooted fundamental distrust of our government, having
read-widely and studied, participated in a wide variety of many
forums-discussions and so learned of American duplicity and
participation in many questionable undertakings, ranging from
well-known suppression of legitimate democratic governments in favor
of autocratic/meritocratic regimes or dictatorships that favor US
trade policies and exploitive/extractive corporation practices
(maintenance of regimes such as: Noriega, Marcos, Pinochet, Samoza,
Shah of Iran, Perez Peron; in such countries as: Indonesia,
Phillipines, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile, Guatamala; come immediately to
mind--the list is larger), to clandestine subversive operations and
plans cloaked in secrecy (Bay of Pigs, Operation Northwoods, Air
America, Arms for Contras, REX 76) so one can make a case that US
foreign policies have substantially contributed to conditions of
disaffection, political non-representation, pent-up social/political
frustrations-deprivations of the citizens of these countries which
have often LED to the very acts of terror we are now combatting. This
is pretty incredible. Of especial personal concern to me is the issue
of secret US complicity in having trained and supplied the security
forces of the despotic regime in Guatamala through the eighties, which
is responsible for the death and 'disappearance' of tens of thousands
of peasants and policies of brutal repression and torture. In light of
this, Bush's jingoism about the US preserving and defending "freedom"
is so much smoke up the ass; I also have a 'problem' with the
widespread practice of the indiscriminate use of landmines, of which
there are some 120 million worldwide, about 25,000 in Afghanistan;
Many of these are of American manufacture and/or provided by and/or
planted by the US government; Arguably, these are weapons of terror,
that continue to kill and maim civilians and soldiers alike, not
discriminating between enemy and ally, guilty or innocent, soldier or
child; The use of these weapons is barbaric, and to the extent that
the US is complicit or responsible for any landmines which have NOT
been appropriately removed/cleared after hostilities have ceased,
American rhetoric about defending against "terrorism" is extremely
hypocritical and narrowly self-serving; Similiarly, the US President's
and official administration's repeated pronouncements about
maintaining a righteous stand against weapons of mass destruction
flies in the face of overwhelming and non-controversial evidence that
the US has produced, stockpiled, expended, and used more bombs and
missiles, ie, 'weapons of mass destruction', in the prosecution of
armed conflict, than any other single state entity over any single
time period from the present back to ... when, the second world war or
even more previously? The apparant 'rationale', that the use of such
weapons was justifiable, isn't conclusive, since EVERY nation's use of
weapons of mass-destruction is justifiable according to its own
rationale; In the case of Vietnam, there is NO current concensus that
the undeclared war (or 'conflict') was appropriate or of certain
historic benefit. In the case of B-52 raids over Cambodia and Laos,
these bombings were illegal according to International Law;
>Some bright boys in 1946 got the idea that we could use Atomic power as a major energy source. Americans need a lot of power and there is a lot of power, all you could ask for, in critical mass. Had we moved in that direction we might not be using so much oil now--by factors of one hundred. Some other bright boys foresaw that with that much power we
probably wouldn't need that relic from the 1920's called the
automobile anymore, either. Perhaps our roads themselves could
transport us to and from work and over to aunt Milly's for
thanksgiving. The drawings, the equations, the plans and speculations
and dreams are still there, on the shelf, gathering dust.
And so too, Hanford is 'still there', slowly ticking RADs and leaching
isotope by-products into the Columbia, radioactively contaminating
Portland's primary water supply; Thousands of buried storage
containers of God-knows WHAT witches' brew of toxic stews and
semi-critical mass bubblings nobody knows what to do with, and
confounded by the unrealistic hope that if we ignore it it'll go away;
The "question" of appropriate potential development of nuclear energy
is complicated by the documented and undocumented acts of criminal
irresponsibility of Hanford administrators/scientists with deliberate
releases of isotope compounds to 'test' dispersion and downwind
population effects. Perhaps a reinvestment in Nuclear power will help
provide energy needs again, but the fact that nuclear power hasn't
provided MORE of a relief from oil dependency is HARDLY a rationale to
justify our agonistic pushing the terrorist panic button.
>What happened? Well the United Auto Workers and the Detroit Big Three and
48 and later 50 state governments all decided the automobile was the
best thing that ever happened to mankind since the Burning Bush. Well,
it DID change our mating rituals significantly. UAW and the Big Three
wanted to keep cranking out their coffins with wheels, and the State
Governments wanted to keep pouring tar and oil on the pastures year
after year after year--State Representatives, State Senators and
Governors like
controlling all that money and hiring all those people 'cause, well,
that gives 'em a built-in army of campaign workers each election
cycle. It's good to have a bunch of guys and gals whose paychecks
depend on you getting elected--they tend to be good, loyal friends.
Later the Federal Government got in the act with their Super Highways.
Yes yes yes; You PERFECTLY prove my implied/mostly unstated point here
that John Q. Ordinary Citizen has got a DUTY to ask hard long-term
questions about, 'What the Hell? is goin' ON??' and what the
implications of this-n-that are, and what the alternatives are; It
seems, we 'trust' special-interest 'experts' and 'well-intended' gov.
intent on 'helping' the public with works programs AT OUR PERIL; And
of course, the 'feeding trough' of the public pork-barrel larder which
you describe vis-a-vis the growth of the transportation industry, with
Unions and Poly Reps. and elections campaigns and such, is HARDLY an
encouraging example why we should just go along with the way things
gave been done, or the easiest path to 'progress', is it? Of course
not; There IS a big blind-spot to current Government discussions about
how to 'solve' the problems of traffic congestion and crowding and
more and more roads and the overall inefficiency of private-vehicle
transportation; Why do we live this way? With sprawling suburbs
surrounding urban infrastructure connected by a maze/web of interstate
thruways and highways and streets clogged with rush-hour cars enabled
by the whole industry of petrochemicals and automobile manufacturing
with built-in styling-obsolescence, perpetuated/invested-into by
insurance-accident, dealerships, repair and maintenance service
industries. Aren't there any other options? But "we" have become so
stuck into accepting the way things are, and so continue 'buying-into'
the status-quo collective-reality, because: It's 'all we know' and
we're already so used to it we have a resistance against new ideas,
even if they would be great improvements; we aren't effectively
challenged by our 'leaders' (sic); we collectively (in general) lack
the ability to imagine things that aren't immediately in front of us;
*Say, have you ever read Ernest Callenbach's "Ecotopia"?? Fantastic,
eye-opening look at what is possible, an alternative model of a
transformed Northwest US, that is much improved, built on an organic
model of sustainability, moral and ecologial accountability, extended
community-oriented, embracing alternative values/lifestyles, totally
eliminating the use of oil for private transportation,
developing/investing in renewable energy resources (solar, wind, hydro
(small-scale, since most large-scale hydro has already been
developed), goethermal, methane, etc.), emphasizing recycling and
eliminating most unnecessary waste, guaranteeing minimum living
allowances for food and shelter, reducing typical job-lengths to
20-hour weeks, and so on; Very eye-opening, it has served as an ideal
model of 'what is possible' when we look beyond the way things are and
imagine what COULD be;
>Just like babies, isn't it? Just so long as something warm is going down the throat it's goooood.
NOT the example I'd use, but OK, point made, 'me-first feel-good
gimmme!' model of 'enlightened' self interest, eh? Hardly an inspiring
portrait of the American Dream;
>Also, it turns out that Atomic Power is DANGEROUS. Everything in life is a trade off. Funny thing is, though, a lot of environmentalists turn out to be the most adamant detractors of Atomic Power. Seems that even though it is clean and uses a fantastically small amount of non-renewable resources--it's DANGEROUS. We all saw the Godzilla movies in the '50's and if Atomic power plants can create Godzilla--well--none of us want any part of THAT. Well, we won't build any more Atomic Power Plants but...um...then what? Oh, I guess we'll keep burning oil, pouring tar all over our pastures, keep drenching ourselves in oil until....well...until it all runs out. And environmentalist along with the rest of us will stand around and wring hands until that happens. Not much of a solution,
but at least oil isn't as DANGEROUS as Atomic Power.
I can see here who some of your likely employers have been, your
speechifyin' logic pushing the simplistic example to 'prove' a point;
As a self-styled 'intellectual' who's made a life-long effort to
remain fluent/informed in the earth/social sciences, with a particular
interest in cosmology and anthropology, I don't have any particular
knee-jerk biases about nuclear-energy (atomic-power) one-way or the
other--I recognize it CAN be viable, practical and cost-effective; But
to deny the very real problems, both social and technical, isn't very
realistic either; However, I must admit your semi-hysterical rant here
is kinda amusing...
>It's all in the alternatives, Skye. What's your alternative? Turn your back on oil and you have to turn your back on greed (all of your wants, needs and desires). That sounds fine, until you understand the only one among us Monkeys who understood what it means to turn your back on greed wasn't Jesus, it was Lao Tzu. Personally, I think Jesus was imminently more realistic, though I've given Lao's advice a spin and see many of the
benefits of his "way."
I too have given Lao's advice a spin; I still try to walk the 'middle
way' of Lao Tzu, in fact I see Christ as a semi-universal
non-exclusive model of walking the enlightened Zen path of
transcendance and cosmic awareness; MY alternative? Lesseee...
I suppose the best explanation of my alternative to exploitation and
military expansionism is by the example of my life, as: I embrace
voluntary simplicity and a 'life' devoted to realizing personal
potential, of intellectual inquiry and creative expression, via arts
of literature, painting, poetry, music, and a conscious determined
effort to emphasize reflection, discussion, awareness, and spiritual
experience; Accordingly, I make a choice to de-emphasize
consumer-oriented materialism and appreciate the significance of
things beyond their superficial surfaces, to continue searching for
understanding, to respect myself and all people, to treat my fellow
world-neighbors with love and peace, undertaking my scholarship/study
of ideas, principles of science and history, reading reading reading
widely, living 'simply', practicing medition/reflection/prayer, I
practice humility and self-discipline, continue walking the path to
enlightenment as per the Cosmic Christ's Zen Dharma Road of study,
ego-detachment and transcendance. I believe in/participate in
community activism and volunteerism, and have spent half of the last
ten years as a crisis-line volunteer counselor and teen-runaway
advocate/shelter program volunteer; I am a member in-good-standing of
the extended Rainbow family of living light, with particular interest
in serving as clean-up/recycling volunteer and providing crew
meals/coffee/tea/services with my kick-down cafe kitchen-camp at the
annual national gathering;
During the last 16 years, I spent half of it studying for/earning an
associates degree, two bachelor degrees, and a masters degree (fine
art); For several years when I had access to community cable
resources, I produced a variety of regular monthly art, poetry,
fringe/experimental format, poetry, dance and music video programs.
Soon after WWII, scientists realized that humankind had the
technology, manufacturing/production capability, and access to
resources to solve the Global problems of unrelieved suffering caused
by famine, malnutrition, infant mortality, inappropriate/lack of
housing, and lack-of-medical care. That yearly, hundreds of thousands
of people die of starvation, high third-world infant mortality rates,
and natural disasters, and many more suffer from hunger and
homelessness, indict the will and determination of nations and people
with means, ability and surplus to unite in common cause to alleviate
unneccesary suffering; I object in principle, and by practice, to
intolerance, war, violence and hate.
I suggest that an extreme emphasis on nationalism to provide means and
justification for wars, conflicts and military aggression, as a means
to exert political or economic pressure/influence, as a substitute for
diplomacy or appeals to jurisdiction of World Courts, is inappropriate
and essentially untenable; I think the War on Terrorism is a sign that
isolationist Nationalism is an outdated concept, superceded by the
reality of developing technology, global finance and trading systems,
world-wide high-speed telecommunication, and interrelated
transnational communities/institutions; The present climate of fear
and terror and anti-terror security systems, with heightened states of
alertness and the imposition of a virtual armed-camp public presence
is an indication that the nation-state concept is no longer as
practical or efficient as it once was; By setting up priveleged
accumulatuions of power and influence, nation-states perpetuate
institutions that confound equitable distributions of resources and
economic/political development among geographically disadvanteged
groups; The War on Terror is unlikely to materially "solve" the
fundamental problems of stagnant growth, overpopulation, urban decay,
boundary disputes, regional conflicts, armed resistance to coercion,
internal power struggles, special co-optive interest groups, disparate
resource distributions or resource development and control issues,
ideological differences, ethnic strife and intolerance, and so on. To
the extent that the War provides a rationale for imposition of
arbitrary peace-keeping and disarmament 'actions', it may actually
serve only to remove armed resistance as an option by oppressed groups
against co-optive and special-interest
forces. The rationale fueling "War on Terrorism" has completely
ignored the fundamental premise that one man's freedom fighter is
another man's terrorist. The original Revolutionary War Patriots were
an original model of terrorists, in that they were irregular
volunteers fighting against the oppression of an occupying force.
>Sure there's solar power and hydrogen and lots of alternatives, some are practical, some aren't. None of them are cheaper yet, and more expensive means you won't have any beer money left over for Friday night. Might even make your rent or mortgage check late now and again. Perhaps a mix of all those and more, combined with conservation is the answer. But quite a few of us, including me, wonder "if that's the answer, what the hell is the question?"
C'mon, that's a pretty tired and patheticly trite 'cute' sop statement
whose "what, me worry?" effect has been lost through overuse, 'if
that's the answer, bla bla question?" The QUESTION, is, how do we live
responsibly and sensibly, as a nation of people, solving energy-needs
appropriately without resorting to extreme solutions that ignore
issues of environmental stewardship, non-renewable resources, fiscal
accountability, and the principles of peaceful coexistence, even at
the cost of our convenience and affluence. The "not cost-effective"
argument given to dismiss or de-emphasize the value of alternative
energy sources doesn't take into account a true accounting of
cost-benefit based on factors not reflected in "dollar-based"
economics, such as health and environmental costs of global warming,
acid rain, increased greenhouse gasses, future industrial,
manufacturing, and production losses from having exhausted ready
supplies of petrochemicals, toxic pollution, environmental
contamination and damage costs;
>The real question right now is what the hell are we to do about the fact that tomorrow, on Super Bowl Sunday and Madi Gras in New Orleans, there just might be a disguised soldier of Jihad in the crowds with a six pack of beer that isn't a six pack of beer at all but six little aluminum containers of cholera or plague infected fleas or maybe they're filled
with potassium chloride and a fuse?
I dunno, I think this "panic" thing is a bit absurd, like worrying
about asteroid strikes; It's the same mentality that sees star-wars
ballistic-missile-defense systems as a damn-good idea; I think an
overt emphasis on super-saturated security-defense practices are a bit
absurd and impractical, the whole attitude about turning the US into
an armed-camp to protect against the widest-range of what-if scenarios
detracts from a sense of security we should feel in our own country; I
think we are giving much more credence to terror threats than they
merit, as our attitude of vigilance and paranoia is giving terrorists
much more credibility than they deserve; I don't like ANYTHING about
this armed-camp mentality, which plays-into the idea that we can
defend ourselves with enough guns and vigilant eyes; But NOTE: I'm not
in charge of security, so I don't have to be practical, only genuine;
>The pilot may not be able to save us, after all. And that's a shame. But society is like that
and leadership is like that. Taking a vote now won't help, it would be
just one more problem the Captain has to deal with. And, if you are an
adult, you can quietly say to yourself that the damn idiot shouldn't
have taken us up here to 30,000 ft if this kinda thing
was possible, and the damn airlines should hire better mechanics, and
the damn airlines should buy new planes if these things are wearing
out like this and the damn government auter pass a law that airplanes
ain't allowed to crash anymore 'cause it really ain't fair and it's
really scary right now, and I really don't like being scared like
this...
I think THIS is where you really put your finger on it, what really
grabbed me and made me think hard and deep. The idea that our course
is set, and all the kickin' and fussin' at THIS point won't make one
iota of difference in the outcome anyway, so one OUGHTTA just cinch
that seatbelt, and pick up a magazine, or light a cigarette, or ask
the stew for a double, please, or look out the window or finger yer
prayer beads, or call up Jesus, or calm yer seat-neighbor, or reflect
on this or that or, or, or . . .But you said it yourrself, maybe
society can't save us. I think, if anything, especially in the long
run, our only hope for being saved is by faith and by living according
to our principles;
But on the other hand, I got to thinking that maybe ol' weasal eyes is
really dumb like a fox after all, and he "saw" with sudden clarity
years ahead the spot America might well be in, sunk into a morass of
self-doubt and confusion, wracked by indecision and paralysis and held
perpetual hostage by the world's starving billions, overcome by guilt
at having dropped the ball when we had a golden chance to really make
a difference, besotted with self-indulgence and a surfeit of liberal
pathos, lacking vision and concensus and maneuvering room, surrounded
on all sides by critics and former allies and belligerant well-armed
patient enemies...
Isn't the War part of a well-thought plan to forestall this kind of
'future'? Wouldn't almost any kind of strong, firm, bold act that
united the Nation to respond as one mind to a 'real' or perceived
threat be a legitimate National Security interest cause celebre? The
long-term consequence of the past week's developments, hefty increases
in military and equipment expenditures, bioterrorist response and
Homeland defense budgets, are certain to result in America's vastly
improved position of global strength and stability.
But, however, none of that means that we don't or shouldn't have any
legitimate interest in exploring related issues, or examining
alternatives, or even discussing controversial/negative effects of
policies being implemented, including freedom of speech, erosions of
liberty, and loss of protected rights. In Atlanta, as quoted by
National Public Radio, Jesse Jackson said: "We're in a very dangerous
state where in the name of [fighting] terrorism, our civil rights and
civil liberties have now been seized. When Ashcroft and the CIA and
the FBI and Homeland Securities and the right-wing media and the IRS
can work together as they are [under the USA Patriot Act], look out,
COINTELPRO. Look out, Red Squad."
In 1950, Republican senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine was the
first member of Congress to publicly confront Senator Joseph
McCarthy's charges that those who disagreed with his version of
patriotism were—as Attorney General John Ashcroft now says of his
critics—giving "ammunition to America's enemies." "Those of us who
shout the loudest about Americanism," Margaret Chase Smith said, "are
all too frequently those who . . . ignore some of the basic principles
of Americanism—the right to criticize, the right to hold unpopular
beliefs, the right to protest, the right of independent thought."
Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson gave the most fundamental
definition of Americanism as part opf his majority opinion in the
trial, West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette. In his
decision, Jackson, while affirming the free-exercise-of-religion
clause of the First Amendment, emphasized the corollary rights of
freedom of conscience and belief for all Americans, religious or not:
"That [boards of education] are educating the young for citizenship is
reason for scrupulous protection of constitutional freedoms of the
individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and
teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere
platitudes. . . .
"Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much.
That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is
the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing
order." Jackson's opinion then thundered:
"If there is any fixed star in our constellation, it is that no
official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in
politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force
citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." (Emphasis
added.)
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0201/hentoff.php
>All you really can do, Skye, if you survive, is fly with a different captain next time, or take the bus. Whining in the back of the plane won't do you any more good than it will anyone else to hear you. Whether it's all about the oil, stupid, or not is irrelevant. Nobody's got a right to kill three thousand secretaries whose only crime was showing up to work on time September 11th, 2001. Most of them, like you, had never heard of Osama Bin Laden before that date, few were aware of the issues that plague the Middle East.
Well, that's ONE off-track cheap-shot red-herring brushstroke
statement that doesn't apply: Re: "Whining in the back of the plane
won't do you any more good than it will anyone else to hear you." What
the hell makes asking questions and considering the moral,
socioeconomic, and relevant political issues at stake, "whining"??
Perhaps, as you sit next to me on that plunging plane with that
damnfool captain asking our democratic opinions about the possible
fault of our crash and certain extinction, you'd prefer I kept my
understanding of "Lockheed/Marietta Manufacturers Technical Service
Bulletin 36B-A754-C dated Jan 1992 Release Re: Turbofan
Accidental/Emergency Shutdown Problem/Testing and Repair Guidelines
and Special Recommended Emergency Restart Procedures" to myself,
because it's "whining"? Excuse me, but your equivocation here doesn't
logically follow from any reasoning I can readily grasp.
I think there's good cause to be concerned whether we will be able to
'solve' the issues that plague the Middle East, or whether we'll just
aggravate them.
>Well, we're all getting a crash course in Middle Eastern Affairs right now, which was the intention of the Al-Cowards in the first place. If ya just kill 3,000 secretaries, people will listen to you. A guy named Gavrilo Princip thought along the same lines and on June 28, 1914 in Sarajevo he fired off two shots aimed at righting all the wrongs he thought the imperialist pigs had done to him and his countrymen. Over the next four years millions were killed by those two shots of his pistol, and, not surprising considering the irrationality of the act in the first place, his little county continued to be used and abused to this very
date 88 years later.
Begging your point, but it was my understanding that the "lone gunman"
theory precipitating WW I has been pretty thoroughly discredited; I
any case, it's quite apparant that as Germany required a "first-shot"
to legitimize their mobilization and thereby play their 'bluff hand',
they would have hired a fool to pull the trigger if needed, same
outcome, as the railroad timetables and logistics plans were so
precisely laid out that once the trains began to roll, it would have
taken several months to recall them and stand-down IF such a thing
could even have been pulled-off without some major glitches; As I
understand, the train schedules were so convoluted and critically
refined that no provision had even been made for recalling them. So,
it was decided to just let them run and let the game play out;
"His little country continued to be used and abused..." seems to bear
out the observation that Germany had a belligerant agenda, which if
anything is a reason why free speech analysis is a necessary part of
the greater ongoing debate about how liberty and freedom are best
served, isn't it?
Also too, your more-recent declaration about the Saudis and PRC having
much greater incentive/cause to 'provoke/test' our hand makes a lot of
sense, as you say, it seems presposterous to imagine the clutzy
Taliban having sufficient sophistication and snap to successfully
'pull off' a synchronized perfectly-executed attack like 9/11; Like
Josh, I too tend towards the nine-gunman on the grassy-knoll theory;
In fact, I am leaning toward the PRC, which tentative conclusion I
THINK I was getting to with my continued prying. Given China's Human
Right's record, and their having jailed more political prisoners of
conscience than any other nation, it is peculiar, odd and not LITTLE
hypocritical that the PRC is one of our greatest allies in the War on
Terror; One shouldn't overlook the PRC's oppression of the peoples,
and illegal annexation and cultural cleansing/overthrow of the tiny
nation of Tibet; IF Bush IIs declaration about protecting liberty and
defending freedom and preserving the rule of law are sincere, then I
wonder when Bush is going to take a stand and speak out about this
issue.
>Let's kill all the Al-Cowards first, then let's have a discussion about oil.
I just can't be so casual about 'killing', even though I have no
respect for the Al Quada, having seen Lifting the Veil on CNN last
weekend, and seeing the incredible brutality, horror, murder, social
abuses, severe oppression of women, and climate of bleak and joyless
despair of that society;
But re: killing all the Al Cowards first, then discussing oil: That
would be pretty convenient for the oil-producers, eh? Shouldn't the
"bill" for the military expenses, the victims rights' compensations,
the veteran pension awards, the emergency and hospital costs, rehab
costs, long-term health-care costs, disability and death benefit costs
be included in the "price" of that oil, then? As well as the burial
costs, the Afghanistani, Sudanese, Phillipine, Iranian, Saudia
Arabian, Iraqui, N. Korean and Indonesian rebuilding costs,
infrastructure costs, resettlement costs, refugee costs, food and
shelter costs, emergency relief costs...
>Art
>Let's kill all the Al-Cowards first, then let's have a discussion about oil.
Was that the operant instruction for Guatamala, Nicaragua and Chile
too? We'll talk about it later?
As always, your discussion has been thought-provoking;
Rgrdz;
skye
"Never have so many white guys known so little about so much." - Nancy
Collins, Architectural Digest, referring to the Senate Enron CEO
hearings.
sk...@nowhere.man
Josh wrote:
>>Try this: I don't give a rat's turd how "successful" he's going to be in
>>the job. Success for a President can be to introduce a bunch of
>legislation like Al Gore was planning on doing. I'm told by sources high
>in the party that with just 25,000 new laws we will officially be in
>Utopia--'course we'll be bankrupt, but we'll be in Utopia.
Heh-heh!! Good-one...
>
>>I want him to be trustworthy and honorable. Jimmy Carter was tolerable
>>he was just a little dense for an Atomic Engineer. Some guys down in
>>South America still sign them selves when they mention Carter's name. He
>saved a few lives, which is good, to say the very least. Kinda like
>Albert Einstein, had he been let loose as president. Is that too much to
>ask--someone not gullible, but who will break his back trying to keep
>his word?
Tuff call alright; In that certain words are necessary to 'get' the
job, but not necessarily the right thing to do to DO the job;
>I don't want a Daddy or Mommy in the office, I want a straight
>shooter, someone I wouldn't mind having at my back in a bar fight.
Well said! On that alone, Dubya has got to score above 50% at least;
>Paul
>Tsongas was probably that kind of man, but we want Presidents slicker
>than that. Has to do with TV. George Bush could very well prove to be
>that kind of man. Only time will tell.
I suspect he could also;
>Like every American President,
>he's got a war outside and inside his country to face. Great Presidents
>stood up to it. Regular human beings litter the pages of history with
>their failures.
>I've never doubted that Jimmy Carter was a decent and honorable man --
>or that he was a lousy president! So too, I think, Gerald Ford.
>Unfortunately, the presidency depends on *more* than decency and
honor.
I agree;
>I think Dubya is a fairly straight shooter myself -- only fairly,
>given that he was willing to throw any pretense of honesty out the
>window in his campaign against McCain, and had to know something about
>what went down in Florida. And we've had some great presidents who
>weren't exactly supergeniuses, e.g., Washington and FDR. But he's in
bed with some people who aren't all that straight, and that can bring
down leaders who rely too much on what others tell them -- in the end,
they're sometimes betrayed by the flakier among their advisers, as
Reagan apparently was in Iran-Contra, as Bush may be if there turns
out to be anything genuinely sleazy about the administration's
relationships with Enron (genuinely, as opposed to the guilt by
association stuff).
>Josh
From my sources:
Dick Cheney is openly breaking the law by defying GAO requests to turn
over his records of meetings with Enron.
Source http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020201.html
At the same time that Cheney refused to turn over his records, Enron
and its accountants shredded millions of pages of documents.
Source http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/30/business/30SHRE.html
But I think that's kinda a moot point;
My gut feeling is Dubya is firmly strapped-down-n'-buckled-in to the
catbird's cockpit seat with all systems 'Green' and GO, and his
stumping the 'Rah! Rah! Le's git it ON!' trail and playing the God is
on Our Side trumpcard so well proves he is 'dumb like fox'; I do
believe he's the near-perfect fit for these 'inter'sting times',
answering the call for a WWF-style champion fans can rally-'round and
get behind, a leader who ain't leery about ordering folks to the front
line; I can't see his administration substantially affected by Enron
guilt-by-association, even if 'they' found a 'smoking memo' to hang on
him; There's nothing like a righteous war to get everyone to fall in
line; Funny thing is, one of my minds admires him, as I think the
hard-talking good-ol'-boy White-hatted Texas-ranger true-blue
single-minded straight-shooter image he projects worldwide may indeed
be a PR political coup that will have long-lasting positive
consequences; Then too, we usually get the kind of leaders we deserve,
don't 'we'?
skye
sk...@nowhere.man
>Heyia;
>
>Was any one else disturbed at all by the recent State of the Union
>Address by US President Bush?
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Higdon020702/higdon020702.html
Altered estates
By James Higdon
Online Journal Contributing Editor
"[A]s we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in
recession and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers . . .
the state of our union has never been stronger." ~George W. Bush,
State of the Union Address, 2002-
February 7, 2002 Bush the Second uttered this stunning contradiction
and received thunderous applause from the gathered politicians and
guests in the Capitol. Why? Over the past year portions of our
Constitution (that document that has been held up as a beacon of
enlightenment throughout the world) have been shredded wholesale,
while John Aschcroft orders concealment of the anatomy of Justice.
At Bush's direction, America has turned its back on every agreement
with our friends, enemies, allies, and neighbors, except those that
cooperate in a pact of war. Thousands, if not millions, of Americans
have lost their jobs, thousands more have been killed, and even
thousands more have lost both their financial and personal security.
The national coffers have been raided, and Social Security is about to
become a distant memory. Where it looked, only a short time ago, that
we would pay off our national debt in only a few years, we are now
screaming toward massive deficits, to be followed by the return of
long-term corrosive red ink. Our individual patriotism is brought into
doubt if we ourselves question undefined threats of never ending war
at home and abroad. Like a dog infected with rabies the Bush
government, snarls, froths and foams at foreign enemies and friends
alike.
Now, in this new age, war, recession, and unprecedented dangers, all
couldn't be better. They are worthy of a standing ovation for an aging
frat boy who still develops boils on his face, mangles the simplest of
ideas that aren't written down for him well in advance, and vacations
almost more than he works. He stands at the national podium and waves
this divisive "trifecta" like a little leaguer who has hit his first
ever home run. The press, and the representatives of 'We the People'
applaud.
The specter of Enron stands in a darkened corner like a family secret,
oozing toxicity that few in the press want to discuss, but none can
ignore, while pundits debate whether it represents a business or a
political scandal. The press, the White House, and a majority in
Congress obfuscate that it is far more than either. It is likely the
most corruptive scandal in the history of this nation. Like a
cancerous tumor that channels its poison through the bloodstream of
its host, Enron has left its disease in every portion of the corpus of
our freedom, and turned our protective institutions against our own
survival. Enron money, and the money of yet to be discovered tumors,
tainted by larceny on such a grand scale that it requires a new word
in the vocabulary of man, signals the greatest collapse of an empire
since the fall of Rome. Nero only fiddled while Rome burned. In
Washington, DC, a quartet entertains, with George W. Bush on violin,
Congress harmonizes on viola, justice groans an undercurrent of bass,
and a prostituted press eagerly wraps its legs around a cello.
After a six-year investigation of former President Clinton, which cost
taxpayers a measurable percentage of our national budget, proved that
he may have been one of the purest presidents in our history (he only
committed adultery and lied about it), Bush promised to raise the bar
for the Oval Office. He promised a renewed sense of "values." It
appears that he meant to offer scandals befitting the world's most
powerful position. Clinton committed crimes against his family, but
only Bush is qualified to commit crimes against humanity.
Elevating the art of "newspeak," Bush has transformed Orwell into
Nostradamus. "Deregulation works!" thumps the executive branch,
charged with enforcing our laws. The White House did nothing, and an
incompetent business failed. Greed driven corporate executives picked
the pockets of American taxpayers, as well as their employees and
shareholders, and funneled their plunder into offshore accounts, aided
and abetted by White House policy. The victims should not whine or
complain. If they are concerned about the welfare of their families,
they should display the type of initiative exemplified by Ken Lay, and
buy politicians and members of the press, creating their own
enterprises based on the Enron design.
Hot is cold, and green is purple. Not counting the votes of the people
protects democracy, stripping the Bill of Rights from the Constitution
protects liberty, and governing by executive order provides bipartisan
'advice and consent.'
And the religious right wing is every bit complicit in this charade.
They trumpet Bush as a shining example of a return to American culture
and values. Clinton shamed us by an affair with an intern, but the
Bush family solicits respect throughout the world. George has been
arrested three times that we know of, for both drunkenness and
violence. His daughters, alcoholics themselves, have been arrested at
least twice each. His sister-in-law has been arrested for attempted
smuggling, and each of brother Jeb's children has been arrested for
crimes ranging from breaking and entering to forgery. His brother,
Neil, sat at the center of the savings and loan scandal, and his
father directed the Iran/Contra affair, pardoning the criminal
perpetrators as he left the Oval Office. Grandfather Bush traded with
the most evil government in modern history after war had been
declared, and promoted the Nazi regime's most repugnant tenant by
using the treasonous proceeds to fund research into the despicable
"science" of eugenics.
Congress, owned and operated by corporations like Enron, will not
spend too much time investigating government corruption because such
knowledge, even if the corruption is routed out, can cause Americans
to lose faith in their leaders. Yet, they will spend endless resources
investigating the privacy of sex. Where we once had faith that the
press would serve as our watchdog of government, the media have now
joined the Republican/corporate cooperative, supporting anything, no
matter how outrageous, that furthers deregulation. It has recently
been revealed that many of our "journalists" in the once mainstream
press, such as William Kristol of the Weekly Standard, were secretly
on the payroll of Enron to promote deregulation and politicians
sympathetic to deregulation.
Like a battered spouse who continually proclaims, "He only beats me
because he loves me," we as citizens should now consider ourselves
enabling fools if we fail to continually question the integrity of
every member of the Fourth Estate who appears to promote policy or
politicians, and every politician who fails to promote publicly funded
campaign
financing.
The radical right wing has learned that the surest way to electoral
success is to minimize the turnout in national elections. The right
wing punditry, displaying an electoral map that is more red than blue,
pushes the moronic notion that property, not people, elect presidents.
Michael Reagan, the mentally abused child of the ex-president, sells
on television T-shirts that display the map, brazenly portraying the
map as information covered up by the insidious left, and ignoring
that, in spite of the disenfranchisement of perhaps millions, Al Gore
won the last presidential election by more than a half a million
votes.
As John Ashcroft, and others in the government, make every attempt to
scare the people with phantoms of terror, the flavor of this
commentary is not just a warning but a prediction. Very possibly in
2002, but certainly in 2004, the polling stations in America's blue
zones, such as New York City and San Francisco, will be bin Laden
targets on election day. We will be told of "specific and credible
evidence," with no indication as to what that evidence is, that
"terra" has targeted democracy in the blue zones, just as "terra" has
targeted only liberal Democrats as recipients of anthrax letters.
Bush has made every effort to explore the limits of citizen outrage,
and he will continue to do so until slapped down by an angry majority
of the people and Congress. The theft of an election, and the Supreme
Court decision in 'Bush v. Gore' caused barely a rumble. Bush
understands that he can go much further. Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld has recently sent up trial balloons to test the notion of
mobilizing the military within our own borders, assigning regional
sub-commanders in chief to prepare military mobilization into our
cities in case of an "emergency." When an election day "threat of
terror" is announced, armed troops will surround and occupy strategic
polling stations, and as the war against terror spreads to Somalia,
Ashcroft will claim a 'legitimate' excuse to racially profile African
Americans. In November 2000, the media ignored disenfranchisement to
the extent they were able, but on this autumn day in 2002 or 2004, the
media will ride over the stormy waters like a duck, hailing the Bush
administration for leadership in protecting the lives of Americans.
When all four estates of our society speak with one voice, further
promoted by the advertising dollars of mega corporations, all that
stands in the way of a totalitarian regime is the free flow of
information on the World Wide Web and a free foreign press. But when
the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are
safely in corporate hands, with the complete cooperation of our
national media, censorship of the Internet and the exclusion of
foreign journalists unfriendly to the Bush regime is a small matter
indeed.
If you think me paranoid, well, perhaps I am. I assure you that I take
no pride in this prognostication. In fact, I would take great joy in
being proved embarrassingly inaccurate. But the reality is that we
have never, as a nation, walked so close to the cliffs of fascism,
where all of the necessary elements interact with this measure of
cooperative harmony. The theft of election 2000 sounded an alarm that
was heard in every part of the world, but the alarm was successfully
muted to near silence in the USA. If that alarm is not answered by
2002, or 2004 at the very latest, the damage from the fires of fascism
will be irreversible.
2.9.2002
fwd//skye
Joshua P. Hill
>>Art McNutt wrote:
>
>Josh wrote:
>
>>>Try this: I don't give a rat's turd how "successful" he's going to be in
>>>the job. Success for a President can be to introduce a bunch of
>>legislation like Al Gore was planning on doing. I'm told by sources high
>>in the party that with just 25,000 new laws we will officially be in
>>Utopia--'course we'll be bankrupt, but we'll be in Utopia.
>
>Heh-heh!! Good-one...
Art wrote that though, not me! So too the next few . . .
Now me!
>I agree;
>
>>I think Dubya is a fairly straight shooter myself -- only fairly,
>>given that he was willing to throw any pretense of honesty out the
>>window in his campaign against McCain, and had to know something about
>>what went down in Florida. And we've had some great presidents who
>>weren't exactly supergeniuses, e.g., Washington and FDR. But he's in
>bed with some people who aren't all that straight, and that can bring
>down leaders who rely too much on what others tell them -- in the end,
>they're sometimes betrayed by the flakier among their advisers, as
>Reagan apparently was in Iran-Contra, as Bush may be if there turns
>out to be anything genuinely sleazy about the administration's
>relationships with Enron (genuinely, as opposed to the guilt by
>association stuff).
>
>>Josh
>
>From my sources:
>Dick Cheney is openly breaking the law by defying GAO requests to turn
>over his records of meetings with Enron.
>Source http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020201.html
I think so too. But I assume the courts will order him to comply.
>At the same time that Cheney refused to turn over his records, Enron
>and its accountants shredded millions of pages of documents.
>Source http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/30/business/30SHRE.html
Yup, that they did!
>But I think that's kinda a moot point;
>My gut feeling is Dubya is firmly strapped-down-n'-buckled-in to the
>catbird's cockpit seat with all systems 'Green' and GO, and his
>stumping the 'Rah! Rah! Le's git it ON!' trail and playing the God is
>on Our Side trumpcard so well proves he is 'dumb like fox'; I do
>believe he's the near-perfect fit for these 'inter'sting times',
>answering the call for a WWF-style champion fans can rally-'round and
>get behind, a leader who ain't leery about ordering folks to the front
>line; I can't see his administration substantially affected by Enron
>guilt-by-association, even if 'they' found a 'smoking memo' to hang on
>him; There's nothing like a righteous war to get everyone to fall in
>line; Funny thing is, one of my minds admires him, as I think the
>hard-talking good-ol'-boy White-hatted Texas-ranger true-blue
>single-minded straight-shooter image he projects worldwide may indeed
>be a PR political coup that will have long-lasting positive
>consequences; Then too, we usually get the kind of leaders we deserve,
>don't 'we'?
That's a scary thought!
But overall I tend to agree with your assessment, except that (a) I
don't think he's dumb like a fox, more like a marmoset, maybe -- which
is to say he ain't bright, but he ain't quite as dumb as his speech
impediment and shrivelled post-alcoholic brain would lead one to
believe -- and while I don't think he's Mr. Rodgers and have no doubt
that he can be a son of a bitch (the sort who tortured animals when he
was young), I don't think he's a Machiavellian Cheney sort either.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
>At Bush's direction, America has turned its back on every agreement
>with our friends, enemies, allies, and neighbors, except those that
>cooperate in a pact of war. Thousands, if not millions, of Americans
>have lost their jobs, thousands more have been killed, and even
>thousands more have lost both their financial and personal security.
>The national coffers have been raided, and Social Security is about to
>become a distant memory.
Barely out of the gate and he's lost all credibility by a)
exaggerating the number of treaty disagreements and the measured
unilateralism of administration policy; b) implying that the WTC was
somehow Bush's fault; c) implying that Enron was Bush's fault (it may
have been, but the evidence isn't in yet); d) justly alluding to
irresponsible fiscal policies (e.g., raiding Social Security), but
exaggerating the outcome.
Which is to say that while there are real issues here, and valid
opportunities for criticism, the author doesn't seem to be interested
in objectivity. When I read something like this, my tendency is to
stop reading further!
Josh
Arthur McNutt
sk...@nowhere.man wrote:
> as Art McNutt penned so eloquently, attempting to place his forefinger
> right on the squirting arterial fountain:
HAH!
[snip]
>
> Hey Art:
> So, so sorry I haven't written/replied this letter sooner; I had good
> intentions, but I got distracted and behind things. Your letter here
> was very well-written, if a *bit* over-the-top in some ways,
That's me!"Over the top Art"
> and not a
> little beautiful even; More importantly, it SPOKE to me and on
> important issues, almost as much by what it DIDN'T say as by what it
> DID: I'll admit,You ALMOST had me convinced to run, not walk, to my
> nearest (local) Recruiters Office, and offer my -admittedly
> negligable- skills in support of my country's aims; Seriously, you
> gave me much to chew-over and ponder;
Mission accomplished, in that case.
>
> I'd say the "rights" FOR participatory responsibility are a deliberate
> and thoughtful acceptance and committment to the duties re:
> citizenship; The operative word is "for" and not "of", but more
> significantly, the context of "rights" is a two-way contract, with
> obligations that extend beyond privelege; The 'rights' in the airplane
> example is a duty to not compound the problem/issue, as by engaging
> the pilot in off-topic discussion or otherwise distracting him from
> attending to the urgent crisis; Perhaps the word "rights" was not
> expedient, but it implies a certain diligence in being informed and
> involved, and NOT just "going along for the ride", as so succinctly
> provided by your accident-in-the-airplane analogy; But IN that
> example, it suggests that I should (have an obligation to) speak-up if
> my experience as, say, a technical copyeditor or bookbinder or Flight
> Mechanic, would have made me familiar with "Lockheed/Marietta
> Manufacturers Technical Service Bulletin 36B-A754-C dated Jan 1992
> Release Re: Turbofan Accidental/Emergency Shutdown Problem/Testing and
> Repair Guidelines and Special Recommended Emergency Restart
> Procedures"; Indeed, I think I would have a clear duty to speak and
> offer to help if I thought it useful, wouldn't I? (ie., "Bypass the
> main generator fuse buss shunt to "Relay" at switch Aux.12B, turn
> fuel-line antiicing Heat Control #3 to "standby", make sure compressor
> actuator stator load is set to Max Pitch Manual, etc...")
>
Precisely. This is the balancing act we must all somehow manage. The
analogy is only an analogy, but it applies in some important and REAL
ways. Democrats (small "d") must manage themselves *under* leaders,
though, being democrats, they naturally do not trust leaders. This is
the beauty and the challange of Republics.
>
>>"How many think the problem's in the oil pressure? Okay that's, um, six.Okay, now; the co-pilot tells me he thinks it might be a problem with the main turbo fan, if you think that's it raise your hand"
>>
>
> It's not "just" or "only" a matter of democratic "vote", where
> majority 'rules'; The issues are much more profound and far-reaching;
> On the other hand, if I had nothing practical to add or contribute to
> the pilot, I'd have the right/responsibility to behave myself and not
> contribute to a state of panic, and even to help in any way I could,
> such as by physically restraining the freaking-out Manufacturer's Rep
> passenger so he wouldn't knock down the stewardess, which would likely
> distract the pilot or co-pilot from their efforts to figure out what's
> wrong, etc,
>
>
>>We probably had no business being in World War II. FDR's "Lend-Lease" meant we were supporting the Allies and restricting trade with Germany. That ain't neutral in anyone's book , and the embargo of Japan meant that we WERE going to war against them, it was just a question of when.
>>
>
> Probably true, maybe we had no moral business in WWII, but given our
> position as a major world state/power in 1940-41 international
> politics/economy, we could hardly AVOID becoming involved more and
> more;
> Embargo, as economic foreign policy, IS a form of warfare. But also,
> how realistic/practical is it to second-guess history, especially from
> the perspective of sixty-plus years later?
Experience tells me it is much more fruitful to second guess 60 year old
history than present day operations. Case in point, the Vietnam war.
There was scarcely a person who DIDN'T have an opinion about the most
minute operations at the time, yet few who really knew the situation, or
the real implications of each said operation.
There were those who said *that* war was about oil too. AND IT WAS.
There were many damning things that came out of the Pentagon Papers.
There were special interests involved, Ike's military-industrial complex
was implicated. America had been lied to--Johnson was personally
responsible on a number of levels. It was a war that needed to be
fought, it needed to fought THERE at THAT TIME, but no one from
MacNamara to the CIA to the Joint Chiefs thought for a moment they could
convince the American public of such. So they went in anyway without
letting America in on its secrets.
We are in a much better position today to understand what was right and
what was wrong than we were then.
Ya--thastrue. All of it. But think about what we accomplished; next to
nothing. Almost less than we did in Iraq. Saved some Jews, in turn we
sacrificed the people of Eastern Europe and China on the alter of the
Armistice.
>
>>Japanese boys and German boys dying with bullets that are stamped: Made in the USA made it imperative that we be drawn in--Hitler and Tojo couldn't allow America to turn a buck on the war and not have to pay the price for it. There were people who stood in front of the Newsreel cameras and said the same things you are saying here---long before the crisis came. Were they right?
>>
>
> Moral "answers" aren't specifically about being right-or-wrong in any
> objective, long-term, pragmatic sense, are they?
Not in war, certainly.
> It's certainly
> relative, necessarily, to the individual, society, and times depending
> on the context, level of analysis, taking into account the basis for
> the code of ethics the morailty is based on; National morality is
> hardly ever, IF ever, the same as individual morality, as the
> terms/criteria are based on much broader/ larger/longer-ranged
> perspectives;
>
> Post-war opportunity contributed to economic prosperity and expansion
> of a highly-trained highly-motivated middle-class, which fueled 'the
> good life' and material progress, and R&D with discovery/invention,
> and investments and education and immigration and growth and increased
> efficiency of production capacity and achievement of one of the
> world's per-capita highest-standards-of-living, and on-and-on; Fine,
> right? Except, the age of dissaffection/dissillusionment set in the
> late-50's, 60's, over pent-up frustration/dissapointment with
> unjust/long-denied civil-rights and feminist interests fueling civil
> dissobedience, social unrest, confrontation with vested well-defended
> status-quo WASP conventions, increasing Cold War along with youth
> rebellion/R&R/alienation, repudiation of middle-class values,
> dissapointment/disaffection with materialism and conspicious
> consumption, protest against pragmatism and the delegitimazation of
> spiritual principles and spiritual faith;
But the result. Null. The war was still on as much as ever--though we
could pretend the war had ended by Hitler's suicide and Tojo's bungled
suicide. It became cold because we were playing hot potato with
fissionable potatos--and we were SCARED. But he war was still on. More
than ever.
>
> But it's problematic considering whether we could have avoided
> entering the war, even with eventual realization of the halaucaust
> and methodical genocide occurring.
> An observer from outer space might well ask, "If America is indeed a
> Christian nation, as it typically professes (ie., God Bless America)
> then doesn't this make contemporary Christianity a religion of
> crusades and wars?" If Christianity is not a religion of war, what
> are mainstream American Christians doing to prevent and ameliorate
> serial conflict/wars' damage to less fortunate Third-world
> peoples/peasants who are too-often war's most usual (and
> uncompensated) victims of American/Allied unmatched and essentially
> unlimited destructive power? The answer is, far from helping, most
> professing Christian leaders throw gas on the fire. To the extent that
> affluence, wealth, utilitarianism, intolerance, bigotry, greed, fear,
> hate, revenge, and so forth interfere, confound Spiritual practices,
> the questions raised are very important; Who within the ranks of those
> who call themselves Christians are responsible for promoting war, and
> why do they do it?
Because, the first Commandment is superseded by Jesus' mandate. Alvin
York had to come to terms with this as a pacific Christian. He rendered
onto Ceasar since his church was not recognized as a pacifist sect,
though he had applied for exemption. He reported to the Army induction
center hoping not to get sent into combat. Once he knew he was headed
for Flanders anyway, despite his hopes and prayers, he firmly resolved
that he would die for his country, but he would not kill for her, as he
often said because "t'was agin the Book."
Once under fire, he saw his men (his brothers) getting mowed down by the
bushel basket as some Spandau Machinguns were placed in cross fire to
their position. While the German's behind the triggers were his brothers
too, he saw in a flash that he could end the killing quicker and with
less bloodshed than his German siblings. In the space of less than an
hour, IIRC, he had killed about 27 of his brothers, captured three
machinegun nests, and had accepted the surrender of about 200 more
German brothers.
In the cold equations of the battlefield, his was been the most
Christian, and he had saved more lives than he had given unto God.
Christian math may seem as esoteric as calculus to some, but it really
is quite basic.
Christians talk war to save souls from pain death and slavery. Jesus
reenforces them in this desire--the first commandment refers only to
what we call Murder, anyway. Killing in war is not murder, though it
smells like, tastes like.
It is their plan to save the world, though the world wants none of it.
Ironically, other than the abortion issue, American Christians don't
talk about teaming with the state to "enforce" Christian mandates. This
is the oft spoken fear and accusation from the secularists and athiests.
Christians talk war for the same reason we all do---to end oppression
abroad and prevent oppression from reaching America's shores. Which evil
oppression "t'is agin the Book."
>
> Re: The WWII example (you gave above) of protestor's arguing the war
> is "wrong", is not quite the same as what I'm doing, is it?? In that
> I'm asking questions, searching my and the collective conscience, and
> engaging in a lively debate/discovery of related issues; I Haven't
> quite come to the conclusion the War is "wrong", have I? But even if I
> had, or do, in the bigger picture that would be part of my Free
> Speech's exercise of opinion, wouldn't it? And, more importantly, do
> you dispute the duty citizens have to examine and question the
> policies of their elected officials (leaving aside the thorny issue of
> whether President Bush II was really elected or apponted)??
> Discussing/commenting on the issues which the War on Terrorism raises
> is part of the tedious but necessary process of participatory
> democracy, isn't it? The ISSUE is exercising the freedom to speak,
> which is an obligation to 'think' about things at a level beyond
> 'surface skating';
Asking the questions is never wrong. Especially not in a Republic where
we DO have the responsibility to KNOW. Enron talking with the Taliban
and the Al-Cowards is not wrong by itself--but we need to know. US Gov
(CIA, Military, State Dept) talking and dealing with them is not wrong.
per se, but we need to know. What we do with our knowledge is the
question: Panic, as was the case in Vietnam is not the answer--our panic
cost American boys their lives. That is unacceptable to me. Creating a
huge stir over unclear connections between Enron and the Whitehouse is
only a benefit to the opposition party--who are doing their everloving
best to keep these stories front page news. Maintaining our cool and our
patience is key to the entire effort to get the bastards who snicker
while throwing grenades into Jewish preschools and hijack flying bombs
to smash them into citadels and symbols.
The ineffective and shameful reprisals for the embassy and Saudi
bombings in '98 sealed the fate of 3,000 secretaries and planefulls of
innocents three years down the road. Had *I* been an Al Queida leader, I
would have vowed to do just what they did--and I said so at the time. If
we falter now, we can expect more of the same, perhaps tomorrow, or
perhaps in another three years.
>
>
>>"'Course it's about the oil, Stupid." Just like it was "about the economy, stupid." Carville's distillation doesn't mean what you think it does, though. Clinton's minister of Propaganda was talking about an economy that was already showing sings that it would be as strong as it proved to be for the next ten years. There was no recession, never was, and all the players knew it. Carville couldn't afford anything diluting his message, though. In propaganda, reality is whatever you want it to be--especially if you're good enough at it. If you can convince people there is a problem with the economy, then there is, even if you later show them there wasn't and isn't.
>>
>
> I substantially agree with the conclusion you reach by this level of
> analysis; But that's part of my problem I have with the conclusion the
> "WAR" is necessary and unequivocably 'right'; There is an embedded
> assumption thereby, impervious to ready analysis/criticism, that War
> is "right" to protect/insure our economic/political interests, to
> secure access to natural resources and markets, to make critical
> public policy decisions regarding substantial investments in our
> military-industrial capacity, emphasizing bioterrorist and homeland
> defense, and so forth, including decisions that limit our protected
> freedoms and civil-rights, that increase domestic surveillance and
> formalize practices of profiling and invasive/arbitrary security-risk
> screening, that are increasingly turning our nation into an
> armed-camp, that priveleges/prioritizes increasingly
> suspicious/defensive attitudes and threat expectations, and so on; The
> net effect of all these developments is to compell us on a course that
> is irrevocable and demanding, requiring more and more of our efforts
> and committment; The consequences to all these things, are not quite
> as simplistic or benign or certain as Prez. Bush II's optimistic
> proclamation that "we shall prevail!", apparently because the
> alternative is unthinkable; Clearly, we are arguably the world's
> greatest superpower, and 'we gonna kick us some ass, man, you betcha!'
Here here or Hear hear!!!
But no one is asking you to be a dumb patriot--that's how 1914 happened.
What the passenger in the airbus needs, and WE need is patience. Bush
did not hijack this airbus--the time for panic has not yet come.
The connections between oil and double dealing in the Middle East by
this administration (and the LAST administration too), is only revelent
now because the midterm elections are fast approaching. Sure, they will
still be important after November, but the O.R. coming up with this
stuff and jamming it through the presses and spreading it on the
internet is all part of a strategy. Whatever else you learn, remember to
second guess the accusers. You may think that all this bad press is
being dug up by Patriots concerned with having their country being sold
down the river--while, in reality, the O.R. is coming from those who
place their patriotism second.
This sounds like ArtBell or
alt.government.conspiracies.black.helocopters, and it may well be--but
I have to say it because my conscience gets the better of me--even
though I know how it reads even as I type it.
I know how these things are done. A friend of mine was top O.R.
(Opposition Research) for the Party. They saw to it when and how certain
damaging things came out about our Governor--AFTER THE
ELECTIONS--because the Chairman of the Party had plans that included
THIS governor getting elected first, THEN being deposed. The friendship
of the press, and the dependency of the press on those in power is quite
astonishing. They walk around with puppet strings only those "in the
know" can see. Letters to the editor often come from out of towners--did
you know that? I do. I saw them flooding the state with 'em from the
State Capital.
All this worries me not at all, though it is a little disgusting. The
system has always been set up this way, and it allows for it. No huhu.
I'm *not* accusing you of being manipulated by what you have been
reading. Period. But I AM cautioning you NOT to be. The opposition
research we had on the Governor does not reach into his office. But it
is close enough, and it envolves some of his higher level
administrators-- and once started, it hit the papers and stayed there
day after day, week after week especially in Chicago (The Chairman has
these papers in his hip pocket) until the damage had been done. Gov has
decided to step down in November (he can read a poll). This fits the
Chairman's plans to a tee. This moves the Bishop out of the Attorney
General's office to the Governor's office and leaves a vacancy for, none
other than the Chairman's daughter--the Rook. Checkmate.
All I'm saying here is don't play along. Allow the evidence to come out
as it may. Don't be naive and think Enron didn't buy politicians. But
don't be naive and think that the press isn't fanning this fire to a
fever pitch because this in an election year, either. Stories at the
Village Voice as well as the New York Times are penned at desks in the
DNC. Same goes for stories in Conservative papers across this great land
and The Washington Times too--many of these come straight from the RNC.
Don't start thinking there is a Cub Reporter like Jimmy Olsen uncovering
all this dirt in a dusty library and reading through endless contracts
in some dark, musty municipal building somewhere. A lot of what you saw
in All the Presidents Men was romantic fiction. They get handed these
stories by guys who have been their friends for years, guys who have
been feeding them stories for years. Guys they depend on--so their job
doesn't overwhelm them, like it did for Jimmy Olsen who finally wised up
and went to the Party of his choice to do what he did but for some REAL
bucks this time and a payoff at the end which included a nice cushy
Admnistrator's job in the Government.
There was a story that came out about a DUI which they held on to until
three days before the election. This gave the story just enough time to
build in the media, the candidate to respond, the media just enough time
to question his response, and cause a 3% dip in the polls. Sure, another
day and the polls would have been back up where they were. It was a fair
and honorable response. They got what they wanted--a deadlock on
election day.
This in a nutshell is the source of America's news. Don't get paranoid,
but don't ever forget it, either.
I discovered some time ago that it is quite impossible to reach a
universal ethic without God. Ayn Rand came very close, but no cigar. God
is not necessary to a personal ethic (though for me, my personal ethics
became stronger the day I realized that the Diests weren't crazy after
all--and I gave up my well used and nursed toy of athiesm) but God is
necessary for a universal ethic. I'm not sure all of usenet is enough to
discuss this to fruition, but just assume that my point has merit.
This is the idea behind America being the Godly Nation. We all need to
reach outside ourselves if we are to live with each other as free men
and women. Freedom is a great burden. Many refuges from Eastern Europe
commented on this as they began to try to adjust here. American streets
are NOISY and dangerous, just like a carnival midway. Bells, lights,
whistles, guys with tattoos and a ponytail at the booths yelling at you
to come try your luck. "In Amereeka----No Cats. And the Strets are lined
mit cheese!" That's The American Tale they were told--what they found
was a noisy dirty place sadly lacking order, scarey beyond all get out,
and nobody seems to follow directions of any sort here.
What keeps us together, what keeps us from falling apart or collapsing
under our own greedy weight? I'll try to tell you, though sometimess I
don't really know myself: It's a guy in a helmet and heavy canvas
overcoat at the foot of the World Trade Center's endless stairway
shouting out "Come on you Apes! Ya wanna live for ever?"
He saw something outside his own life that was more important than just
having another 20,000 bowel movements. Bowel movements are great, but
they don't really mean anything. Breathing doesn't mean anything.Your
heart beating doesn't mean anything. Certainly not from without the
frame of you.
When I was an athiest, my bowel movements were VERY important, as well
as anything to do with my health and anything that might possibly effect
my longevity. Only once I understood the importance of great enities
outside myself did I relax to the idea of dying--though survival is
still an utmost goal, at least for now. But there is much American
wisdom in:
"..to know that the problems of two little people don't amount to a hill
of beans in this world."
This, in general, comes from understanding God--whether He be The Great
Spirit, Tzu's the Way of Nature, Yaweh, Allah, or whatever. God,
Himself, may be nothing more than the understanding there is something
greater than the self. An ability to percieve the night sky as something
other than twinkling regimented lights---this perception's fruit is the
understanding of the scales and distance involved which do crush and
compact our entire lives into a single speck of dust floating over the
Sahara desert.
Morality for a free human being is found in understanding the greatness
outside of the self. This is what keeps us from collapsing. There are
more firemen among us than any of us realize, 'till the chips are down.
For many of us Monkeys this comes from God.
God has a sense of humor, by the way. As if ya hadn't noticed. He gets
the slickest guys imaginable to represent Secularism--he get's guys like
Falwell and Jim Bakker to represent Christianity out in the public eye.
The joke is, the house with the broken down sign painted with backwards
"R's" is furnished like the Pasha's palace on the INSIDE. That place
that has the neon, and the color coordinated Armani letters is a dump on
the inside, Like Carl's home in Caddyshak. Can't really tell 'till you
knock on both doors. But there you are--more humor. Just like my five
year old, most people are "sure" they don't like how Religion tastes or
maccaroni with hamburger mixed in--well, not until they're forced to
"either try it or sit here until bedtime, buster."
Not important to understand this Skye, or even believe it. Just don't be
surprised when this your nose is rubbed in it some day. The mechanism
keeps things going whether you understand any of its parts or not.
The alternative is Brown Shirts. They can keep order. They can keep the
streets clean. They can prevent the hole circus from tumbling down
around our ears (unless the leader proposes a campaign against Russia,
that is)
anon...@bogus_address.con
On 2002-02-09 sk...@nowhere.man said:
>http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Higdon020702/higdon020702.html
>Altered estates
>By James Higdon
>Online Journal Contributing Editor
The Wacko store just phoned. They said they're running a little
short of stock, and requested that you and Jeannie Kahn stop by
as soon as possible.
Jeannekhan
Jeb Bush and Enron re: pensions funds
routed may be of interest. Are you up
to date on the latest thereto? After
California paid 17 million a day blackmail
to Enron and West Coast and other states were being bled dry to float Enron,
FERC
did not act in a responsible manner a/d
by Cheney et al. When folks got wise
after the Jan. to June milking to prop up
Enron, a distraction was needed. But
Baxter left in May, Schilling in August
and the way was cleared for Patriots..;>
Enron was its own fault, but WTC worked
to cover the tracks of those taking millions as they bailed out through
October.
Brilliant strategy, whot?
Watch how the media buries facts
but read behind the scenes re: Presidential Papers Executive change which some
find a curious coincidence around WTC
and Enron et al.The plans were perfect!
Jeanne
Jeannekhan
John Leo, my mentor, would like to
have a word with you...;> He applauds
my intention to brush off elite folks
who have no names in public, but
suggested an insect spray. Imagine..;>
He did say Jesus still loves you.
Jeanne
sk...@nowhere.man
>>At Bush's direction, America has turned its back on every agreement
>>with our friends, enemies, allies, and neighbors, except those that
>>cooperate in a pact of war. Thousands, if not millions, of Americans
>>have lost their jobs, thousands more have been killed, and even
>>thousands more have lost both their financial and personal security.
>The national coffers have been raided, and Social Security is about to
>become a distant memory.
>Barely out of the gate and he's lost all credibility by a)
>exaggerating the number of treaty disagreements and the measured
>unilateralism of administration policy; b) implying that the WTC was
>somehow Bush's fault; c) implying that Enron was Bush's fault (it may
>have been, but the evidence isn't in yet); d) justly alluding to
>irresponsible fiscal policies (e.g., raiding Social Security), but
>exaggerating the outcome.
So, You didn't care for James Higdon's State of the Union Analysis ?;
Too bad his sweeping generalization about the treaties, agreements,
understandings et al. that didn't support the war-effort Bush
reputedly repudiated wasn't better substantiated; I suppose he meant
that any agreement that DIDN'T support the war Bush conveniently
ignored; "At Bush's direction, America has turned its back on every
agreement with our friends, enemies, allies, and neighbors, except
those that cooperate in a pact of war." Hmm, as I read it, that's
pretty much how I see it though. The point might have been better made
if he said, "Bush has directed America to dismiss every agreement,
treaty, and pact with our enemies, friends, allies and neighbors that
interfered with our ability to wage an open-ended war of aggression
that has caused over 3700 civilian deaths to date.
(Reports on Terrorist activities and threat-assessments) "Despite
repeated warnings from Israel's Mossad and intelligence agencies from
Egypt and Jordan weeks before the attacks, as well as urgent warnings
early last spring from the Hart-Rudman commission, our current leader
did absolutely nothing to prevent them (terrorist activities). In
fact, while the terrorists were plotting the final details of the
attacks, George W. Bush dismissed the warnings, assigned the matter to
Dick Cheney for "more study" and spent the entire month of August on
fundraising junkets and on vacation at his Texas ranch while Cheney
vacationed in Wyoming and Colorado." - 'From Guarding against
terrorism' By Kim Sayers, January 17, 2002
ALSO:
"Clinton signed an order to kill Osama bin Laden in 1998. Clinton also
launched cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan, missing bin
Laden by only a few hours. Instead of praising Clinton for trying to
eradicate bin Laden, Republicans called the attacks on the Sudan and
Afghanistan 'wagging the dog.'"
While the Republicans and mainstream corporate media were obsessed
with the Ken Starr investigation into Clinton's sexual escapades and
Whitewater, Clinton had marshalled intelligence forces and was
actively seeking bin Laden; To the extent that the
Republican-controlled Congress was far more interested in causing
distractions and in bringing down the Presidency than in working
collectively to protect the country from Terrorist attacks, such as by
gutting the Clinton administration's 1996 and 1998 anti-terrorism
bills as a consequence of their partisan witch-hunt, the
Republican-dominated Congress can be said to have ignored national
security. IMO, Bush, as his party's leading presidential candidate,
cannot logically or ethically distance himself from his party's share
of culpability; I don't think James Higdon is claiming that Bush is
SOLELY responsible; Larry Johnson, a former CIA agent on the O'Reilly
Factor show saturday 2/9, gave compelling personal testimony indicting
CIA Director George Tenet for failures of the Agency's Middle East
operations, contributing to 9/11; Many errors are due to personnel
misassignment, in which (for instance) information analysts with as
little as 2 years of experience are assigned to act as station heads,
a position for which they are completely unexperienced; Bush is
Tenet's boss; QED; It doesn't "prove" anything, it's just another
little 'detail' that can't be easily discounted; BUT DIG IT, THIS is
the SAME agency that cultivated, nurtured, trained, equipped and
worked with bin Laden during Afghanistan's war with the USSR; SO, the
CIA goes from being a savvy Middle East Intel/Espionage group to
bumbling incompetance?? It just doesn't fit!!
When you add these little 'bits' up, they begin to suggest an involved
and convoluted story which the mainline press has effectively ignored;
But as the mainstream news agencies are corporate-controlled with
strong legislative ties to both parties, I really don't expect very
wide or balanced or investigative reporting; The more I read the
alternative press, however, the more I'm aware of how much is being
left-out; I don't know what you have seen/read, and so can't
anticipate your disagreements; It's not my primary interest here to
necessarily PROVE anything, but I'll be happy to provide links and
original sources I know of to back-up any questions (if I can; some of
my ideas are conjecture); In the end, with the White House
stonewalling the release of ordinarily-non-controversial papers, such
as notes on the Energy Policy Task Force, which is a pretty serious
denial of the public's right to know what's going on, what the
Government is doing on behalf OF the people in an open society -- I'm
not sure that enough damning information will EVER be found out;
This is a basic review of what CAN be substantiated pretty readily;
For years, US oil interests have been trying to build a pipeline
across Afghanistan to access the oil and gas around the Caspian Sea;
efforts that have continued past the 9-11 attacks.
Source:
http://www.wluml.org/english/new-archives/wtc/at-stake/unocal.htm
Enron was a key player in this game. Way back in 1996, Enron had cut a
deal with the president of Uzbekistan for joint development of the
nation's natural gas fields.
Source: Houston Chronicle Date: TUE 06/25/96 Section: Business Page: 4
Edition: 3 STAR (sorry, no link)
Enron had also done the feasibility study for the pipeline.
Source http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html
For a time, the Taliban appeared to be a potential partner. They had
even visited Sugarland, Texas to talk things over.
Source
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/west_asia/newsid_37000/37021.stm
Unfortunately, the talks broke down, and by late last summer, the US
Government was threatening to commence war against Afghanistan (an
attack which would have violated every precept of international law).
Sources
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
At least twice, Bush conveyed the message to the Taliban that the
United States would hold the regime responsible for an al Qaeda
attack. But after concluding that bin Laden's group had carried out
the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, a conclusion stated without
hedge in a Feb. 9, 2001 briefing for Vice President Cheney, the new
administration did not choose to order armed forces into action.
Source
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8734-2002Jan19.html
Simultaneous with making, but not following through on these threats,
Bush took a number of actions to make the US decidedly more vulnerable
to a terrorist attack. He ordered the Naval strike force, which
Clinton placed in the Indian Ocean on 24 hour alert so he could hit
Osama as soon as he had solid intelligence, to stand down. Bush
threatened to veto the Defense Appropriations Bill after Democrats
tried to move $600 million out of Star Wars and into anti-terror
defense. Bush opposed Clinton's anti-money-laundering efforts, which
were designed to stop al Qaeda's money. Bush abandoned Northern
Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, or as the two star general Donald
Kerrick told the Washington Post, reflecting on his service to both
President Clinton and President Bush: Clinton's advisors met nearly
weekly on how to stop bin Laden and al Qaeda. "I didn't detect that
kind of focus" from the Bush Administration.
Source http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5714
Dick Cheney is openly breaking the law by defying GAO requests to turn
over his records of meetings with Enron.
Source http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020201.html
At the same time that Cheney refused to turn over his records, Enron
and its accountants shredded millions of pages of documents.
Source http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/30/business/30SHRE.html
The Bush's themselves may have destroyed evidence. When the Justice
Department instructed the Bush administration to preserve any
documents related to Enron Corporation, a senior administration
official said that until now, "the White House had not been making any
formal effort to preserve or catalogue information about Enron
contacts."
Source
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10918-2002Feb1.html
While all of this law breaking, stalling, and destruction of evidence
has gone on, Bush has asked Daschle to limit Congressional probes into
Sept. 11.
Source
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/index.html
Note that the supposedly "liberal press" has so far failed to put all
of these pieces together. They are too busy giving Bernard Goldberg
and Bill O'Reilly the airtime to sell a canard called "Bias."
The preceeding synopsis/documentation is available from
http://www.smudgereport.com/
What's especially intriging in this contemporary International
real-life Who Done IT? Thriller, is the compelling thought that,:
"In the absence of an atrocity like Sept. 11, the American people,
Congress, and the international community—including the
Europeans—would not have supported a full-scale attack on Afghanistan.
Nothing demonstrates this so graphically as the refusal by the
Republican-controlled Congress to support the administration's
attempts to eliminate al Quaeda and bin Laden, or to fund, or support
the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism
legislation."-http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Sayers011702/sayers011702.html
For something more to think about, see:
http://www.warreports.com,
http://www.onlinejournal.com
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Phillips010702/phillips010702.html
Personally, I tend to agree with you, that there were NINE shooters on
the grassy knoll;
Regrdz;
skye
We have round-the-clock cable TV news networks that have spent endless
days closely scrutinizing Gary Condit, the Clinton pardons, the Elian
Gonzales saga and other such stories. These networks have offered the
public virtually no coverage of the ways in which the Bush tax cut
increases the gap between rich and poor. They have offered little
information on the struggle to save the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, on the Bush Administration's assaults on civil liberties, or
on the Florida election debacle.- Carla Binion, from 'Democracy's
Future Depends on an Informed Public",: Source:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Binion083101/binion083101.html
"To insure America's freedom, we got to track the enemy down and get
'em!" and
"I don't see many shades of gray, you're either with us or against us,
for good or evil, in the war on terror."- Bush II
Joshua P. Hill
'Cept that:
--With the probable exception of Hitler and the possible exception of
Nero, who killed his own mother, I can't think of any leader, no
matter how heinous, who attacked his own country oustide of a civil
war
--There's a big difference between being a corporate or political
sleezebag and a traitor and murderer. Even Richard Nixon, who used the
IRS to target his "enemies" and plotted to control the FBI with the
CIA, never did such a thing
--There's absolutely no evidence that I'm aware of to suggest such a
connection (coincidences and possible scenarios aren't evidence)
--There's overwhelming evidence that bin Laden did it; the secret
components of the evidence have been vetted by foreign leaders
--The probability that an elaborate attack on one's own country could
be carried off without someone blowing the whistle is I think very,
very small
--The consequences if such an attack were to be discovered would
presumably include death or life imprisonment for the perpetrators;
this against a small risk of much less dire outcomes -- at worst,
resignation and a short term in a "country club" prison -- if someone
finds a smoking gun linking Enron illegalities to figures in the
Administration
Josh
Jeannekhan
Your view makes sense, of course.
Bin Laden not stopped, but Christopher
Hitchens may do a Kissinger-profile
on some in the future? He may link
the $43 which rose to 65 million for
Taliban and chums by July to an ire
post Unocal failure to build a pipeline.
What's allowed has few fingerpoints.
What's prevented, like Millennium
attacks, seldom sees the light of day
from covert ops and hostile press..;>
Most of WTC 2,800+ were kitchen help
or ordinary city workers who got unlucky
or those deemed invisible by counters.
I look for who benefits and follow money
which masters at this art can conceal.
I see how Enron copied Harken Energy
and remember S&L for which few paid.
May the evidence surface anyway..;>
Concealers are far more clever than
we who are merely curious, alas.
After some fat lady sings, maybe not.
We need to buy Luciana Goldberg, et al.
Jeanne
Joshua P. Hill
>So, You didn't care for James Higdon's State of the Union Analysis ?;
>Too bad his sweeping generalization about the treaties, agreements,
>understandings et al. that didn't support the war-effort Bush
>reputedly repudiated wasn't better substantiated; I suppose he meant
>that any agreement that DIDN'T support the war Bush conveniently
>ignored; "At Bush's direction, America has turned its back on every
>agreement with our friends, enemies, allies, and neighbors, except
>those that cooperate in a pact of war." Hmm, as I read it, that's
>pretty much how I see it though. The point might have been better made
>if he said, "Bush has directed America to dismiss every agreement,
>treaty, and pact with our enemies, friends, allies and neighbors that
>interfered with our ability to wage an open-ended war of aggression
>that has caused over 3700 civilian deaths to date.
--While it may well go into the thousands, the number of civilian
deaths is not known.
--If people keep insisting that going after a bunch of
government-supported fruitcakes in another country who murder 3000 of
your civilians is somehow a "war of aggression," I think I'm going to
resign from the human race!
--I'm not aware of any agreement, treaty, and pact that precludes us
from fighting in Afghanistan; the treaties I'm aware of that Bush
*has* repudiated -- in each case with complete legality -- are the ABM
treaty, the landmine treaty, and the global warming treaty, none of
which have anything to do with Afghanistan
>(Reports on Terrorist activities and threat-assessments) "Despite
>repeated warnings from Israel's Mossad and intelligence agencies from
>Egypt and Jordan weeks before the attacks, as well as urgent warnings
>early last spring from the Hart-Rudman commission, our current leader
>did absolutely nothing to prevent them (terrorist activities). In
>fact, while the terrorists were plotting the final details of the
>attacks, George W. Bush dismissed the warnings, assigned the matter to
>Dick Cheney for "more study" and spent the entire month of August on
>fundraising junkets and on vacation at his Texas ranch while Cheney
>vacationed in Wyoming and Colorado." - 'From Guarding against
>terrorism' By Kim Sayers, January 17, 2002
>ALSO:
>"Clinton signed an order to kill Osama bin Laden in 1998. Clinton also
>launched cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan, missing bin
>Laden by only a few hours. Instead of praising Clinton for trying to
>eradicate bin Laden, Republicans called the attacks on the Sudan and
>Afghanistan 'wagging the dog.'"
Yes, as far as I know this stuff is true. Not that the Clinton
Administration's record, or that of the Democrats in general, is
spotless.
Well, you were OK until then!
The ability to provide weapons and other support to a group is not the
same as providing intelligence on a group. And priorities and
leadership change with time. The CIA had few "people" assets in
Afghanistan at the time of the attack, and that was clearly a failing.
But even if they had, *no* agency, however competent, can discover
every terrorist plot, nor does a failure to do so eliminate the
possibility of competence or a competent action eliminate the
possibility of a failure. For example, the Pentagon badly bumbled one
of the first raids of the war -- the attack on Mullah Omar's compound
-- and one can point to any number of other mistakes, but overall the
operations in Afghanistan have been marked by great skill and success.
>When you add these little 'bits' up, they begin to suggest an involved
>and convoluted story which the mainline press has effectively ignored;
>But as the mainstream news agencies are corporate-controlled with
>strong legislative ties to both parties, I really don't expect very
>wide or balanced or investigative reporting; The more I read the
>alternative press, however, the more I'm aware of how much is being
>left-out; I don't know what you have seen/read, and so can't
>anticipate your disagreements; It's not my primary interest here to
>necessarily PROVE anything, but I'll be happy to provide links and
>original sources I know of to back-up any questions (if I can; some of
>my ideas are conjecture); In the end, with the White House
>stonewalling the release of ordinarily-non-controversial papers, such
>as notes on the Energy Policy Task Force, which is a pretty serious
>denial of the public's right to know what's going on, what the
>Government is doing on behalf OF the people in an open society -- I'm
>not sure that enough damning information will EVER be found out;
>
>This is a basic review of what CAN be substantiated pretty readily;
>For years, US oil interests have been trying to build a pipeline
>across Afghanistan to access the oil and gas around the Caspian Sea;
>efforts that have continued past the 9-11 attacks.
True
>Enron was a key player in this game. Way back in 1996, Enron had cut a
>deal with the president of Uzbekistan for joint development of the
>nation's natural gas fields.
>Source: Houston Chronicle Date: TUE 06/25/96 Section: Business Page: 4
>Edition: 3 STAR (sorry, no link)
>
>Enron had also done the feasibility study for the pipeline.
>
>For a time, the Taliban appeared to be a potential partner. They had
>even visited Sugarland, Texas to talk things over.
>Source
>
>Unfortunately, the talks broke down, and by late last summer, the US
>Government was threatening to commence war against Afghanistan (an
>attack which would have violated every precept of international law).
All of this is true (I ahdn't heard about the Enron involvement, but
it sounds perfectly plausible)
>At least twice, Bush conveyed the message to the Taliban that the
>United States would hold the regime responsible for an al Qaeda
>attack. But after concluding that bin Laden's group had carried out
>the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, a conclusion stated without
>hedge in a Feb. 9, 2001 briefing for Vice President Cheney, the new
>administration did not choose to order armed forces into action.
>Source
OK
>Simultaneous with making, but not following through on these threats,
>Bush took a number of actions to make the US decidedly more vulnerable
>to a terrorist attack. He ordered the Naval strike force, which
>Clinton placed in the Indian Ocean on 24 hour alert so he could hit
>Osama as soon as he had solid intelligence, to stand down. Bush
>threatened to veto the Defense Appropriations Bill after Democrats
>tried to move $600 million out of Star Wars and into anti-terror
>defense. Bush opposed Clinton's anti-money-laundering efforts, which
>were designed to stop al Qaeda's money. Bush abandoned Northern
>Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, or as the two star general Donald
>Kerrick told the Washington Post, reflecting on his service to both
>President Clinton and President Bush: Clinton's advisors met nearly
>weekly on how to stop bin Laden and al Qaeda. "I didn't detect that
>kind of focus" from the Bush Administration.
You'll get no argument from me regarding the fundamental
brain-deadedness of many or most of Bush's initial foreign policy
initiatives
>Dick Cheney is openly breaking the law by defying GAO requests to turn
>over his records of meetings with Enron.
Cheney is contesting that demand, just as Clinton contested the
Special Prosecutor's demands for evidence. It will be decided in
court, as it was in Clinton's case, and as long as Cheney follows the
decision of the court, he's within his rights (albeit he's obviously
being sleazy here).
>At the same time that Cheney refused to turn over his records, Enron
>and its accountants shredded millions of pages of documents.
Yup
>The Bush's themselves may have destroyed evidence. When the Justice
>Department instructed the Bush administration to preserve any
>documents related to Enron Corporation, a senior administration
>official said that until now, "the White House had not been making any
>formal effort to preserve or catalogue information about Enron
>contacts."
Possibly
>While all of this law breaking, stalling, and destruction of evidence
>has gone on, Bush has asked Daschle to limit Congressional probes into
>Sept. 11.
>Source
OK
>Note that the supposedly "liberal press" has so far failed to put all
>of these pieces together. They are too busy giving Bernard Goldberg
>and Bill O'Reilly the airtime to sell a canard called "Bias."
Together as what? None of these facts point to anything *unless you
start with an assumption.*
>What's especially intriging in this contemporary International
>real-life Who Done IT? Thriller, is the compelling thought that,:
>
>"In the absence of an atrocity like Sept. 11, the American people,
>Congress, and the international community—including the
>Europeans—would not have supported a full-scale attack on Afghanistan.
>Nothing demonstrates this so graphically as the refusal by the
>Republican-controlled Congress to support the administration's
>attempts to eliminate al Quaeda and bin Laden, or to fund, or support
>the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism
>legislation."-http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Sayers011702/sayers011702.html
Yes, as a friend of mine said the day after the attack, they didn't
have the political capital to do something about it beforehand. Again,
nothing surprising
>Personally, I tend to agree with you, that there were NINE shooters on
>the grassy knoll;
Pretty much the problem here. This approach to evidence produces too
many false results, because it jumps from possibility to probability
and by overlooking overlooking all countervailing evidence, subsitutes
an unnecessarily complex explanation for a straightforward one without
cause As such, it violates Occam's Razor.
Check out
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/10/arts/theater/10NIED.html
in today's Times for an example involving Shakespeare, in this case
subscribed to not just by a number of academics but by several Supreme
Court justices.
One can I think justifiably call this sort of reasoning faith-based,
insofar as it characterizes the emotionally-impelled thought that
leads people to believe in any number of contradictory religions
without evidence that any of them are either preferable or correct in
the first place. And I confess I don't understand why people engage in
it -- or rather, since all of us, myself included, have a natural
tendency to do it, why they don't make an effort to apply skeptical
analysis to counteract their emotional distortions. Just as the
numerous WTC conspiracy theories arise from an emotional need to
defend one's culture (in the Islamic world) or trash it (in the west),
it seems to me that the Shakespeare authorship business arises from
the emotional reluctance of some among us less talented sorts to
believe that others have mental faculties so superior to their own
that they can produce works of genius with little more than an
elementary school education, while they pile up degrees and earn at
best a footnote or two.
BTW, did you ever read Nietzsche on the "revalution of all values?"
Typically pompous name, but I've found his technique -- just try
taking the *other side* of an argument, and justifying it --
absolutely invaluable over the years.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
>Josh,
>
>After some fat lady sings, maybe not.
Heh
Usually not, but then, my question is with the magnitude of what's
being concealed, not whether people get away with funny stuff! And
that, I find, is determined in part by culture and circumstance, e.g.,
the head of a tobacco company may sell a product that kills
*millions,* but you won't catch him rubbing out the competition like a
mafioso or a drug dealer, because the system of rewards, benefits, and
morals that apply to his circumstances favor one and not the other.
Josh
sk...@nowhere.man
>Josh
Hey Josh;
I have reread your reply/objection several times, and frankly, don't
understand it; I think you have misinterpreted what James Higdon
actually wrote; I do not see where, as you do, that Mr. Higdon implied
the WTC was President Bush II's fault, or even that Enron was his
fault; Otherwise, I substantially agree with his observations, ie::
America has repudiated every agreement that contradicts the War on
Terror, thousands if not millions have lost their jobs, thousands have
been killed, more thousands have lost their personal and financial
security, the national coffers have been raided, and Social Security
is being threatened (ie., plans for privatization, borrowing,
restructuring, etc.);
These were listed in context with the 'flaw' in Bush II's speech;
You may recall that James Higdon was commenting on the inherant
contradiction in George Bush's State of the Nation Address, as in:
"[A]s we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in
recession and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers . . .
the state of our union has never been stronger." ~George W. Bush,
State of the Union Address, 2002-
I was surprised that no one noticed or thought to comment on this
bizarre twist;
BUT: To answer your contention that Mr. Higdon implied George Bush was
responsible for Enron (even though he does not do so in the paragraph
you note above) there IS an assumption on your part that proof of such
claim does not exist;
Pardon me for this observation, but it's impossible to KNOW beforehand
what other people are aware of, how involved they are in reviewing
sources, or knowing what their standards of "proof" require. As the
result of keeping abreast of recent developments, watching televised
commentary and testimony, reading widely from electronic data bases
and web-based on-line and other sources, I have become sufficiently
aware of the Bush/Enron connection to have NO doubt that intimate
complicity exists, nor do I doubt that Enron was basically an
institution of foreign policy which Bush was fundamentally aware of
and significantly involved in; The following reprint of Enron:
Ultimate Agent of the American Empire: Part One is fairly well written
and provides a clear overview of what has been brought to public light
to date, showing that the case of Enron is much more than a partisan
witch-hunt, but an indictment of American Imperialism; There is plenty
of cause to have strong suspicians, based on compelling circumstantial
evidence and logical deduction based on testimony and facts in the
public record, that Enron is not just the tip of a huge contradiction
in terms of free market enterprise capitalism, but an elaborate
instrument for exploitation, subversion, destabilization, money
laundering, influence peddling, coercion, racketeering, appropriation,
covert ops, securing priveleges, acquiring interests, setting National
energy policy, deregulation, blackmail, collusion, providing 'front'
covers, rewarding 'business' associates, strong-arm bargaining,
double-dealing, and worse (much worse); I have my doubts that the full
dirty secrets of Enron will ever be allowed to see the light of day;
The shredding of millions of pages of documents MIGHT yet be explained
as a very patriotic act; No wonder the Government 'gave' Enron a
two-month lead in getting rid of the paper trail; But it may be that
the GOP is already so well-entrenched in their position that they're
beyond being brought down by anything revealed about Enron; I can
understand why some folks just don't want to know, and resist
accepting what they find out, the details of Enron are a little on the
too incredible side to easily swallow;
Nobody ever said the truth tastes swell.
And besides, 'reality' is just what the best propogandists sell, aint
it?
skye
2.11.2002
fwd//
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Chin020102/chin020102.html
Enron: Ultimate agent of the American empire
Part I: Money to get power, power to protect money.—Motto of the
Medici family
By Larry Chin
Online Journal Contributing Editor
February 1, 2002
In portraying Enron as a "scandal," and as an isolated case of
overheated capitalism and "unusual political influence," the American
corporate media and congressional investigators are studiously
avoiding the truth: Enron, like many multinational corporations, has
functioned as an operational arm of the US government, and as a weapon
of economic, political, and territorial hegemony. The case exposes an
almost unspeakable and terminal malignancy at the heart of world
politics, and global capitalism itself.
Cold Warriors in Suits
In a "free market world" in which (1) the goals of the state,
corporations, and the national security apparatus (intelligence
agencies and military) are indistinguishable, (2) these three groups
plan and conduct operations cooperatively, and (3) government and
business elites (linked by longtime social ties) move seamlessly
between public and private sectors, the hydra that is Enron is
nightmarishly uncontroversial—-and quintessentially American.
Enron CEO Kenneth Lay was a Pentagon official during the Vietnam War.
Another Enron board member who facilitated Enron's most egregious
violations overseas, Frank Wisner, Jr., has intimate CIA ties and is
the son of former CIA Deputy Director Frank Wisner, Sr., who was
present at the creation of the CIA.
Enron's symbiotic relationship to the CIA/Pentagon-based Bush/Cheney
oligarchy is well documented. As a pioneer of energy deregulation
during his administration, George H.W. Bush virtually created Enron,
and paved the way for its meteoric growth. And, as David Walsh
(www.wsws.org) wrote, "to speak of "connections" or "intimate ties"
between Enron and the Bush regime nearly misses the point. To a large
extent, the present administration is an extension of the Enron board
of directors. This government, one might say, is Enron in office, not
simply because numerous Bush cabinet members and other appointees (and
other leading Republicans) have been employed in one capacity or
another by Enron, but more profoundly in the sense that the social
types found in Enron's boardroom and in leading government posts in
Washington are interchangeable."
As a corporate agent and beneficiary of US and western military and
intelligence operations, Enron is also no more an aberration than the
United Fruit and Standard Fruit companies, whose dominance of Central
America during the 1960s depended on cooperative operations with the
CIA, the Pentagon and organized crime.
More modern examples abound.
American International Group, the insurance giant, has long been tied
to the CIA and the military, and its board (not coincidentally) also
includes Enron director Frank Wisner Jr.
Citigroup over the years has been repeatedly charged with money
laundering. Citigroup's board includes John Deutch, former CIA
Director, Robert Rubin, former Treasury secretary and intimate friend
to Ken Lay (who personally and financially intervened to bail out the
collapsing Enron), and retired Executive Director of the CIA Nora
Slatkin.
Then there is Enron's corporate cousin, Halliburton, which was headed
by Dick Cheney from 1995 until he became vice president. The company
provides "support services" to the military and oil industries, living
off of US wars and "counter-insurgency" operations in Algeria, Angola,
Bosnia, Burma, Croatia, Haiti, Kuwait, Nigeria, Russia, Rwanda, and
Somalia and elsewhere.
Corporate quasi-agents like Enron are effective fronts in implementing
the policies of the ruling elite. Among the goals are (1) securing and
controlling of natural resources (oil, natural gas, electricity), (2)
maintaining economic, geopolitical, and military advantage, and (3)
controlling populations through the stifling of dissent, the
elimination of political opposition, and the destruction of democratic
reform movements.
Seen within this broad framework, Enron's activities are not only
inherent manifestations of the ruling order, but official policy.
Enron at Home: Extortion and Racketeering for Bush and Gang
While media coverage and congressional inquiries have dwelled on the
fraud, accounting irregularities, swindled mutual fund managers and
stock jockeys, and ripped off pension fund owners, the most sinister
aspects of Enron's operations remain cloaked.
Through manipulation of energy distribution, Enron was effective in
subverting and controlling the politics and pocketbooks of entire
populations within the US and overseas.
One of Enron's first acts on behalf of the present Bush administration
was the manipulation of the California energy grid, which essentially
blackmailed the state.
California is a Democratic stronghold and "hotbed of liberal dissent"
that opposed the installation of George W. Bush in the White House.
California's once burgeoning economy was derailed, and its damaged
Democratic political leadership was sent scrambling into months of
damage control. So emasculated were the Democrats that they were
unable to oppose Bush on the rest of his extreme right wing agenda.
This delighted Bush and Cheney, who (on Ken Lay's advice) not only
refused to assist, but also blamed California for "its own failures"
and blocked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commision (FERC) from
intervening. Enron made a fortune.
Today, California remains a hostage to the Enron/Bush scam, locked
into expensive long-term energy contracts that will sap its resources
and fleece consumers for years to come. Democrats throughout the state
appear vulnerable to losing seats to Republicans in 2002.
As reported by David Lazarus in the San Francisco Chronicle (1/30/02),
memos of conversations between Lay and Dick Cheney provide ample
evidence of Lay's insider status in the Bush White House: he
essentially dictated the administration's ruthless response to
California—-and perhaps the rest of the energy policy.
The California "energy shortage" became George Bush's national
rallying cry for more deregulation, drilling, building new power
plants and systematically gutting environmental regulations. The
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and other protected lands, and the
California coast, have been targeted for drilling.
There is evidence that the California "crisis" was entirely
manufactured. Several investigations into the scam have begun.
Not content simply to deregulate energy markets, Enron deregulated
futures markets, making itself exempt from government oversight and
from fraud laws. This maneuver, headed by Wendy Gramm (who moved back
and forth between the Chicago Board of Trade and the Enron board) and
assisted by Phil Gramm (who pushed Enron-friendly changes in
legislation in Congress), was tantamount to the company giving itself
permission to launder massive amounts of money. Which it did.
Enron, Bush administration officials and Enron-funded right-wing
"think tanks" such as the American Enterprise Institute, the American
Council for Capital Formation (where Ken Lay is a director), the
Institute for Policy Innovation (founded by Dick Armey) collaborated
to lift restrictions on offshore tax havens. This blocked a multi-year
30-nation crackdown on the abuse of offshore tax havens led by the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.
Today, thanks to Enron, billions of dollars of mystery money are
sheltered in thousands of phantom offshore accounts, in 874 Enron
subsidiaries.
Enron's Past Overseas Adventures: Collusion and Exploitation
Where there has been warfare (led or funded by the US), there have
been capitalists ready to profit from it, regardless of the cost in
human lives. Where there is oppression, corporations are there to cut
deals with dictators and corrupt finance ministers. Enron was a master
at this game, working alongside operatives of the Bush and Clinton
administrations.
In 1988, George W. Bush pressured Argentina's public works minister to
award Enron a contract to build a natural gas pipeline by invoking the
name of his father, president George H.W. Bush. The contract was
eventually awarded to Enron when Carlos Menem, a friend of the Bush
family, became president.
Operation Desert Storm secured the Iraqi oil field of Rumaila for
western interests, expanding the boundaries of Kuwait, doubling
Kuwaiti oil output for American and British oil companies. In 1993,
with James Baker, Robert Mosbacher and former operations director of
the Joint Chiefs Thomas Kelly on the Enron payroll, the three former
Bush administration officials, along with George H.W., Neil and Marvin
Bush pressured Kuwaiti officials to award Enron a contract to rebuild
the Shuaiba power plant, which was destroyed during the war. The
contract was awarded to Enron, even though Enron's price for supplying
power was significantly higher than that of other bidders.
Enron hired former US Ambassador to India Frank Wisner, who
subsequently used CIA influence to help Enron win a $2.8 billion
contract for the Dabhol power plant, the biggest international
investment since India opened its economy in 1991. When thousands of
local residents, including acclaimed journalist Arundhati Roy,
protested the plant, Enron hired Indian police to beat and arrest
opponents of the project. A detailed Human Rights Watch analysis of
the human rights violations of Enron and the US government can be
found at www.hrw.org/reports/1999/enron/enron9-0.htm.
According to Enron's web site, as of January 2002, the company is in
the early stages of developing a natural gas pipeline on India's west
coast in Maharashtra.
In 2001, as vice president, Dick Cheney spoke to Indian government
officials about the Dabhol project. His justification: the plant was
financed in part through the US government's Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC).
According to an investigative series on the notes of the late Ron
Brown by WorldNetDaily.com, Enron became a major contributor to the
Democratic National Committee (after the heavily Enron-financed George
H.W. Bush re-election effort failed in 1992). Members of the Clinton
administration, particularly Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, routinely
negotiated deals for Enron and other big donors.
In 1994, Brown participated in a US business trade mission in
Indonesia. Documents obtained using the Freedom of Information Act
shows that Brown assisted Indonesian dictator Suharto and his son in a
kickback scheme involving US tax money and the construction of the
Paiton Power Plant. Enron was awarded a contract. This project was
funded in part by the Export-Import Bank (EXIM), which also financed
$4 billion in gas deals for Enron. EXIM has ties to Robert Rubin, a
longtime friend of Kenneth Lay and Enron from his Goldman Sachs days.
Also in part from generous DNC contributions, Enron received Clinton
administration help in the marketing of Russian gas in Europe. Ken Lay
and Boris Brevnov of Unified Electricity Systems of Russia signed a
10-year strategic alliance during the 1998 World Economic Summit in
Davos, Switzerland. The press release quotes Lay: "We are very
optimistic that the rapidly liberalizing markets in Russia, Europe,
and Central Asia will create 'new electricity trading and marketing
opportunities' for both our companies."
When Frank Wisner was the US Ambassador to the Philippines (1991-92),
Enron was negotiating to manage the two Subic Bay power plants. Wisner
helped Enron win the deal and began to manage the plant in January
1993. The plants cost the Philippine National Power Corporation (NPC)
eight cents a kilowatt-hour—-20 percent more than NPC charged
customers. The entire NPC board resigned in protest.
In 1995, Enron signed an agreement to build a gas pipeline from
Mozambique to South Africa, to develop a gas field in southern
Mozambique. Anthony Lake, president Bill Clinton's National Security
Advisor, and the US Agency for International Development pressured the
Mozambican government to sign with Enron.
Next, Part II: Enron, the Bush administration, and the Central Asian
war
fwd//skye
2.11.2002
sk...@nowhere.man
<josh...@snet.net.remove.this> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 23:49:11 GMT, sk...@nowhere.man wrote:
>, and even
>>thousands more have lost both their financial and personal security.
>Barely out of the gate and he's lost all credibility by
> c) implying that Enron was Bush's fault (it may
>have been, but the evidence isn't in yet);
>
>Josh
OK: Part II which shows the
Bush/Cheney/Lay/Enron/CFR/Taliban/Halliburton/Saudi BinLaden
Group/CIA/FBI Connection;
___________________________
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Chin020702/chin020702.html
Enron: Ultimate agent of the American empire
Part II: Enron, the Bush administration, and the Central Asian war
By Larry Chin
Online Journal Contributing Editor
February 7, 2002
Most experts agree that the Caspian Basin and Central Asia are the
keys to energy in the 21st century. Said energy expert James Dorian
(Oil & Gas Journal, 9/10/01), "Those who control the oil routes out of
Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of flow
and the distribution of revenues from new production."
America wants the region under total US domination.
The Caspian Basin has an estimated $5 trillion of oil and gas
resources, and Central Asia has 6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas
and 10 billion barrels of undeveloped oil reserves. Interconnecting
pipelines are the key to accessing and distributing oil and gas to
European, Chinese and Russian markets.
Policy planners have devoted years to this agenda. A report published
in September 2001 detailing a conference held at the Brookings
Institution in May 2001 provides clear evidence that the exploitation
of Caspian Basin and Asian energy markets was an urgent priority for
the Bush administration, and the centerpiece of its energy policy.
The report states that "the administration's report warned that
'growth in international oil demand will exert increasing pressure on
global oil availability' and that developing Asian economies and
populations—particularly in China and India—-will be major
contributors to this increased demand" and that "options for
constructing gas pipelines east to Asia from the Caspian have been
discussed for the last decade."
For years, Enron (along with Unocal, BP Amoco, Exxon, Mobil, Pennzoil,
Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, Texaco, and other oil companies) has been
involved in a multi-billion dollar frenzy to extract the reserves of
the three former Soviet republics, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and
Kazakhstan.
According to Project Underground (11/7/99), former Soviet, KGB and
Politburo members are profiting from oil riches, along with "a
formidable array of former top Western Cold Warriors, drawn
principally from the cabinet of George [H.W.] Bush." The dealmakers
include James Baker, Dick Cheney, Brent Scowcroft, and John Sununu.
Also cashing in on the deals are former Clinton Treasury Secretary
Lloyd Bentsen (close friend of Ken Lay and longtime recipient of Enron
funding) and Zbigniew Brezezinski.
Brezezinski, a leading member of the Council on Foreign Relations and
arguably the most influential policy planner in the world, spearheaded
the American effort to destabilize the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in
the 1970s. He is a consultant to BP Amoco. His recent book, "The Grand
Chessboard" is a virtual blue print for a war and balkanization of
Central Asia.
According to Alexander's Oil & Gas Connections (10/12/98), Enron
signed a contract in 1996, giving it rights to explore 11 gas fields
in Uzbekistan, a project costing $1.3 billion. The goal was to sell
gas to the Russian markets, and link to Unocal's southern export
pipeline crossing Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan.
Turkmenistan (where Enron's project was based) and Azerbaijan are
closely allied with Israeli military intelligence. Yosef Maiman, a
former Israeli intelligence agent, is the official negotiator for
energy development projects in Turkmenistan.
Enron recently conducted feasibility studies for a $2.5 billion
trans-Caspian gas pipeline to be built jointly with General Electric
and Bechtel. Enron's goal was to link this pipeline to another line
through Afghanistan.
As described in many accounts, notably the recently published "Osama
Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth" by Jean Charles Brisard and Guillaume
Dasique, a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) consortium led by Unocal had
plans for a 1,005 mile oil pipeline and a 918 mile natural gas
pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. This
project stalled because of the political instability in Afghanistan.
In August 2001, George W. Bush revived negotiations with the Taliban.
Writer William Rivers Pitt notes that, "intense scrutiny has shaken
loose two e-mails sent by Enron's Ken Lay to his employees in August
of last year. In them, Lay waxes optimistic about the strength and
stability of his company, and exhorts his employees to buy into the
company's stock program."
Pitt believes that, "while many observers view this as the gasping
lies of a drowning criminal," Lay's messages must be considered in
light of the timing: His last e-mail was sent on August 27, about the
same time as the final Taliban meeting with the Bush administration.
Was Kenneth Lay anticipating a piece of a new pipeline deal, and an
Enron contract, courtesy of George W. Bush?
After the Taliban refused the Bush administration's "carpet of gold,"
America dropped its "carpet of bombs" on Afghanistan, allegedly in
retaliation for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Was Ken Lay also anticipating a war, and a way to profit from it?
Former Unocal lobbyist Hamid Karzai now heads a bombed and gutted
Afghanistan. Bush's US envoy is Zalmay Khalizad, another former Unocal
representative, who helped draw up the plans for the original CentGas
pipeline.
The US has established four new permanent military bases, throughout
the region, including a new one in Afghanistan. Recently, Uzbekistan,
hosted dozens of members of the US House of Representatives and the
Senate. The region will remain a zone of perpetual violence and
conflict, and plunder.
If Enron had not made the mistake of collapsing, Kenneth Lay and his
team would be in the thick of it.
Enron, Halliburton, Bush . . . bin Laden?
At the web site Rumor Mill News (www.RumorMillNews.com), a journalist
named "Phoenix" has laid out business links that tie Enron to the bin
Laden family. These connections, which have been independently
verified by Michael Ruppert (www.copvcia.com), play out as follows:
1. Osama bin Laden's family business, the Saudi Binladin Group, is a
major construction company. Saudi Binladin Group was an investor in
the Carlyle Group. Carlyle's directors include George H.W. Bush, and
James Baker. George W. Bush's firm Arbusto Energy was funded by an
investment from Texas investment banker James Bath, who was also the
investment counselor for the bin Laden family. Bath had connections to
the CIA, and was involved with the Iran-Contra, savings and loan, and
BCCI scandals.
2. One of Saudi Binladen's joint venture partners is H.C. Price
Company.
3. H.C. Price is a major builder of pipelines, and is involved in
large projects, including two projects for Enron: the Florida Gas
Pipeline and the Northern Border Pipeline running from the US/Canadian
border from Montana to Illinois.
4. In 1996, Dresser Industries and Shaw Industries merged their
pipecoating businesses to form Bredaro-Shaw Group. H.C. Price became
part of Bredaro-Shaw.
5. Halliburton acquired Dresser in 1998. George H.W. Bush's father,
Prescott, was the managing director of Brown Brothers Harriman, which
previously owned Dresser. Dresser Industries gave George H.W. Bush his
first job in 1948.
6. Dick Cheney orchestrated the Dresser and Bredaro-Shaw acquisitions.
7. Both Halliburton, and its subsidiary Brown & Root, have deep ties
to the CIA and the military. The company has been involved in US
military conflicts in Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya,
Pakistan, Colombia and Rwanda. Brown & Root builds oil rigs,
pipelines, wells, and nuclear reactors.
It does not appear to be a simple case of coincidence that Saudi
Binladin, a long time business partner with the Bush family, also has
a partnership with a Dick Cheney-affiliated Halliburton that works
with Enron.
The cover-up begins
In their book The Outlaw Bank, Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne wrote of
BCCI, "It was a conspiratorialist's conspiracy, a plot so byzantine,
so thoroughly corrupt, so exquisitely private, reaching so deeply into
the political and intelligence establishments of so many countries,
that it seemed to have its only precedent in the more hallucinogenic
fiction of Ian Fleming, Kurt Vonnegut or Thomas Pynchon. As tales of
its global predations were splattered across headlines all over the
world, its apparent influence reached almost absurd proportions."
The scope of Enron's influence has reached well into the absurd, if
not beyond. And there are many more Enrons out there, waiting to be
blow open.
In describing the system that breeds Enrons, professor Michel
Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa (CovertAction, Fall 1996)
wrote:
"Global crime has become an integral part of an economic system, with
far reaching social, economic and geopolitical ramifications . . . the
relationship among criminals, politicians, and members of the
intelligence establishment has tainted the structures of the state and
the role of its institutions . . . this system of global trade and
finance has fostered an unprecedented accumulation of private wealth
alongside the impoverishment of large sectors of the world population,
and the prospects for change are dim. Meanwhile, the international
community turns a blind eye until some scandal momentarily breaks
through the gilded surface."
In light of congressional "investigations" headed exclusively by
committee chairmen who have received Enron monies, weeks of FBI
foot-dragging, continued White House secrecy, no independent counsel,
and media complicity in White House damage control efforts, the Enron
trail has already begun to grow cold.
The American corporate media has done its best to look the other way.
This is no surprise, since Enron dumped handsome sums into the pockets
of media moguls, and conservative journalists such as Lawrence Kudlow,
Peggy Noonan, William Kristol and others.
Cronies and cohorts are meeting. Patsies and fall guys have been
designated. Lies are being fabricated. Fifth Amendment mantras will be
repeated.
As was the case with Watergate, BCCI, Iran-Contra, and the savings and
loan scandals, it is not too cynical to expect the Enron hearings to
expose only enough malfeasance to silence the public, while leaving
the massive system intact. The masterminds and the largest
beneficiaries are about to slip into the shadows.
The American empire is built on a thousand Enrons. It will exhaust
every means to avoid implicating itself, even as it drowns in the
cesspool of its own creation, dragging thousands of innocent people
down with it.
__________________________
This is one of the main reasons why I am reserved on supporting the
"War on Terrorism"; From what I can gather, the War is a fabrication
of absurd proportions, based on half-truths and arrogant assumptions,
leading to but more suffering, oppression and greed;
"Jesus wept."
fwd//sk...@nowhere.man
2.11.2002
sk...@nowhere.man
>On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 19:28:15 GMT, Joshua P. Hill
><josh...@snet.net.remove.this> wrote:
(snip)
>>(Zionists aka Pharisees). It uses these concepts, but it itself is an ideology of
>>hatred and racism.
>>http://www.ummah.net/unity/palestine/history/history2.htm"
>I got a few sentences into the article. How can anyone believe such
garbage?
Simple; You mix a little bit of truth in with your suppositions, just
enough to make it somewhat plausable or difficult to refute, and you
play on people's fears or biases, stir well, throw it out there and
'voila!', another theory to complicate the search for truth, or to
complicate a window on 'reality';
>> Isn't it 'Odd' that it's against the law for Palestinians to buy land in Israel? Or to sell to another
>>Palestinian? Isn't that a form of genocide?
>No, of course not. It's a result of partition. Israel is a democracy, and if the Palestinians >moved in, they would rapidly achieve a majority, at which point there would be two >Palestinian states. Similarly, if the Israelis have their way with their settlements, the
>Palestinians will be pushed into little pockets of the West Bank, and there will be two >Israeli states.
>
>Sheesh, am I the only one who still bothers to check out both sides of a story?
Well, 'scuse me!; That was "MY" question, not a 'story'; I don't, and
never have, doubted that there IS a rational and 'legal' reason behind
your explanation, but from the standpoint of thousands of Palestinians
who have lived in the current territory of 'Israel' for generations,
the net effect of prohibitive real-estate laws IS cultural
discrimination based on ethnicity, isn't it? THAT was my point;
Because it "RESULTS" from partition doesn't mitigate the consequences,
does it?? The reason I spoke as I did was to suggest it isn't as if
the Palestinians have absolutely NO reason to feel oppressed, since
Palestinians are prohibited from selling their land to Israelis,
family homes held since before partition; I think the Palestinians
have gotton a bum damn deal in many ways is all, and concur that the
problems in the Middle East are mighty unique and vexing; Still n'
all, I think Clinton will have done more to secure Middle east peace
than Bush is likely to, as it seems Bush II's 'one-size-fits-all'
solution to diplomatic challenges is little more than a lot of
sword-rattling and rationalization that stalemates are appropriately
broken by overwhelming force of arms; Well, 'scuse me, but this 'might
makes right' justification belies the fact that just cuz one side or
bully can kick somebodies ass, doesn't make them 'correct' or holders
of the 'best' all-around solution; There have certainly been enough
atrocities on both sides to go around (Israeli and Palestinian), so
"you started it!" arguments just confound the issue;
>Palestine was always the homeland of the Jews! What the Zionists did was ask that in >light of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the British mandate, the Jews be given >an independent state, and that's exactly what the UN did when it partitioned the area in >1948 (not 1959), create an independent state for the Jews, along with a state for the >Palestinians. That was a no-brainer given the world's revulsion at the holocaust, its guilt >over the horrible fate of Jews who had been turned away by the British when they >attempted to escape Hitler, and outrage at the ongoing deportation of holocaust survivors
>who attempted to go to Palestine. There are some remarkable newsreels of the British >loading Jewish deportees onto cargo ships in huge cages lifted by big cranes. This sort of >stuff outraged and disgusted the world, to the point where even Stalin became a strong >supporter of the new state.
I didn't know Stalin 'strongly' supported the state of Israel, despite
my having been quite well read about the events that led up to the
formation and settlement of Israel; My writing "1959" was an error of
carelessness and not of total ignorance; I admit that my sympathies
have changed over the years, from ideological solidarity with the
Jesish people and great admiration for their spirit and tenacity and
courage and great struggle/sacrifice it took to form their Nation; In
retrospect, over the intervening years and seeing the great suffering
and disparate opportunities which partition has caused, I now question
the wisdom and justice of how the issue of British mandate, the
formation of Israel, and UN breakup and reorganization of the Ottoman
Empire occurred;
>Unfortunately, the Arabs attacked Israel the moment it was created.They were repulsed, but Egypt and Jordan retained control of the West Bank and Gaza until 1967, when Isarel was forced to strike after the Egyptians ended the truce by evicting UN peacekeepers.
Yes, their 'Seven day war' was an incredible victory;
>Isarel is squarely on the record as favoring a Palestinian homeland, and Palestinian >statehood. I don't think the Israelis have gone far enough, personally, but Camp David >was pretty close to what the ultimate agreement will have to be (Israel abandons the >settlements, returns to pre-1967 borders and returns most of Jerusalem, keeping
>only the Jewish quarter/Temple Mount; Arabs respect Israel's right to exist and need for >security; Palestinians except cash settlements in lieu of "right of return").
>> Which ties in with the Zionist/WTC connection;
>That is so bizarre. I mean, the chance that Israel would attack its most important ally is >second in my book only to the notion that the United States would attack itself!
Well, you can't say I haven't been looking at possibilities; In
rebuttal, I'd say that world politics is such a viperous nest of
interests, and players, and perspectives, and behind-the-scenes deals
and manipulations that something shouldn't be dismissed out-of-had
just because it isn't obviously logical; If a sufficiently motivated
nation had good reason to know their National Security was under
immanent serious threat, and in defense they could use their
intel/espionage capability to disguise a terrorist attack against
their much-stronger ally as having been caused by their mutual enemy,
thereby provoking their ally to retaliate and decisively-strike-attack
and defeat their enemy, do you think that they would be prevented from
doing so by the moral "cost" of ONLY several thousand deaths ally
causalties? I admit it's a long-shot, and not something that I
particularly believe, but partly BECAUSE it's so incredibly unlikely
and unbelieveable, its NOT impossible; AND I never suggested it was
likely or possible that the US would attack itself; In either case,
the decision/planning would have been the responsibility of a very
few, highly placed, powerful small-group of individuals; WHY do you
think serious thought could be given to the possibility that FDR knew
IN ADVANCE that the Japanese intended a pre-emptive attack at Pearl
Harbour?? WHY? BECAUSE of the compelling logical consequences which
followed, the US mood overnight turning to one mind, overwhelming
support for total war against the Axis powers;
>But a number of sources are starting to put pieces together according
>to where they lead, rather than depending on the most-direct
>cause-effect reasoning; This resonates with my instincts, in that,
>because of my cynical, critical, analytical/outsider/contrarian
>attitude, I EXPECT things to NOT be simple and readily apparant;
Good God, why not? That's as much a bias as assuming that everything
*is* readily apparent.
BECAUSE, Josh, as a long-time student of human nature,
psychosociology, ethnoanthropology and history, I'm well aware of
numerous examples where 2-dimensional snapshot-analysis of
cause-effect seldom reveals anything like an accurate picture of the
complexity and true significance of actual 3, 4 and 5-or-more
dimensional reality. By questioning the truth of everything, you're a
lot better-positioned to look for and 'see' causes that DON'T follow a
simplistic explanation; The trade-off, maintaining a certain
detachment and resistance to immediate 'buying-into' mainstream
simplified rationale, does NOT confound/prevent eventual understanding
of 'simple truths' through confirmation by independant or alternative
sources, or by experience/current events, On the other hand, the other
extreme, accepting every simplified explanation (ie. 'a causes b,
which causes c, which together with d, leads to conclusion e';) as
'givens' actively PREVENTS understanding anything more complex; The
"bias", as you call my tendency to avoid simplistic explanations, is a
predisposition to looking behind-the-scenes, with little if any
long-term downside, and a much-improved possibility for increased
accuracy as an upside; I don't SEE the reason for your objection,
especially because I'm aware of my reluctance and capable of admitting
it; I'm hardly pretending otherwise; Furthermore, I'm sincere in my
beliefs that for ME, this is a necessary stance to guard against being
bamboozled; I was snookered by Reagan in '80, didn't realize how
cleverly I'd been played until '88-'89; I resolved then to be a lot
more 'difficult' and 'uncooperative' in being the witting (let alone
witless) partner to a special-interest lobby intent on pulling Merino
blinders over my peepers;
The "simple explanation" plays to a type of privelege and elitism, by
which the assumption is made that in broad terms the the Public has a
relatively-low fixed-interest threshold, and cannot readily
understand issues of a certain degree of complexity; Accordingly, it
is a public service to 'dumb-down' analysis and reportage, often to a
ninth-grade level, in terms of vocabulary, sentence length and
structure, comprehension, and number/kind of facts introduced.
A public poll (no details, I heard this on FOX or CNN) recently showed
that 43 percent of the American Publc believe the Government regularly
witholds information. I'd have to count myself among that group. I
read the Warren Report (skimmed most of it, but read the conclusion
closely) and disagree with it; I just CAN'T go along with the
magic-bullet theory. Did YOU buy it? Did you know the FBI, on behalf
of COINTELPRO program, attempted to silence Martin Luther King through
sexual blackmail?
Fordham University associate professor of law Brian Glick, author of
"War at Home: Covert Action Against U.S. Activists," points out that
"Ashcroft is not just proposing to drop the limits for spying on
violent organizations揺e wants to drop the limits, period. The FBI has
a history of violating the legal limits; there is no telling what they
might do without such limits. The document that launched the
COINTELPRO operations against the black social movements directed FBI
agents to 'disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize'
dissident movements."
Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at Political Research Associates, warns
that the enhanced surveillance measures could lead the FBI to more
repressive measures. "Surveillance of dissidents across the political
spectrum is now conducted through a loose network of government
agencies, corporate security and private right-wing researchers," he
said. "By re-establishing a dynamic where any dissident group can be
secretly accused of being linked to terrorism, and subject to
disruption, the government opens the door to domestic covert
operations that in the past led to orchestrated confrontations and
killings." Most people think that the Patriot Act is a good deal,
going along with the Government party-line explanation that "It's
better to protect you." Yeah, just wait till till you get a knock in
the middle of the night and the front door gets smashed in by
black/blue Kevlar-n-jack-booted Troopers.
Meanwhile, Jim Redden, author of "Snitch Culture: How Citizens Are
Turned Into the Eyes and Ears of the State," recalls that "there's a
long and sordid history of government operatives committing the very
crimes they are supposed to prevent and setting up dissidents with
phony charges."
My reluctance to 'go along' with popular sentiment as a matter of
convenience takes into account my personal experience and
understanding based on past events; For instance, George Bush made US
Military unpreparedness, incompetance and poor morale a significant
item in his campaigning, playing to fears and right-wing interests and
military-industrial concerns; Since the spectacular success of the
Afghanistan campaign, Bush and his administration have had nothing but
praise and enthusiastic admiration for our military, completely
avoiding any recognition that the Republican-controlled Congress
repeatedly attempted to derail Clinton's initiatives for military
improvements, or the fact that smart-weapon technology, beneficiary of
Gulf War Desert Storm/Desert Shield experience, has been retrofitted
to the stockpiles of 'dumb-bombs' used in Afghanistan to laudable
success DESPITE obstacles created by Republicans grandstanding in
Congress;
IMO, this two-faced duplicity is reprehensible and despicable,
contributing to reasons for my distrust of reportage that supports
GOP's overt and secret agendas. So too, the Republican endorsement of
policies that legitimize corporate favoritism and that facilitate
obscene profits at the expense of working-class and community concerns
has pretty convincingly and compellingly served to arouse my
cautionary instincts and place my suspicians on guard WRT analysis,
reportage and review of issues that directly bear on right-wing
extremism, militarism, erosion of Civil Liberties and individual
freedoms, mainstream media news bias, claims of need for Executive
Privelege despite legitimate needs for an open society with public
review of Government policies, sweeping-generalizations and
denouncements criticizing 'unpopular' expressions of personal
convictions and opinions, significant defense-industry appropriations,
and so forth;
Republicans, far more than Democrats, seem unwilling to acknowledge
that without regulation, Corporations will take every advantage to
increase profits. Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to
staunchly 'defend' the priveleged and wealthy status-quo, as witness
the Republican's tardy acceptance of Civil Rights as a meriticious and
necessary, even crucial, peace and justice issue. None of this is to
say that as a class I trust Democrats any further than I can throw
THEM, but that I am particularly put-out, on-guard, and offended by
the Republican show of enlightened responsibility and their pose of
righteous "defender" against the 'depraved indifference' of dangerous
Liberal ideas; My 'bias' of resistance in such a light does NOT seem
unwarranted;
>I hate to say it, but since I'm seeing so much of this stuff lately --
>figuring out what *really* happens is *work.* One has to form a
>sophisticated model of things, of human behavior, of social
>assumptions -- of what's said, and what isn't said -- of when people
>are honest, and dishonest, and who's honest and isn't -- of when
>people act from self-interest, and when they act from altruism, and so
>on and so forth. It requires a good knowledge of history, a good
>knowledge of public affairs, a good knowledge of human behavior, and
>it's a task that's never complete.
I agree, although I'm probably referring to different 'stuff' than you
are, specifically WRT to simplistic explanations and justifications
pronounced by Poly-Pundits and talking-heads and 'Experts', and a
decidedly one-sided discussion of issues, ie. the WAR, 'who' our
enemies are, what we hope to accomplish, that "Enron" is a
partison-issue, etc.; BUT, the effort of attempting to be (relatively)
well-informed and participating in social dialogue and working for an
open democratic society, with all that entails, requires a LOT of time
and work; Liberty and freedom require our determined committment to
the principles of participatory democracy in an open republic. Our
obligations CANNOT be abrogated or deferred or ignored without the
very real potential of losing what we hold dear.
>But people who *don't* take the trouble to do that are forever chasing
ideological wills-o'-the-wisp.
How so? I'd say that people who DON'T take the trouble to be
self-aware and informed aren't so much CHASING ideological
will-o'-the-wisps as they are taking the issue of their freedom and
and principles of liberty for granted, and so placing freedom at
jeopardy, which MAY be what you meant; As Carla Binion says,
"Democracy's future depends on an informed public." It is MY
contention (I am hardly alone in this, but I find it amazing how many
people take exception to the KIND of information and the degree of
being 'informed' this implies) that the public is NOT very well
informed at all, since most people rely heavily on network corporate
media news programs or biweekly/monthly newsmagazines (ie., Time, US
News and World Report), which heavily self-censor themselves and DON'T
critically examine issues in depth; John Ashcroft's recent comments
condemning 'inappropriate' expressions questioning patriotic support
recall a type of intimidation reminiscent of insidious McCarthyism'
era "indictment by association" that has become quite pervasive in
some circles. I acknowledge that this emphasizes my bias of
resistance, hardly inappropriate in my eyes;
>>The thing is, the WAR deflects most serious debate about the budget;
>>It's like a done-deal almost, subverting local programs.
>This is tail wagging the dog stuff.
You're entitled to your perspective, certainly, but just saying it
doesn't make it so;
I don't see how anyone would suppose that in the present political
climate of crisis and War congress could fail to endorse the
President's military and defense appropriations; At this point, it
looks like the rate of domestic spending will be reduced to a 2
percent increase over last year; But, as to 'issues' and programs that
the GOP are concerned with:
Plans to rape the environment; Tax cuts for the already obscenely
wealthy; "1st Amendment Zones" to stifle dissent; John Ashcroft, Ted
Olson, Gale Norton, and others put in positions where they could work
against the common good; An "energy crisis" with astronomical energy
costs to consumers; Trying to stop salmonella testing for the beef
used in the school lunch program; Gutting bankruptcy protection from
huge medical bills or hardship to protect credit card companies and
lenders. And others;
Prior to 9/11, (in the words of Columnist Isaac Peterson, November 10,
2001), the GOP was:
"There was the GAO staring down Dick Cheney with the prospect of a
lawsuit for refusing to disclose where our energy policy came from.
Karl Rove and Paul O'Neill were starting to feel heat from improper
stock holdings. The newspaper consortium was set to release the
results of the vote recount in Florida from last year showing that
Gore actually did win Florida and the presidency. Justice David Souter
had spoken about behind the scenes happenings with the Supreme Court
decision to stop the vote count, and was the cover story in Newsweek.
Vince Bugliosi's book "The Betrayal of America" accusing the five
conservative Supreme Court "Justices" who ordered the vote count to
stop of being criminals was a best-seller. Every day seemed to bring
more hope that their crimes would be brought out into the light of
day."
"Until September 11, when all of that went on the back burner. It's
not "patriotic" to talk about any of that now. The administration has
been using the attacks as cover to press on with eliminating freedoms,
rights and liberties, and we're not supposed to talk about it. Nothing
that happened on 9/11 did anything to make any of their previous
actions legitimate, and what they're doing since says to me they have
no intention of changing."
"Everyone else in the administration has gone back to feeding at the
trough and ignoring the problems we had and still have: unemployment,
eroding infrastructure, campaign finance reform, the uninsured and HMO
highway robbery, Social Security, Medicare, racial and gender bias,
etc. The rest of us are back to figuring out how to do more with less.
The war on terrorism can only distract us all for so long and it
clearly is just a tailor made excuse for the administration to not do
a damned thing about anything else. In other words, perfect cover for
business as usual: making sure the wealthy are obscenely wealthy and
screwing over everyone who isn't."
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Peterson111001/peterson111001.html
>>I agree; It's almost as if, as Jeanne suggests, the WAR happened in
>>the nick-of-time to prevent any "long view", because the 'threat' is
>>so close and immediate and compelling; One thing I've been very
>>critical of the US is over our poor history of forging links and
>>developing diplomatic solutions;
>As my father pointed out today, we aren't very good at it. Just as
>Europeans tend to have better language skills because they deal
>constantly with people from neighboring nations, they have more
>experience with diplomacy than we do.
That's a real good point; At first we were relatively isolated on this
contiment once the issues of who would settle where, and what the
kinds of influence and trading agreements would obtain, were settled;
WW I dragged us out of our isolation, and WW II left us positioned as
a developing Superpower; As a superpower, we had a lot of influence
and made it felt throughout the world; My sense now is that our
aggressive military 'kick-ass' attitude is alienating us from a lot of
nations, because complicated trade/cultural interrelations interfere
with possible repercussions from anti-terrorist actions, as well as
because of the unanswered problems about how to insure peace, and
even over how to 'weight' appropriate military strategies; Our 'focus'
now is shifting from Afghanistan to Iran, Iraq and North Korea; North
Korea especially is problematic and dangerous; But auspicious for
missing on our 'terrorist-state' list is Saudia Arabia and PRC;
>> And now, of course, there is a real
>potential for us to fall into a kind of isolationism.
>I think the potential for that is zip. Look at Bush attempts to do
that -- he wasn't going to engage in nation building, he was going to
have a "humble" foreign policy, etc., etc. And now it's "this is not
negotiable" and "dead or alive."
>It's not that we won't keep trying to return to isolationism. The US
has never much liked the rest of the world, and I don't blame us. We,
after all, pretty much all share the experience of having come from
there. But we can't avoid entanglement, as much as we might like to.
Our military spending is now equal to the spending of the next 15
nations *combined,* which means that whenever something comes along,
we're going to get dragged into it.
Which is 'why' I think large military expenditures are extremely
problematic; If you prepare for war, you will find a fight, or be
compelled to fight; Like the bully who's spoilin' for a fight; Because
our military budget is obscenely high, we 'don't' need unilateral
agreements, we can go it alone if we have to, and that's exactly the
path we seem to be high-ballin' down, with a vague 'fight against the
bad-guys' ideology of war that has no clear agenda, which Bush
articulates with things like,"It's gonna take a long, long time,",
ie., when will it be 'over'??, how will we get out? How can we be sure
we don't increase the number of nations who end up having
disagreements with us?
>Why is Bush so anxious to avoid putting troops in a peacekeeping
situation? Well, the answer is obvious -- half the time we've done
that in recent years, someone has blown them up, and we've lost lives
and prestige. So he's saying to the allies, "look, guys, you offered
help, now if you can keep the peace while we do the fighting," but
they don't want to provide enough troops. So what's going to happen?
American troops will have to go in. What's the alternative?
Failed past policies, we lacked resolve to push through when we had
our faces rubbed in it, such as Lebanon and Mogadishu;
For that reason, it seems we didn't pull any punches, we kicked butt
in Desert Storm/Desert Shield, perfecting how to use technology 'smart
targetting' to keep corps at a distance; I think the Iraq Highway
massacre while their troops were in rout was a terrible thing,
pointing out the inherant indecency of war; But we should have
prosecuted the war to Saddam Hussein's final bunker if necessary,
offered a multi-million dollar bounty for war crimes, genocide against
the Kurds, AND for the 150 or so blown well-heads, the environmental
debacle of THAT tragedy, we should have done whatever was necessary to
put 'PAID" to Saddam for once and all--THAT I would have
wholeheartedly endorsed;
But if we find ourselves essentially ALONE, fighting a war on several
fronts, completely outclassing our 'enemies' and essentially depriving
them of ANY viable methodology for armed resistance BUT terrorism,
then what?? We won't have secured 'peace', but be engaged in a tenuous
delicate holding action, trying to keep a half-dozen groups or more
at-bay, always on-guard against terrible public violence, suicide
bombers or worse, our most terrible nightmares realized? The Mujhadin
were 'freedom fighters'; I think it's entirely possible that peoples
of countries we attack in 'war on terrorism' might unite and rise to
resist what they consider US aggression and oppression, and resist as
"freedom fighters', who we'll insist are 'Terrorists";
Without dedicated diplomacy or the development and committment to
World Court arbitration, and United Nations multilateral agreements
and shared responsibility, I fear our fight will fail to secure
lasting peace, and may eventually destabilize our country; That's why
I have such a hard time going-along with the program Bush and the GOP
are pushing;
>> It's funny, on
>>CNN Talkback the audience was pretty unanimous in not thinking that
>>apprehending Bin Laden was a very high priority now, but that we
>>needed to think further ahead; And now I see they're, via John
>Ashcroft (of the nipples) in breaking news on CNN now indicting thru
>Grand Jury, Walker Lindh for being misguided, I think as an example,
>but the Talkback crowd were pretty vocal that he should be released on
>Bail, as he IS a US citizen, and the interviewer was a bit flustered
>the crowd wasn't more vocal and bloodthirsty.
>Bin Laden was never a very high priority. An emotional need, yes, but
>the campaign was never shaped as an attempt to get him.
>>>>I'd say, for reasons of argument, that my suspician about WTC
>>>>duplicity is 2% wrong in overall conclusion;
>>
>>>I can think of no government other than Nazi Germany that has ever
>>mounted such an attack on its own people (the burning of the
>>Reichstag). Even in the improbable event that a country was willing to
>>attack itself that way, the chance that such a heinous act would not
>>be reported by one or another whistleblower is zip.
>
>>I don't agree; I DON'T count it high that it was planned by any
>>official US agency, but I think you can make a case for it; AND, I am
>>sure that Psyops techniques are sufficient, and we have operatives
>>capable of following thru, to mount such a thing. Dissociation,
>>brainwashing, supreme sacrifice, absolute secrecy, National Security,
>>etc. After all, Operation Northwoods WAS a US plan. The key is in, as
>>Ellis said, making sure there's enough buffer-zone between the
>planners and the actors, layers of diversion and 'plausable
>deniability'; You set up a half-dozen fronts, cells, so everybody is
>isolated, the main players may THINK they're getting direct orders
>from Bin Laden, but someone else is calling the shots; That's done all
>the time in espionage; BUT: Consider this, the genius of such a plan
>IS that one on the outside can SUPPOSE it MIGHT have been an inside
>job, or as Art McNutt said so clearly, when you engage w/terrorism
>you'll always be accused of sleeping with your enemy;
>I think you've been watching too many Hollywood movies! The chance of
>reaching a critical mass of people in a government agency willing to
>*attack their own country* is ludicorously small. I mean, how many
>people do you know personally who would be willing to do such a thing?
And what makes you think that the people in government are any
different? And if they were, what is the probability of assembling a
group willing to do so, with nobody who would say "this is nuts" and
blow the whistle?
I actually read more than watch Hollywood; At various times, my
interests have ranged from Uris to Grisham, Heyerdahl to Ludlum,
Asimov to Reich, The 'issue' is in being convinced it was in your own
best National Security interest to feign an attack to galvinize a
strong united response; I don't think the possibility is unthinkable
by the folks whose job it is to consider National Security and
Defense; I certainly wouldn't put it past the top-echelon Generals and
policy-writers, movers and shakers; After all, we're essentially
talking about a kind of reasoning by the kind of people who thought
Mutuually Assured Destruction was in out best National Security
Interest, so that EVERY attack would be met by retaliatory strikes;
These are the same people who agreed in principle that a nuclear
pre-emptive strike was NOT out-of-the-question or inappropriate, and
that a civilian casualty count of ten to twenty million or more would
be acceptable; We're NOT talking about your ordinary 'reasonable'
logic here, clearly 'extraordinary' thinking is involved; I think your
mistake is in thinking that common logic guides these kinds of
thinking concerning the Security Interests of four-to-five hundred
MILLION people; Even 5000 casualties would be less than one-half of
those US citizens who die annually from combinatory drug-complication
problems; That is, less than .000001 of one/percent of the total US
population;
(Chances that 9/11 was domestically-planned/executed)
>It's astronomically miniscule, of course.
Perhaps; But even if it WAS, chances would be even LESS that any
evidence/testimony could be found to substantiate it; I only offer
this scenario as a possibility that COULD HAVE been countenanced, as
it's so monstrous as to avoid almost ALL serious consideration; But ya
wanna bet, counterintel types would have immediately seen the
counterintuitive perfect logic in it; The more you object to its
possibility, the more you prove what a brilliant plan it woulda/coulda
been; Whooda thunkit?, indeed!
But it's probably MUCH more likely that the attack was genuine,
although I think the primary engineer was Khadafi, Saddam, Saudi
Arabia, or the PRC; The Taliban and AlQuada just seem like such
bumbling fools; But I am SO queesy about the GOP and their 'plan' for
the US and what I see they are doing, that I would NOT put it past 'em
to know something was coming down, like FDR having advance warning of
Pearl Harbor, and letting it happen because the end-result was
worthwhile, the prosecution of a war the US wouldn't support any other
way; I still hope I'm wrong, but I won't pretend that's NOT what I
suspect the Republicans are quite capable of to push their agenda;
>>The worst bit of high-level treachery I've ever seen in this country
>>was Nixon's pre-election approach to the North Vietnamese, and even
>>that doesn't compare.
>"Trilateral commission" -- now there's a blast from the past!
>>Interesting to note that George Bush, Sr., in 1999, made a speech for
>>Global Crossing, the telecom giant that just collapsed into
>>bankruptcy. Bush took stock in Global Crossing in lieu of his normal
>>$80,000 fee. The stock, which was more or less of the IPO variety,
>>soon swelled in value to $14.4 MILLION. Quite a lecture fee. Who knows
>what quid pro quo was involved in that deal.
>"You sit on my board of directors, I'll sit on yours."
HaH! Breaking news: Global Crossing is now (as of the other day) under
investigation for corruption, fraud, etc; Another smaller Enron clone;
>The thing that some people don't seem to understand is that few, if
>any people, are entirely bad, or entirely good. The people who control
>the White House now are a particularly sleezy bunch. If you've ever
>had close dealings with their type, you know that they're like. But
they aren't the sort of people who would attack their own country.
>Josh
Christ, I'm really getting a good idea of just how sleazy they are;
We're not talking just bad here, but gangster hoods of the most
despicable kind; I hear now that the US is accusing Iran of harboring
Taliban and Al Quada forces, which the Iranian Foreign Minister
categorically denies; I've seen foreign press reports that the 27
Civilians who were 'detained' in Aghanistan were severely beaten, 2
being rendered unconscious, by treatment at the hands of US soldiers
before they were recognized as not being Taliban and released with $15
ea. The foreign press is pointing to the pictures of
gurney-transported Camp X-ray detainees in Cuba and refusal to grant
POW status as proof of abuse and torture; The civilian body-count is
over 3700 in Afghanistan, with occasional bomb-destruction of Red
Cross aid stations and apartment houses; I read a report about a CNN
broadcast the other day in which US soldiers goaded Northern Alliance
soldiers to "KILL! KILL!" captured Taliban. Tom Clancy referred to
Special Forces soldiers as some of the smartest, brighteast young men
America has, trained over the course of years, "Brain surgeons who
kill." I see Israel is kicking ass among the Palestinians. The world
is goin' nuts. We seem to be the ringleaders;
skye
2.11.2002
Take a jaunt to stimulate some further thinking:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/special_reports.html
Joshua P. Hill
>Simple; You mix a little bit of truth in with your suppositions, just
>enough to make it somewhat plausable or difficult to refute, and you
>play on people's fears or biases, stir well, throw it out there and
>'voila!', another theory to complicate the search for truth, or to
>complicate a window on 'reality';
I think you hit the head on the nail . . .
>>> Isn't it 'Odd' that it's against the law for Palestinians to buy land in Israel? Or to sell to another
>>>Palestinian? Isn't that a form of genocide?
>
>>No, of course not. It's a result of partition. Israel is a democracy, and if the Palestinians >moved in, they would rapidly achieve a majority, at which point there would be two >Palestinian states. Similarly, if the Israelis have their way with their settlements, the
>>Palestinians will be pushed into little pockets of the West Bank, and there will be two >Israeli states.
>>
>>Sheesh, am I the only one who still bothers to check out both sides of a story?
>
>Well, 'scuse me!; That was "MY" question, not a 'story'; I don't, and
>never have, doubted that there IS a rational and 'legal' reason behind
>your explanation, but from the standpoint of thousands of Palestinians
>who have lived in the current territory of 'Israel' for generations,
>the net effect of prohibitive real-estate laws IS cultural
>discrimination based on ethnicity, isn't it?
I don't think so. You can't call that discrimination without
stretching the definition of discrimination to cover pretty much any
partition or border change -- the Turkish partition of Cyprus, say, or
the post-WWII borders of Poland or Germany, or of Mexico. Do the
Germans now have a legal right to return to formerly German parts of
Poland or Russia, or the Poles in formerly Polish parts of Russia? Do
Mexicans have a legal right to settle in Texas or the other former
Mexican territories? Yet I don't think anyone would characterize this
as discrimination against Greeks or Germans or Poles or Mexicans.
And that's why I'm bothered by this.
> THAT was my point;
>Because it "RESULTS" from partition doesn't mitigate the consequences,
>does it?? The reason I spoke as I did was to suggest it isn't as if
>the Palestinians have absolutely NO reason to feel oppressed, since
>Palestinians are prohibited from selling their land to Israelis,
>family homes held since before partition; I think the Palestinians
>have gotton a bum damn deal in many ways is all, and concur that the
>problems in the Middle East are mighty unique and vexing
Well, I do have sympathy for the Palestinians, but for the most part,
and to be blunt about it, they cooked their own stew. They were the
ones who kept Jews trying to flee Europe from returning to what was at
the time a shared homeland under British mandate. They were the ones
who chose to make war again and again rather than accepting the
partition, and ended up losing everything as a result.
As Abba Eban said, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss
an opportunity . . .
>all, I think Clinton will have done more to secure Middle east peace
>than Bush is likely to, as it seems Bush II's 'one-size-fits-all'
>solution to diplomatic challenges is little more than a lot of
>sword-rattling and rationalization that stalemates are appropriately
>broken by overwhelming force of arms; Well, 'scuse me, but this 'might
>makes right' justification belies the fact that just cuz one side or
>bully can kick somebodies ass, doesn't make them 'correct' or holders
>of the 'best' all-around solution; There have certainly been enough
>atrocities on both sides to go around (Israeli and Palestinian), so
>"you started it!" arguments just confound the issue;
I thnk you're oversimplifying the Bush administration's approach as
well as downplaying excessively the importance of "who started it."
Certainly, there's a vicious circle here, and certainly the Israelis
have committed some abuses along the way. But one must never equate
the murder of innocent civilians with collateral damage of needful
retaliation. It would be morally repugnant to do so. Yet it's a
distinction the Arab world just doesn't seem to understand, and I'm
not sure why.
So Bush is in a difficult position. He's repelled by Palestinian
terrorism, and Arafat was caught in a major violation of the Oslo
accords, but at the same time he recognizes that the peace process
can't stop, and keeps Sharon -- who would just love to serve Arafat
for breakfast -- in check. Meanwhile, a consensus seems to be growing
among world leaders that Arafat just doesn't have what it takes to
make peace, but no one knows what the alternative is.
>>Palestine was always the homeland of the Jews! What the Zionists did was ask that in >light of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the British mandate, the Jews be given >an independent state, and that's exactly what the UN did when it partitioned the area in >1948 (not 1959), create an independent state for the Jews, along with a state for the >Palestinians. That was a no-brainer given the world's revulsion at the holocaust, its guilt >over the horrible fate of Jews who had been turned away by the British when they >attempted to escape Hitler, and outrage at the ongoing deportation of holocaust survivors
>>who attempted to go to Palestine. There are some remarkable newsreels of the British >loading Jewish deportees onto cargo ships in huge cages lifted by big cranes. This sort of >stuff outraged and disgusted the world, to the point where even Stalin became a strong >supporter of the new state.
>
>I didn't know Stalin 'strongly' supported the state of Israel, despite
>my having been quite well read about the events that led up to the
>formation and settlement of Israel
In fact, the USSR was the main supplier of weapons to the new state.
It might not have survived without them.
> My writing "1959" was an error of
>carelessness and not of total ignorance; I admit that my sympathies
>have changed over the years, from ideological solidarity with the
>Jesish people and great admiration for their spirit and tenacity and
>courage and great struggle/sacrifice it took to form their Nation; In
>retrospect, over the intervening years and seeing the great suffering
>and disparate opportunities which partition has caused, I now question
>the wisdom and justice of how the issue of British mandate, the
>formation of Israel, and UN breakup and reorganization of the Ottoman
>Empire occurred;
Well, I guess I'd say I'm with you on the matter of *wisdom* but not
necessarily on the matter of *justice,* insofar as I believe that the
separation of two warring peoples through partition is sometimes
necessary and justified. But either way, what's done is done. We can't
really second-guess the actions of the guilt-riddled world of 55 years
ago -- would you have turned away holocaust survivors with numbers on
their arms, the way the British did? Probably not, even if you had
foreknowledge that the outcome of partition would be a bad one.
Anyway, the bottom line is that it happened, and Israel isn't going to
vanish, and neither are the Palestinians. They will either live
adjacently in two adjacent states or continue warring on one another.
Given how binary that is, I think the only reasonable action is clear.
>>That is so bizarre. I mean, the chance that Israel would attack its most important ally is >second in my book only to the notion that the United States would attack itself!
>
>Well, you can't say I haven't been looking at possibilities; In
>rebuttal, I'd say that world politics is such a viperous nest of
>interests, and players, and perspectives, and behind-the-scenes deals
>and manipulations that something shouldn't be dismissed out-of-had
>just because it isn't obviously logical; If a sufficiently motivated
>nation had good reason to know their National Security was under
>immanent serious threat, and in defense they could use their
>intel/espionage capability to disguise a terrorist attack against
>their much-stronger ally as having been caused by their mutual enemy,
>thereby provoking their ally to retaliate and decisively-strike-attack
>and defeat their enemy, do you think that they would be prevented from
>doing so by the moral "cost" of ONLY several thousand deaths ally
>causalties?
No. But they would do it only if circumstances were much, much bleaker
than they were here. Real world example: it's said that Churchill had
some British ships painted with German colors, ready to sink an
American ship if the US didn't enter the war in time. And had he
committed such an atrocity as a final, necessary attempt to prevent
England's fall to Hitler, he would have been justified. But he didn't
-- because it was an absolutely final resort.
> I admit it's a long-shot, and not something that I
>particularly believe, but partly BECAUSE it's so incredibly unlikely
>and unbelieveable, its NOT impossible; AND I never suggested it was
>likely or possible that the US would attack itself; In either case,
>the decision/planning would have been the responsibility of a very
>few, highly placed, powerful small-group of individuals; WHY do you
>think serious thought could be given to the possibility that FDR knew
>IN ADVANCE that the Japanese intended a pre-emptive attack at Pearl
>Harbour?? WHY? BECAUSE of the compelling logical consequences which
>followed, the US mood overnight turning to one mind, overwhelming
>support for total war against the Axis powers;
Cf. Churchill above. Though I don't for one moment believe that FDR
did this -- he knew we'd have to get in the war, but we would have
gotten in the war even if we'd warned the Navy to be on the lookout
for a Japanese attack -- an unsuccessful attempt would have been just
as effective in marshalling public support, and wouldn't have cost
most of the Pacific fleet. Besides which, FDR wasn't a monster any
more than Churchill was. Bin Laden is a monster, and so is Arafat,
though at least part of his cause is just -- and it's important not to
forget the difference.
Heh, I can't imagine being snookered by Reagan! And I remember wishing
desperately, even as I voted for Clinton, that we had a better
candidate. But I've certainly been taken in myself over the years.
Anyway, I don't mean to sound like I'm against probing beneath the
surface. The trick, as you say, is to do so three dimensionally,
without oversimplification. My negative reaction -- growing
frustration -- with certain suggestions has something to do though
with my feeling that they are *themselves* oversimplified! Which is to
say that a "Lassie Come Home" my country right or wrong view is fairly
silly, but so is its counterpart, which for one thing fails to parse
the differences between, for example, godwaful dictators and
not-perfect-but-less-godawful democracies. The trick as always is to
see the subtleties, both moral and practical, yet some seem unable or
unwilling to make the distinction between (forex) an Enron scandal and
an attack on one's own country.
>The "simple explanation" plays to a type of privelege and elitism, by
>which the assumption is made that in broad terms the the Public has a
>relatively-low fixed-interest threshold, and cannot readily
>understand issues of a certain degree of complexity; Accordingly, it
>is a public service to 'dumb-down' analysis and reportage, often to a
>ninth-grade level, in terms of vocabulary, sentence length and
>structure, comprehension, and number/kind of facts introduced.
Ah, sentence structure! (From one writer of Victorian sentences to
another . . . :-) )
>A public poll (no details, I heard this on FOX or CNN) recently showed
>that 43 percent of the American Publc believe the Government regularly
>witholds information. I'd have to count myself among that group. I
>read the Warren Report (skimmed most of it, but read the conclusion
>closely) and disagree with it; I just CAN'T go along with the
>magic-bullet theory. Did YOU buy it? Did you know the FBI, on behalf
>of COINTELPRO program, attempted to silence Martin Luther King through
>sexual blackmail?
Sure
Which gets back though to what I said. Look at all the dirty
tricks/failings/what have you's of this country, and categorize them
within a moral framework. What you'll find is a people that plays
rough, but not too rough -- and who in that respect are IMO second to
none in the world.
But too many who grew up as I did in the sixties, or who have been
influenced by those of us who did, took a relatively few measured
abuses and exaggerated them, just as prior to the sixties they'd been
unwilling to acknowledge them. And that's what we're dealing with.
Most people in government are just people like you and me -- flawed
but living within a certain overall moral framework. Even the bad
apples have to toe the line, to a certain extent. It's the difference
between exaggerating a tax deduction and committing massive tax fraud.
>Fordham University associate professor of law Brian Glick, author of
>"War at Home: Covert Action Against U.S. Activists," points out that
>"Ashcroft is not just proposing to drop the limits for spying on
>violent organizations—he wants to drop the limits, period. The FBI has
>a history of violating the legal limits; there is no telling what they
>might do without such limits. The document that launched the
>COINTELPRO operations against the black social movements directed FBI
>agents to 'disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize'
>dissident movements."
Yup. But we're in a different situation now, and we have to find a new
medium between the possiblity for abuse and the necessity of survival.
>Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at Political Research Associates, warns
>that the enhanced surveillance measures could lead the FBI to more
>repressive measures. "Surveillance of dissidents across the political
>spectrum is now conducted through a loose network of government
>agencies, corporate security and private right-wing researchers," he
>said. "By re-establishing a dynamic where any dissident group can be
>secretly accused of being linked to terrorism, and subject to
>disruption, the government opens the door to domestic covert
>operations that in the past led to orchestrated confrontations and
>killings." Most people think that the Patriot Act is a good deal,
>going along with the Government party-line explanation that "It's
>better to protect you." Yeah, just wait till till you get a knock in
>the middle of the night and the front door gets smashed in by
>black/blue Kevlar-n-jack-booted Troopers.
Well, the key word here is "could." I don't see any evidence that it
will, any more than Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus led to the
destruction of our civil liberties.
Well, yeah, but frankly I don't think it matters much right now. Our
survival, and the survival of millions of others, is in the balance
now, to an extent I think few begin to appreciate.
>>I hate to say it, but since I'm seeing so much of this stuff lately --
>>figuring out what *really* happens is *work.* One has to form a
>>sophisticated model of things, of human behavior, of social
>>assumptions -- of what's said, and what isn't said -- of when people
>>are honest, and dishonest, and who's honest and isn't -- of when
>>people act from self-interest, and when they act from altruism, and so
>>on and so forth. It requires a good knowledge of history, a good
>>knowledge of public affairs, a good knowledge of human behavior, and
>>it's a task that's never complete.
>
>I agree, although I'm probably referring to different 'stuff' than you
>are, specifically WRT to simplistic explanations and justifications
>pronounced by Poly-Pundits and talking-heads and 'Experts', and a
>decidedly one-sided discussion of issues, ie. the WAR, 'who' our
>enemies are, what we hope to accomplish
I would know, because I seldom watch TV and never read anything
without a grain of salt.
Expressive possibilities contract in wartime, and for good reasons.
That's far from saying that the contraction is always right or
justified.
Too one-sided.
Once again -- I'm pretty much in accord on the social issues. I can't
think of very many things the Bush administration did prior to the
11th that I didn't oppose. It's just that it doesn't matter right now.
We have to minimize the political garabage and get on with the
business of national survival. As this thing waxes and wanes, we'll
see more or less of that.
I might add that the real issues aren't being discussed, and they
should be: civil defense preparedness, what we do about nutcase
countries and groups obtaining weapons of mass destruction. The other
stuff *doesn't matter* much right now, any more than labor
disagreements or colonialism mattered to the British in the Second
World War.
>>>I agree; It's almost as if, as Jeanne suggests, the WAR happened in
>>>the nick-of-time to prevent any "long view", because the 'threat' is
>>>so close and immediate and compelling; One thing I've been very
>>>critical of the US is over our poor history of forging links and
>>>developing diplomatic solutions;
>
>>As my father pointed out today, we aren't very good at it. Just as
>>Europeans tend to have better language skills because they deal
>>constantly with people from neighboring nations, they have more
>>experience with diplomacy than we do.
>
>That's a real good point; At first we were relatively isolated on this
>contiment once the issues of who would settle where, and what the
>kinds of influence and trading agreements would obtain, were settled;
>WW I dragged us out of our isolation, and WW II left us positioned as
>a developing Superpower; As a superpower, we had a lot of influence
>and made it felt throughout the world; My sense now is that our
>aggressive military 'kick-ass' attitude is alienating us from a lot of
>nations, because complicated trade/cultural interrelations interfere
>with possible repercussions from anti-terrorist actions, as well as
>because of the unanswered problems about how to insure peace, and
>even over how to 'weight' appropriate military strategies; Our 'focus'
>now is shifting from Afghanistan to Iran, Iraq and North Korea; North
>Korea especially is problematic and dangerous; But auspicious for
>missing on our 'terrorist-state' list is Saudia Arabia and PRC;
For very good reasons! The Saudis supply us with an awful lot of oil,
and the PRC is enormously powerful.
Our military response so far has actually been astoundingly
restrained. We have to pray that we can deal with the problem on that
basis, because if we can't, the world will light up like a Christmas
tree. I'm not sanguine, but I give the administration a tremendous
amount of credit for trying.
>>> And now, of course, there is a real
>>potential for us to fall into a kind of isolationism.
>
>>I think the potential for that is zip. Look at Bush attempts to do
>that -- he wasn't going to engage in nation building, he was going to
>have a "humble" foreign policy, etc., etc. And now it's "this is not
>negotiable" and "dead or alive."
Yeah, fairly laughable, isn't it! But -- the sillinesses of partisan
policy have given way to reality as necessary. This happens on *both*
sides, Republican and Democratic.
>Which is 'why' I think large military expenditures are extremely
>problematic; If you prepare for war, you will find a fight, or be
>compelled to fight; Like the bully who's spoilin' for a fight; Because
>our military budget is obscenely high, we 'don't' need unilateral
>agreements, we can go it alone if we have to, and that's exactly the
>path we seem to be high-ballin' down, with a vague 'fight against the
>bad-guys' ideology of war that has no clear agenda, which Bush
>articulates with things like,"It's gonna take a long, long time,",
>ie., when will it be 'over'??, how will we get out? How can we be sure
>we don't increase the number of nations who end up having
>disagreements with us?
All good questions, but do you have any answers? I sure don't,
although I do fault the Bush administration for their lack of vision
(Sound familiar? Reminds me of the first Bush admin, amazing at
building coalitions and handling in-your-face situations, but -- the
"vision thing" . . .)
Actually, in most cases I think the opposite will happen, as it has in
Afghanistan. These governments are awful, and people hate them.
>Without dedicated diplomacy or the development and committment to
>World Court arbitration, and United Nations multilateral agreements
>and shared responsibility, I fear our fight will fail to secure
>lasting peace, and may eventually destabilize our country; That's why
>I have such a hard time going-along with the program Bush and the GOP
>are pushing;
I think you're ignoring a *tremendous* amount of diplomacy.
I would very much like to see less unilateral, war-mongering talk,
though, and more talk about international institutions, and I agree
that these areas are those in which the Bush admin has been weakest.
It was/it worked/I don't know of any alternative.
>These are the same people who agreed in principle that a nuclear
>pre-emptive strike was NOT out-of-the-question or inappropriate, and
>that a civilian casualty count of ten to twenty million or more would
>be acceptable; We're NOT talking about your ordinary 'reasonable'
>logic here, clearly 'extraordinary' thinking is involved; I think your
>mistake is in thinking that common logic guides these kinds of
>thinking concerning the Security Interests of four-to-five hundred
>MILLION people; Even 5000 casualties would be less than one-half of
>those US citizens who die annually from combinatory drug-complication
>problems; That is, less than .000001 of one/percent of the total US
>population;
But we're talking about the prospect hundreds of thousands or millions
of casualties here, and untold economic damage. Check out
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,7-204432,00.html
or its like. We are in a desperate situation here.
>(Chances that 9/11 was domestically-planned/executed)
>>It's astronomically miniscule, of course.
>
>Perhaps; But even if it WAS, chances would be even LESS that any
>evidence/testimony could be found to substantiate it; I only offer
>this scenario as a possibility that COULD HAVE been countenanced, as
>it's so monstrous as to avoid almost ALL serious consideration; But ya
>wanna bet, counterintel types would have immediately seen the
>counterintuitive perfect logic in it; The more you object to its
>possibility, the more you prove what a brilliant plan it woulda/coulda
>been; Whooda thunkit?, indeed!
>But it's probably MUCH more likely that the attack was genuine,
>although I think the primary engineer was Khadafi, Saddam, Saudi
>Arabia, or the PRC; The Taliban and AlQuada just seem like such
>bumbling fools
The administration strongly suspects -- or suspected -- Saddam from
day one, but they found no smoking gun, just some circumstantial
evidence. Which is why we're going to have to take Iraq, and the other
terrorist countries out, the sooner the better. It's a desperate
situation, but nut-case countries feeding these arsenals to even
nut-casier terrorists . . . that's even worse.
?
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
I'm not sure which agreements you're referring to . . . ?
> thousands if not millions have lost their jobs, thousands have
>been killed, more thousands have lost their personal and financial
>security, the national coffers have been raided, and Social Security
>is being threatened (ie., plans for privatization, borrowing,
>restructuring, etc.);
>
>These were listed in context with the 'flaw' in Bush II's speech;
>You may recall that James Higdon was commenting on the inherant
>contradiction in George Bush's State of the Nation Address, as in:
>"[A]s we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in
>recession and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers . . .
>the state of our union has never been stronger." ~George W. Bush,
>State of the Union Address, 2002-
I took it as being a direct comment on Bush's activities because it
came after the sentence that begins "at Bush's direction . . . "
>I was surprised that no one noticed or thought to comment on this
>bizarre twist;
>BUT: To answer your contention that Mr. Higdon implied George Bush was
>responsible for Enron (even though he does not do so in the paragraph
>you note above) there IS an assumption on your part that proof of such
>claim does not exist;
>
>Pardon me for this observation, but it's impossible to KNOW beforehand
>what other people are aware of, how involved they are in reviewing
>sources, or knowing what their standards of "proof" require.
Well, yeah, but don't you think it's kind of improbable that he would
know something major about Bush's involvement with Enron without
making a rather big fuss?
> As the
>result of keeping abreast of recent developments, watching televised
>commentary and testimony, reading widely from electronic data bases
>and web-based on-line and other sources, I have become sufficiently
>aware of the Bush/Enron connection to have NO doubt that intimate
>complicity exists, nor do I doubt that Enron was basically an
>institution of foreign policy which Bush was fundamentally aware of
>and significantly involved in; The following reprint of Enron:
>Ultimate Agent of the American Empire: Part One is fairly well written
>and provides a clear overview of what has been brought to public light
>to date, showing that the case of Enron is much more than a partisan
>witch-hunt, but an indictment of American Imperialism;
I have nothing against justified criticism of American meddling or
high-handedness, but -- where's this American "empire" I keep hearing
about? We've had empires aplenty throughout the ages, and it seems to
me that they were rather obvious beasties . . .
US operations in Russia?
>Corporate quasi-agents like Enron are effective fronts in implementing
>the policies of the ruling elite. Among the goals are (1) securing and
>controlling of natural resources (oil, natural gas, electricity), (2)
>maintaining economic, geopolitical, and military advantage, and (3)
>controlling populations through the stifling of dissent, the
>elimination of political opposition, and the destruction of democratic
>reform movements.
Uh, right.
>Seen within this broad framework, Enron's activities are not only
>inherent manifestations of the ruling order, but official policy.
Nonsense.
Yawn
I thought Marxism was dead or something.
I confess to being fairly unimpressed. I mean, I don't need convincing
that many businessmen are sleazy, or that government is corrupted by
campaign contributions, or that countries have concentrated and
powerful elites, or that favors get done. But what else is new? The
advantage of capitalism is that it *minimizes* these factors or turns
them to the common good compared to other systems.
Anyway, what I think we have here is some everyday sleaze, and an
everyday scandal, pumped up by strange insinuations and the
smoke-and-mirrors multiplicity of charges into something far worse
than it actually is.
And I think the best way to see beyond the smoke and mirrors is to
look at the large picture. Rough and ready capitalism is the best hope
of the third world to advance to prosperity and a relatively
democratic, humane society, just as it was the best hope for the
people of the now industrial world. Competition and democracy are far
better weapons against greed and funny business than socialism or
royalism or theocracy or any of the other systems I've seen, which end
up giving far more power and unaccountability to the elite than
capitalism ever did.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
"Impact" means "effect," not "control" . . . again, the author shows a
strange bias right off the bat . . .
>America wants the region under total US domination.
Evidence?
>The Caspian Basin has an estimated $5 trillion of oil and gas
>resources, and Central Asia has 6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas
>and 10 billion barrels of undeveloped oil reserves. Interconnecting
>pipelines are the key to accessing and distributing oil and gas to
>European, Chinese and Russian markets.
This does not support or even have anything to do with the assertion
that "America wants the region under total US domination."
>Policy planners have devoted years to this agenda. A report published
>in September 2001 detailing a conference held at the Brookings
>Institution in May 2001 provides clear evidence that the exploitation
>of Caspian Basin and Asian energy markets was an urgent priority for
>the Bush administration, and the centerpiece of its energy policy.
>The report states that "the administration's report warned that
>'growth in international oil demand will exert increasing pressure on
>global oil availability' and that developing Asian economies and
>populations—particularly in China and India—-will be major
>contributors to this increased demand" and that "options for
>constructing gas pipelines east to Asia from the Caspian have been
>discussed for the last decade."
Again, the second part of this statement does not support the first.
>For years, Enron (along with Unocal, BP Amoco, Exxon, Mobil, Pennzoil,
>Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, Texaco, and other oil companies) has been
>involved in a multi-billion dollar frenzy to extract the reserves of
>the three former Soviet republics, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and
>Kazakhstan.
So? They're oil companies! One would think that's a good thing . . .
>According to Project Underground (11/7/99), former Soviet, KGB and
>Politburo members are profiting from oil riches, along with "a
>formidable array of former top Western Cold Warriors, drawn
>principally from the cabinet of George [H.W.] Bush." The dealmakers
>include James Baker, Dick Cheney, Brent Scowcroft, and John Sununu.
>Also cashing in on the deals are former Clinton Treasury Secretary
>Lloyd Bentsen (close friend of Ken Lay and longtime recipient of Enron
>funding) and Zbigniew Brezezinski.
Yeah, and? We know the Bush Admin is in bed with the oil industry. But
I haven't seen anything here that makes reasonable use of that
knowledge. Like many, I suspect that there's malfeasance there. But
the author isn't making a case for anything!
>Brezezinski, a leading member of the Council on Foreign Relations and
>arguably the most influential policy planner in the world, spearheaded
>the American effort to destabilize the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in
>the 1970s. He is a consultant to BP Amoco. His recent book, "The Grand
>Chessboard" is a virtual blue print for a war and balkanization of
>Central Asia.
Haven't read it.
More paranoia . . . "Just the facts, Ma'm."
Oh, please.
Again -- there's *nothing* connecting A to B.
The paranoid is correct when he observes that he sees a man with a
briefcase walk past his house every morning at 6:45 AM. But then he
starts associating that peregrination with other things -- the death
of his dog, his stock market losses --
All we have here is a bunch of rich, powerful people bulding pipelines
and playing financial tricks. I've had some minor experience with
these sorts, Republican businessmen who had held high positions in GOP
administrations, and they were crooks. But they're Machiavells, not
mass murderers, and they don't attack their own country to keep the
sheriff at bay.
Josh
sk...@nowhere.man
>
>"Arthur McNutt" <amcn...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3C606615...@home.com...
>>
>>
>> "Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > You know, before the 11th I didn't like anything about the Bush
>> > administration, and liked less about Bush. But I have to confess
>> > they've done a good job of dealing with the immediate problem. Now if
>> > only they would start thinking about the long term. Like Bush Sr.,
>> > these guys are wonderful at coalition building, but seem completely
>> > unable to enunciate a positive vision for the future. They've
>> > alienated the public in allied countries (though not the allies
>> > themselves), failed to make an attempt to bridge the gap between the
>> > third world and first, failed to promulgate non-unilateral mechanisms
>> > to deal with this new threat. And yet the task seems to me fairly
>> > hopeless even *with* those things.
>>
>> Well, yeah, I'm sorry he doesn't walk on water too. But at least he
>> isn't Plato.
>
>
>
>But a President that can't pronounce 'nuclear' is a bit worrisome.
>
>
>
>> >
>> > The worst bit of high-level treachery I've ever seen in this country
>> > was Nixon's pre-election approach to the North Vietnamese, and even
>> > that doesn't compare.
>
>
>And how is President Bush 'treacherous"? I don't see that at all.
I do; I think it has to do with 'who' his essential allegiance is
with, that is, the well-heeled 'landed' gentry, mover-and-shakers;
He's a son of privelege and ambition. 'Course, I'm also thinking about
Bush's family-ties collusion with the policy-arm which is "Enron", and
his ackward denials.
>
>> Well, sure there was Kosovo, a little diversion from having his blank
>> caught in the blank (not the cookie jar--well not LITERALLY anyway).
>> Never understood how a President could get away with something a lowly
>> Postal Clerk would have been fired on the spot for--
>But you republicans have forgotten who does the hiring and firing
>of Presidents. I should remind you it is not Ken Starr. A 'fireable
>offense is for the people to decide every four years, only criminal
>acts are for the politicians and courts to judge.
Ah, yeah BUT: Bush LOST the vote by 500,000, didn't he?
He ain't MY president. . .
>President Clinton, the American people, did not deserve
>to be harmed and humiliated by ruthless, dogmatic
>and spiteful politicians looking to gain votes at the public's
>expense. President Clinton's ever soaring approval
>ratings during the 'trial' and on to his last day, an
>unprecedented peacetime approval rating, is a clear
>rejection of the repubs chosen form of campaigning,
>using busloads of lawyers wielding blank checks courtesy
>....the US taxpayer.
>
>And thanks repubs, for yet another republican recession driven
>by a President that steps us back into the red, shouts recession every
>chance he gets, and whose oil buddies get the light
>turned their way and ...bang goes the economy, in the dumps.
>
>
>
>
>Jonathan
WoW! That was breathtakingly an inspired reply-rant! I think you
definitely have some good saleable serial reprint rights here, for
shure! You oughter show this to your agent;
BTW: I'll allow you to have 'proved' my gross monstrous sleaze-factor
of the GOP thesis here; IMO (and too, I've seen you say this before
here somewhere, I think) the democrats are just too bumblingly inept
and incompetant to be seriously NASTY pieces of work, they lack the
killer instinct; I have no doubts that Bush, even if he IS a mental
midget, has the coldblooded ruthlessness to strike when the jugular is
stretched;
skye
>
>s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>but then they
>> changed the meaning of High Crimes to mean when your up on high it ain't
>> a crime.
sk...@nowhere.man
lotta stonewallin' and obstinate denial;
SEE: http://www.angelfire.com/nb/enron/
to get sources showing the connection between Enron and our Energy
policy;
WHAT??? Josh?? HELLO????
The author of the article I reprinted, Larry Chin, is quoting James
Dorian from "Oil and Gas Journal" 9/10/01; How is the author supposed
to be showing a bias with words he quotes that you (incorrectly)
attribute to him? Whatever in the world do you mean? In any event, the
meaning of the sentence is NOT problematic to parse, is it? There's NO
bias that I'm aware of, let alone 'strange' bias, in "Those who
control oil routes will impact future direction and quantities of
(oil) flow, and the distribution of revenues."
In that US Energy policy (by all available indications from Cheney/Lay
e-mails that escaped the shredders) has 'Enron' written all-over-it
(the result of fundamental Lay/Enron et al. underwriting) (Lay was
instrumental in interviewing top energy officials and having selection
and vetting authority, also, indications are he had unrestricted
access to promote favorable policies/regulatory decisions), (and that
Enron had a major stake in reviving the Centgas pipeline/distribution
project), the US/Enron/Taliban/Caspian Basin Oil/Central Asian Market
connection is pretty self-evident; THUS, your following objection to:
>>America wants the region under total US domination.
>Evidence?
Are you serious? Christ! Do a web-search yourself, ie., >taliban,
Enron, US energy policy, Unocal, Centgas, Bush<; That should keep you
reading for a day or more;
Easy Path: For Links to articles about Enron and it's influence on
U.S. energy
policy, see (for instance): http://www.angelfire.com/nb/enron/
How can you possibly be such an obstructionist to say such a thing?
Have you been so totally snowballed/hoodwinked by the propoganda
rhetoric of the War on Terrorism to NOT understand our (US) vested
interest in securing the Rumalia and Caspian Basin Reserves, so to
liberate ourselves from OPEC dependence? Haven't you read the reports
I've reprinted, such as the Pipeline plots? The strategy and details
and an abundance of substantiating info. is pretty readily available
for anyone willing to do a browser search among electronic data bases.
The consequences of America's continued ependence on forty-percent of
the world's annual oil-production SHOULD provide a reasonably
intelligent person with some very obvious conclusions about what
direction an energy policy HAS to take, given that Saudia Arabia is
NOT our ally, that it has provided financing and resources for
Terrorist recruitment and training, and that it only TOLERATES U.S.
presence because we are such good oil customers and excellant
high-tech armaments suppliers, as with our Jets, especially the F 18;
That you are effecting to adopt here such a resolutely skeptical
stance suggests you either have large gaps in your understanding of
geopolitical critical theory, ideology and history; or you have your
personal reasons for being an apologist for the corrupt excesses of
the system; Perhaps you feel any suggestion or accusation of
human-rights violations and system-wide improprieties is nothing less
than an 'attack' on the country itself. I, of course, disagree; I am
motivated to speak out because of my great concern that too many
innocent people have suffered because of misdirected policies. I
sincerely believe that war and violence cannot 'solve' the problems of
war and violence. I do not represent myself as a dedicated political
science student or researcher, but I CAN review information, conduct
research, write a precis and do basic synthesis;
But to return to your 'point' of objection, re: "evidence?", which IMO
is pretty absurd, given that the significance and validity of HARDLY
contestable, as it's significantly, if not absolutely or pretty
conclusively demonstrated; Apparantly, you are unwilling to accept the
many bits and pieces of eyewitness testimony, conjecture,
circumstantial and documentary evidence, and logical inferences to be
drawn from a multitude of sources thereby as having sufficient weight
to substantially suggest if not actually confirm or verify the above
point, in the obvious absence of 'hard' evidence as records due to the
several-month lead-time Enron was granted to methodically shred
several "million" pages of paper, OR the determined stonewalling/lack
of cooperation by the Bush Admin. to release the Bush I Presidential
papers OR VP Cheney's Energy Task Force Meeting papers;
Your intense predisposition to find something controversial or
insidious in this statement of fact is indicative of a significant
prejudice, which effectively confounds your ability to appreciate the
significance of this document, and hopelessly confounds my attempts to
explicate the issues you take exception to. It seems clear your mind
is made up, and you are unwilling to accept that many US foreign
policies have NOT been done in accordance with International Law or
showing respect for the rights and autonomy of residents of non-US
nations. The US treatment of Indigeneous Peoples is a very evident
case-in-pont. Your points of objection seem cleqrly to be based on a
resistance to acknowledging that American Foreign policy has
significantly involved collusion of influence at Diplomatic and
Executive levels, and has made frequent use of overt military force as
well as covert CIA and NSA operatives and proxy-paramilitary agents.
The types of influence have ranged from influence peddling,
quid-pro-quo arrangements, and coercion to unofficial/semi-official
uses of force, making of threats, and blackmail-subversion-espionage
activities; Your resistance to the points raised in this article
indicate that you do NOT hold the US responsible in part or severally
for the institution, support, defense and/or security for a wide range
of despotic regimes, non-democratic institutions/dictatorships, and
regional 'zones of exploitation'; In the face of your refusal to
concede US complicity in the Phillipines vis-a-vis Marcos, Indonesia,
Puerto Rico, Zimbabwe,
>>The Caspian Basin has an estimated $5 trillion of oil and gas
>>resources, and Central Asia has 6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas
>>and 10 billion barrels of undeveloped oil reserves. Interconnecting
>>pipelines are the key to accessing and distributing oil and gas to
>>European, Chinese and Russian markets.
>This does not support or even have anything to do with the assertion
>that "America wants the region under total US domination."
??!WHAT???? HOW CAN THE ARTICLE PROGRESS WITH A LOGICAL REVIEW OF
RELEVANT DATUM W/O PROGRESSING IN A LOGICAL MANNER??? Excuse me Josh,
but your objections are quite 'over-the-top' here!
>>Policy planners have devoted years to this agenda. A report published
>>in September 2001 detailing a conference held at the Brookings
>>Institution in May 2001 provides clear evidence that the exploitation
>>of Caspian Basin and Asian energy markets was an urgent priority for
>>the Bush administration, and the centerpiece of its energy policy.
>>The report states that "the administration's report warned that
>>'growth in international oil demand will exert increasing pressure on
>>global oil availability' and that developing Asian economies and
>>populations—particularly in China and India—-will be major
>>contributors to this increased demand" and that "options for
>constructing gas pipelines east to Asia from the Caspian have been
>>discussed for the last decade."
>Again, the second part of this statement does not support the first.
????WHAT?? But of course not, the first part supports the second, you
had it wardbacks!
OKAY, I get the 'message', I'm not gonna drag you kicking and
screaming to any realizations you aren't prepared to acknowledge
require critical thought; If you aren't even going to LOOK, you sure
in hell aren't gonna SEE, no matter WHAT is laid out neatly before
you; I predict Enrongate is gonna be made to be 'dissappeared', cuz'
it's too insidious and too much of an indictment of the greedy
marketing/legislative collusion that is transforming the US from a
free republic to an autorepublocratic-demotechnocracy;
More back-up follows;
Cuz it IS important;
Regrdz;
skye
Joshua P. Hill
>>>Most experts agree that the Caspian Basin and Central Asia are the
>>>keys to energy in the 21st century. Said energy expert James Dorian
>>>(Oil & Gas Journal, 9/10/01), "Those who control the oil routes out of
>>>Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of flow
>>>and the distribution of revenues from new production."
>
>>"Impact" means "effect," not "control" . . . again, the author shows a
>>strange bias right off the bat . . .
>
>WHAT??? Josh?? HELLO????
>The author of the article I reprinted, Larry Chin, is quoting James
>Dorian from "Oil and Gas Journal" 9/10/01; How is the author supposed
>to be showing a bias with words he quotes that you (incorrectly)
>attribute to him? Whatever in the world do you mean? In any event, the
>meaning of the sentence is NOT problematic to parse, is it? There's NO
>bias that I'm aware of, let alone 'strange' bias, in "Those who
>control oil routes will impact future direction and quantities of
>(oil) flow, and the distribution of revenues."
Hi Skye,
You misunderstood me. I was pointing to the discrepancy between the
author's statement -- "most experts agree that the caspian Basin etc.
are the keys to energy in the 21st Century" -- and the quote he used
to support it, which referred only to an "impact." See what I'm
saying? The fact that the author chose to use that quote suggested to
me that his evidence was weak (otherwise he would have used one that
actually supported his assertion), or that he distorted it.
>In that US Energy policy (by all available indications from Cheney/Lay
>e-mails that escaped the shredders) has 'Enron' written all-over-it
>(the result of fundamental Lay/Enron et al. underwriting) (Lay was
>instrumental in interviewing top energy officials and having selection
>and vetting authority, also, indications are he had unrestricted
>access to promote favorable policies/regulatory decisions), (and that
>Enron had a major stake in reviving the Centgas pipeline/distribution
>project), the US/Enron/Taliban/Caspian Basin Oil/Central Asian Market
>connection is pretty self-evident; THUS, your following objection to:
>
>>>America wants the region under total US domination.
>
>>Evidence?
>
>Are you serious? Christ! Do a web-search yourself, ie., >taliban,
>Enron, US energy policy, Unocal, Centgas, Bush<; That should keep you
>reading for a day or more;
Don't lose the forest for the trees. I think it's very easy to
convince oneself that any position is right, if one subdivides the
issues far enough! I don't dispute the "US/Enron/Taliban/etc."
business in its broad outlines. In fact, I would be surprised if the
US, and US companies, *hadn't* taken an interest in the area. But --
so what? That's *not* the same as "American wants the region under
total US domination." America wants no such thing.
To use an analogy: Japan has extensive commercial interests in Korea.
But since WWII Japan has not had or wanted Japanese domination of
Korea. There's a huge difference there, the difference between the
pre-War Japanese empire and the post-war economic behemoth.
Under the Japanese Empire, the Korean people suffered terribly.
With Japanese trade and investment, the Korean people became one of
the wealthiest on earth.
Big, big difference.
When one alledges, without evidence, that America in a position where
it's ostensibly "imperial" or seeks "domination," one effaces that
very real difference -- and that effacement gives succor to those who
*do* seek domination, to those who *do* hurt other nations.
>How can you possibly be such an obstructionist to say such a thing?
>Have you been so totally snowballed/hoodwinked by the propoganda
>rhetoric of the War on Terrorism to NOT understand our (US) vested
>interest in securing the Rumalia and Caspian Basin Reserves, so to
>liberate ourselves from OPEC dependence? Haven't you read the reports
>I've reprinted, such as the Pipeline plots? The strategy and details
>and an abundance of substantiating info. is pretty readily available
>for anyone willing to do a browser search among electronic data bases.
Again, you exaggerate or overstate the case.
Consider a man who's argued with his wife. Then his wife is found
dead, murdered. Does the fact that the man argued with his wife
constitute sufficient evidence to convict him of murder? Of course
not. It merely establishes a possible motive. Many men argue with
their wives, and in any given sample of murdered wives with husbands
who argued with them, only a minority will have actually committed a
murder. One might, on further investigation, find that the man was a
perfectly good guy who didn't get along with the missus -- or a
sonovabitch who nevertheless would never have considered committing an
atrocity like wife murder. Or one might find that the man would have
just loved to murder his wife, but didn't actually do it.
Now consider an overzealous prosecutor who has no evidence --
fingerprints, witnesses, anything -- that a man murdered his wife.
What would he do? He'd use what he had. He'd call in witness after
witness who had seen them argue violently. After a few weeks of that,
the jury would have accounts of hundreds of arguments, and you
wouldn't blame them for thiking that the fellow was psycho. But if
they paid any attention to the judge's charge, they wouldn't convict
him.
Another way of looking at it: let's flip things around, and look at
all the allegations that were hurled at Clinton for eight years, up to
and including murder and rape. At the end of the day, the courts or
the prosecutors through out the great majority of them, and the only
ones that were shown to be true were that he lied under oath about
some of the allegations.
Well, obviously they didn't find everything there is to know about
Bill Clinton's lifetime wrongdoings. But they provided no evidence
whatsoever that he was a moral monster. Yet many believe that he is
just that, because they heard so many *accusations* for so long, or so
many accounts of embarassing or sleazy but hardly illegal activities
like his assignations with various women. That's just a right-wing
version of what's being done here by the left.
>The consequences of America's continued ependence on forty-percent of
>the world's annual oil-production SHOULD provide a reasonably
>intelligent person with some very obvious conclusions about what
>direction an energy policy HAS to take, given that Saudia Arabia is
>NOT our ally, that it has provided financing and resources for
>Terrorist recruitment and training, and that it only TOLERATES U.S.
>presence because we are such good oil customers and excellant
>high-tech armaments suppliers, as with our Jets, especially the F 18;
>That you are effecting to adopt here such a resolutely skeptical
>stance suggests you either have large gaps in your understanding of
>geopolitical critical theory, ideology and history; or you have your
>personal reasons for being an apologist for the corrupt excesses of
>the system;
Again, you're jumping to conclusions, only this time they have to do
with me. I'm perfectly aware of our search for oil alternatives, which
is long standing, although there's now more to it than you think. The
Saudis would be reluctant to cut us off completely, because they would
starve to death. But investigations show that terrorists could take
out the Saudi oil fields with little difficulty, and it would take
*several years* to restore production.
For that, and other reasons, one fo the first things Bush did after
the 11th was to secure an agreement from the Russians that they would
help us with our energy needs in the event of such an eventuality.
>Perhaps you feel any suggestion or accusation of
>human-rights violations and system-wide improprieties is nothing less
>than an 'attack' on the country itself. I, of course, disagree; I am
>motivated to speak out because of my great concern that too many
>innocent people have suffered because of misdirected policies.
No. Both self-criticism and criticism by others are necessary and
beneficial, and, in fact, one of the main advantages of free societies
over dictatorial ones.
Nonsensical accusations by people who should know better, however,
*are* attacks on the country, and, ultimately, on the world. They blur
the difference between right and wrong, between what can make the
world a safer and better place and what will have the opposite effect
-- loony theocracies, dictatorships, socialist experiments that
produce misery.
Now, consider this.
Two nations are at war.
In one nation, mistreatment of prisoners is widely praticed. They have
10,000 prisoners, and 5,000 have been abused.
In the second nation, mistreatment of prisoners does occur, but it's
against government policy and so is much rarer. They also have 10,000
prisoners, but only 100 have been abused.
Now, a First Nationalist decides he wants to prove that the second
nation is worse than his own. So he starts looking at their prisoner
records.
"Look! Joe Pzykdh was beaten by Second Nation guards!
"And Igor Qdklw!
"And Helmut Kowoe!
And so on for 100 names.
Do you see what happens here?
The big -- and real -- picture is lost. The toenail becomes the
elephant. The actual difference between the nations is obscured by
fuzz. And in some wise, the more responsible of the two nations is
hurt -- as is the rest of the world, which would do better by its own
moral standards and self-interest to support it.
>sincerely believe that war and violence cannot 'solve' the problems of
>war and violence.
I'm not aware of anything that can solve the problems of war and
violence.
? I do not represent myself as a dedicated political
>science student or researcher, but I CAN review information, conduct
>research, write a precis and do basic synthesis;
>
>But to return to your 'point' of objection, re: "evidence?", which IMO
>is pretty absurd, given that the significance and validity of HARDLY
>contestable, as it's significantly, if not absolutely or pretty
>conclusively demonstrated; Apparantly, you are unwilling to accept the
>many bits and pieces of eyewitness testimony, conjecture,
>circumstantial and documentary evidence, and logical inferences to be
>drawn from a multitude of sources thereby as having sufficient weight
>to substantially suggest if not actually confirm or verify the above
>point, in the obvious absence of 'hard' evidence as records due to the
>several-month lead-time Enron was granted to methodically shred
>several "million" pages of paper, OR the determined stonewalling/lack
>of cooperation by the Bush Admin. to release the Bush I Presidential
>papers OR VP Cheney's Energy Task Force Meeting papers;
>
>Your intense predisposition to find something controversial or
>insidious in this statement of fact is indicative of a significant
>prejudice,
Skye, the only prejudices I have here are anti-Republican and
anti-business. And yes, I work against those, because I'm after
objectivity, not ideological masturbation.
But again -- my point isn't that Enron wasn't sleazy, or that the
Republicans weren't in bed with them more than the Democrats, etc.,
etc. It's that there's a *big difference* between that and paranoid
assumptions about our response to Sept. 11th.
which effectively confounds your ability to appreciate the
>significance of this document, and hopelessly confounds my attempts to
>explicate the issues you take exception to. It seems clear your mind
>is made up, and you are unwilling to accept that many US foreign
>policies have NOT been done in accordance with International Law or
>showing respect for the rights and autonomy of residents of non-US
>nations.
This is an almost meaningless statement -- there's no time frame, and
"many" can mean almost anything,
> The US treatment of Indigeneous Peoples is a very evident
>case-in-pont. Your points of objection seem cleqrly to be based on a
>resistance to acknowledging that American Foreign policy has
>significantly involved collusion of influence at Diplomatic and
>Executive levels,
and has made frequent use of overt military force as
>well as covert CIA and NSA operatives and proxy-paramilitary agents.
>The types of influence have ranged from influence peddling,
>quid-pro-quo arrangements, and coercion to unofficial/semi-official
>uses of force, making of threats, and blackmail-subversion-espionage
>activities; Your resistance to the points raised in this article
>indicate that you do NOT hold the US responsible in part or severally
>for the institution, support, defense and/or security for a wide range
>of despotic regimes, non-democratic institutions/dictatorships, and
>regional 'zones of exploitation'; In the face of your refusal to
>concede US complicity in the Phillipines vis-a-vis Marcos, Indonesia,
>Puerto Rico, Zimbabwe,
This is right out of Basement Rhetoric Number One. Skye, you of all
people can do better!
Begin by removing the fuzzspeak terms. "Collusion." "Frequent." etc.
With such words, one can take the most insignficant activity and make
it appear heinous. Take "Do not hold the US responsible in part or
severally for the institutions uspport, defense, blah blah" -- are you
aware of what you've done there?
Now, let's get real. The US, like other nations, plays hardball. Ours
is just about as soft as anybody's would be, given a similar set of
provocations and opportunities. Indeed, there's a moral component to
US foreign policy that the Europeans find charmingly naive.
And that's about the gist of it.
? No, reread it. he clearly states that "A report . . . provides clear
evience that . . . exploitation of . . . was an urgent priority . . .
and the centerpiece [of Bush admin energy policy]." Then he quotes
from the report. But his quote provides no evidence whatsoever to back
up his assertion -- there's nothing in the quote about this being an
*urgent* priority, nothing to suggest that it was the *centerpiece* of
Bush admin policy.
I'm not sure you don't see this. This kind of exaggerated argument
jumps out at me like a jack-in-the-box on speed.
Note that I'm *not* saying that these things weren't important to the
Bush admins energy policy. The problem here isn't that sort of
allegation, which is common knowledge, but the fact that he
*exaggerates* this stuff, reaches *unfounded* conclusions, at least
judging by the nature of the evidence he presents.
Look --
Josh is a midget, as evidenced by a report from the Height Society. In
its 1995 report, Josh's height, it says "Josh's height is below
average for an American male" and "when Josh was a schoolboy, he is
said to have felt inadequate about his height."
Now if I called this reasoning bogus, would I be claiming that Josh's
height isn't below average? No, I'd be saying that there's nothing
here that suggests Josh is a *midget* -- and that the fact that the
author chooses to use such shoddy "evidence" suggests to me he views
things with an ideological slant.
>OKAY, I get the 'message', I'm not gonna drag you kicking and
>screaming to any realizations you aren't prepared to acknowledge
>require critical thought; If you aren't even going to LOOK, you sure
>in hell aren't gonna SEE, no matter WHAT is laid out neatly before
>you; I predict Enrongate is gonna be made to be 'dissappeared', cuz'
>it's too insidious and too much of an indictment of the greedy
>marketing/legislative collusion that is transforming the US from a
>free republic to an autorepublocratic-demotechnocracy;
Skye, there is no "critical thought" in this article; it's just
insinuation. You of all people should be able to see the diff. But not
only do you seem oblivious to the persistent flaws in the author's
methodology, you misinterpret my objection to those flaws as evidence
of some kind of bias, or an unwillingness to acknowledge flaws in our
national behavior.
But, in so doing, you cast yourself in an ideological light.
Like any educated person, I'm aware of any number of cases of American
skullduggery, from slavery to the Spanish-American War to Hawaii to
ITT's role in Latin America.
But I'm also aware of about a zillion times as many cases where these
things don't happen. And I'm not about to confuse legitimate
political, military, strategic, and economic interests, legitimate
business activity, business/government cooperation, and even a certain
degree of *illegitimate* business activity -- and one does *not* do
business in a third-world country without paying off everyone from the
King to the dog groomer, and anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly
naive -- with wild allegations. Someone will have to show me proof,
first, just as no one will convince me that Clinton raped a woman as
governor until I see some real goods.
Those who fail to see the difference here -- who make extreme or
exaggerated inferences on the basis of ideologically-based but
logically bogus jumps from one state to another, who allow themselves
to be swamped by suggestive details and accumulated assumptions -- are
like those who can't see the difference between the 15-year-old honor
student who sells a friend some pot and a major distributor of crack
and Heroin. They lose all perspective; and only harm can come of that.
Josh
sk...@nowhere.man
>On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 00:32:01 GMT, Joshua P. Hill
><josh...@snet.net.remove.this> wrote:
>>America wants the region under total US domination.
>Evidence?
Provided in previous answers, plus
included: Part Two: http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA26Ag01.html
I had already posted this as reply to Anonymous in Pipelineistan Part
One, apparently you hadn't read it as it answers/rebuts your primary
'objections', and otherwise substantiates key points made in this
article;
Also, see: Part One: http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA25Ag01.html
>>The Caspian Basin has an estimated $5 trillion of oil and gas
>>resources, and Central Asia has 6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas
>>and 10 billion barrels of undeveloped oil reserves. Interconnecting
>>pipelines are the key to accessing and distributing oil and gas to
>>European, Chinese and Russian markets.
>This does not support or even have anything to do with the assertion
>that "America wants the region under total US domination."
I cannot understand on what possible basis you contest this point: I
have already included sources for substantial verification that the
Caspian/Central Asian reserves are keystones to American Energy Policy
and strategic Geopolitical/economic/military plans for the region;
This article is based on published facts and sources, testimony,
logical inference and compelling circumstantial deduction; Your
objections and repudiations lack logical basis; Your specific
objection here is an example of a predisposition to deny necessary and
rational conclusions. The case for high-level organized US strategy of
deliberate subversion and destabilization of the Middle East as part
of an intricate plan for Imperial Hegemony can HARDLY be made more
clearly. It is obvious that you and I have FUNDAMENTAL differences of
opinion concerning the implications of this, as I count the cost in
Human suffering, oppression, and enslavement to outweigh whatever
possible benefit might be gained from the US rationalizing
"liberalization" and "world security" and "defending freedom". In the
greater context of world history, human dignity, and the struggle for
people to live in harmony and peace, the US is HARDLY an innocent
'do-gooder'; I CAN and DO acknowledge the very many good, positive and
beneficial contributions the US has made or facilitated, but I ALSO
cannot, and DO NOT, refuse to recognize that during the past 20-30
years the US has demonstrated increasing insensitivity to Human Rights
and peace and justice issues in MANY parts of the world, where overt
and covert acts/operations have led to a great many situations of
oppression, killing of 'innocents', diversion of resources and
political capital, subversion of democratic and reform movements
either in support of advantageous financial/business arrangements OR
to destabilize a region in order to influence/create a situation of
disorganization that can be more effectively exploited for
military/security, political and/or financial purposes; During the
1900s, the US has unofficially acted to secure benefit and wealth in
foreign countries/territories for relatively few well-positioned
individuals/groups at the high 'cost' of disproportionately
disadvantaging the local population. Amnesty International, Red Cross
Aid, and many Civil Rights groups/agencies are among those groups that
watch and document such incidents, as in the contest of resistance
against abuse of power which much US foreign policy is based on,
witnessing for truth is one means by which to effectively struggle
despite being hopelessly outgunned and out-financed.
It's my belief, based on my life experience and long scholarship/study
of politics/sociology/psychology/human nature/philosophy that the War
on Terrorism is a massive hoax being perpetrated by the Bush
Administration and other Key players to orchestrate the US being
firmly established in Central and South Asia, in perfect position to
control the flow of oil to China and Russia, who we are in ideological
opposition with; As the concluding paragraph of the reprinted articles
iterates:
"There's no business like war business. Thanks to war against Iraq,
the US has its military bases in the Persian Gulf. Thanks to war
against Yugoslavia, the US has its military bases in Bosnia, Kosovo
and Macedonia. Thanks to war against the Taliban, the US is now in
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not to mention the
base in Incirlik, Turkey. The US is also in the Caucasus - in Georgia
and Azerbaijan. Iran, China and Russia are practically encircled.
There's no business like show business. Raise the curtains. Enter
Pipelineistan. (Applause).
>>(Part One) Policy planners have devoted years to this agenda. . .
>>(Part Two) The report states that "the administration's report warned that
>>'growth in international oil demand will exert increasing pressure on
>>global oil availability' and that developing Asian economies and
>>populations—particularly in China and India—-will be major
>>contributors to this increased demand" and that "options for
>>constructing gas pipelines east to Asia from the Caspian have been
>>discussed for the last decade."
>Again, the second part of this statement does not support the first.
Your 'objection' is groundless, Josh;
>So? They're oil companies! One would think that's a good thing . . .
YES, until you factor in the COST in lives and suffering, and how
Americans have been duped into participating with the deliberate
destabilization of the region by covert counter-intel and espionage
and Terrorist practices "subsidized, trained, directed by, and under
the control of direct-and-proxy US/Allied Foreign policy agents, (ie,
NSA, CIA, FBI, DOD, MI 5-6, Secret Service, Israeli, GB, French, (and
other) intelligence agencies/services)";
It's now CLEAR that the US masterminded the disintegration of the
Baltic States of (Former Yugoslavia) Kosova, Bosnia and Macedonia, for
purposes of gaining legitimacy to occupy the region and establish the
largest Military base since the Vietnam War; The US as an 'entity'
apparently can and does discount the cost of lives lost and the
suffering unleashed in that conflict, because it is playing for high
stakes and can justify its acts as in its "National Security"
interest; just as it can 'easily' rationalize the death toll in
Afghanistan; IMO, it's a matter of 'believing your own delusions.'
>Yeah, and? We know the Bush Admin is in bed with the oil industry. But
>I haven't seen anything here that makes reasonable use of that
>knowledge. Like many, I suspect that there's malfeasance there. But
>the author isn't making a case for anything!
You aren't reading closely or thinking about what's being laid out in
detail; We are 'talking' here about extreme corruption, political
favoritism, using National Energy policies to secure private wealth,
wheeling-deal-making, appropriating the resources of the military and
intelligence services, justifying imperialism as 'good and legitimate
business interests' while officially espousing ideals of 'liberty' and
'equal opportunity', using the intelligence services of US and
allied/associate countries to wreak havoc, perpetrating terrorist
activities to undermine legally-elected/representative governments,
toppling political institutions that got in the the way of 'sweetheart
deals' and special incredibly lucrative wealth/corporate
opportunities, using political influence and contacts to gain
favorable rulings and deregulation (especially as was the case with
Enron), institutionalizing a practice of 'purchasing' political favors
and special treatment (business-as-usual), and on-and-on-and-on; The
whole SYSTEM is so foul and based on exclusivity and wealth and
corruption and abuse of power, how can you POSSIBLY not recognize
this, Josh??
>Haven't read it.
>More paranoia . . . "Just the facts, Ma'm."
Exactly; read CAREFULLY, please;
>Oh, please.
I can't help your exasperation at reading things you choose to find
fanciful because you prefer believing that everything is just fine,
thanks;
>Again -- there's *nothing* connecting A to B.
EXCEPT compelling evidence, circumstantial and necessary and logical
deduction, testimony, sharp investigative journalism despite the
obvious great lengths the major players have gone to 'hide' or destroy
incriminating evidence; Uh, you ARE aware of White House stalling to
prevent releasing details about the VPs Energy Task Force meetings,
aren't you?? And the well-documented incidence of Enron given almost
two months to work the shredder-crews 24/7 to clean-up any
paper-trail? AND White-house stonewalling to prevent having to release
(potentially incriminating) Prez. Bush I's Presidential papers?
You're really 'out-of-the-loop', eh?
>The paranoid is correct when he observes that he sees a man with a
>briefcase walk past his house every morning at 6:45 AM. But then he
>starts associating that peregrination with other things -- the death
>of his dog, his stock market losses --
>All we have here is a bunch of rich, powerful people bulding pipelines
>and playing financial tricks. I've had some minor experience with
>these sorts, Republican businessmen who had held high positions in GOP
>administrations, and they were crooks. But they're Machiavells, not
>mass murderers, and they don't attack their own country to keep the
>sheriff at bay.
>Josh
Yeah, whatever; Jeez, talk about doin the ostrich!
If you're so inclined to 'check yer facts, man':
Related Articles
Russian oil a challenge to OPEC (Jan 25, 2002):
http://atimes.com/c-asia/DA25Ag02.html
Turkmenbashi reaches out (Jan 24, 2002):
http://atimes.com/c-asia/DA24Ag01.html
Reconstructing Afghanistan - on oil and gas (Nov 24, 2001):
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK24Ag01.html
The oil behind Bush and Son's campaigns(Oct 6, 2001):
http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/CJ06Dj01.html
But Hey, no hard feelin's tho, K?
skye
____________________________________
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA26Ag01.html
Pipelineistan, Part 2: The games nations play
By Pepe Escobar
Map at http://www.atimes.com/images/mapcasiaxx.jpg
Two months ago, the White House was deliriously happy with the
official opening of the first new pipeline of the Caspian Pipeline
Consortium - a joint venture including Russia, Kazakhstan, Oman,
ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil and a bunch of other minor players.
This $2.65 billion pipeline links the enormous Tengiz oilfield in
northwestern Kazakhstan to the Russian port of Novorossiysk on the
Black Sea: from there, the sky - ie the world market - is the limit.
Bush II, according to the White House, is developing "a network of
multiple Caspian pipelines that also include the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan,
Baku-Supsa, and Baku-Novorossiyisk oil pipelines, and the
Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline". So one of the key nodes in the
American petrostrategy is composed by Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.
The pipeline consortium for Baku-Ceyhan, led by British Petroleum, is
represented by the law firm Baker & Botts. The principal attorney is
none other than Texan superstar James Baker - secretary of state under
Bush I and chief spokesman for the Bush II 2000 campaign when all
gloves were off to shut down the Florida vote recount.
Texas-based, scandal-prone Enron, together with Amoco, Chevron, Mobil,
UNOCAL and British Petroleum, were all spending billions of dollars to
pump the reserves of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Baker,
Scowcroft, Sununu and Cheney have all closed major deals directly and
indirectly on behalf of the oil companies. But now the Enron scandal
has just exploded right in the face of the oil industry - and Bush
II's administration. It will be very enlightening to see what the
American tradition of investigative journalism will make of all this.
Enron once had a market value of $70 billion. It filed for bankruptcy
in December 2001 after admitting it ovestated its profits by almost
$600 million. Paul Krugman wrote that "Enron helped Dick Cheney devise
an energy plan that certainly looks as if it was written by and for
the companies that advised his task force". The Enron big-time crooks
- close pals of Cheney and Bush II - dwarf any Asian "crony
capitalists" Americans were carping about before and after the Asian
financial crisis.
There's no shortage of crooks in the oil industry. Turkmenistan and
Azerbaijan have intimate relations with Israeli military intelligence.
A so-called "former" Israeli intelligence agent, Yousef Maiman,
president of the Mehrav Group of Israel, is nothing less than "Special
Ambassador", official negotiatior and even policymaker responsible for
developing the enormous energy resources of Turkmenistan.
Maiman is a citizen of the gas republic by presidential decree -
signed by the Turkmenbashi himself, the fabulously megalomaniac
Saparmurad Niazov, former member of the Soviet Politburo. Maiman,
according to the Wall Street Journal, is actively involved in
advancing the "geopolitical goals of both the US and Israel" in
Central Asia. He certainly does not beat around the bush: "Controlling
the transport route is controlling the product." Nobody knows where
Mehrav's money comes from.
Mehrav's planned pipelines bypass both Iran and Russia. But after the
conquest of Afghanistan, oil sources in Singapore say Mehrav may
consider dealing with Iran. It's all to do with the importance of the
Turkish market. Russia and Turkmenistan are fiercely competing to
conquer the Turkish gas market. Considering the strategic relationship
between Turkey and Israel, the Israeli game remains preventing Turkish
strategic dependence on Iran. Turkey is a NATO member and a key US
ally. The US and Britain routinely strike against Iraq from Turkish
bases - from which they patrol the unillateraly-declared Iraqi "no-fly
zones". These "no-fly zones" are obviously not sanctioned by the UN.
Mehrav is also involved in a murderous project to reduce the flow of
water to Iraq by diverting water from the Tigris and the Euphrates
rivers to southeastern Turkey. And Magal Security Systems, an Israeli
company, is also involved with Turkey: it will provide security for
the 2,000 km-long oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Turkish
Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.
Crook-infested Enron - the biggest donor to the Bush campaign of 2000
- was ubiquitious: it conducted the feasibility study for the $2.5
billion trans-Caspian pipeline being built under a joint venture
signed almost three years ago between Turkmenistan and Bechtel and
General Electric. The go-between in the deal was none other than the
Mehrav Group. Chairman Maiman spent a fortune hiring the Washington
lobbying firm Cassidy and Associates to seduce official Washington
with the trans-Caspian pipeline project.
The intrincate relationship between Israel, Turkey and the US means
that as much as the trans-Caspian pipeline, the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline
is also absolutely crucial. It could be extended to bring oil directly
to thirsty Israel. During the Clinton years, oil giants were under
tremendous pressure to build East-West pipelines. But all of them
preferred to build North-South pipelines - much cheaper, but with the
inconvenience of crossing Iran, an absolute anathema for Washington.
Russia already has a contract with Turkmenistan to purchase 30 billion
cubic meters of gas a year. This represents a big blow to the US field
of dreams, the trans-Caspian gas pipeline. This also means that Russia
will never let go of its sphere of influence without a tremendous
fight. The Central Asian republics are on its borders, Russia has
dominated them for centuries and they are home to millions of
Russians. Russian is still the language they all use to do business
with each other.
Thanks to master political chess player Vladimir Putin, Russia is now
on the cosiest terms possible with Washington - and US-Iran antipathy
is apparently receding. Russia may eventually become a partner in at
least some of Washington's petrostrategy games in Central Asia - like
the Caspian Pipeline Consortium. The regional map also reveals that
Iran, besides holding important gas reserves, offers the best direct
access from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf, where oil and gas can
be quickly exported to Asian markets.
Iran assumes, not entirely without reason, that it is the rightful
guardian of Central Asia because of centuries of ethnic, historical,
linguistic and religious ties. And Iran is very conscious that
American military links and now physical presence in Central Asia are
part of a strategy to encircle it. But even amid so many geopolitical
and ideological pitfalls, the fact remains that as long as the US is
militarily involved in Afghanistan, there will be some sort of
US-Iranian diplomatic engagement.
Under the control of the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC),
pipelines from Central Asia will also reach China's Xinjiang. Oil
sources in Singapore stress that this will certainly spell a slump for
the sea routes across the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Washington is
more than aware through its think tanks of the consequences: an
extremely likely strategic realignment between China, Japan and Korea.
The Chinese have their sights on only one terrifying prospect: the
encirclement of China by the US. UNOCAL is dreaming about profits.
Washington is thinking about the robust Chinese economy. Whatever "war
against terror" distractions, China remains the key strategic
competitor to the US in the 21st century. With Afghanistan in the bag,
UNOCAL dreams of monster profits in the Asian market - much higher
than in Europe - while Washington closely monitors the Chinese
economy: growth of 8 percent in 2000, 7 percent in 2001, and needing
all the oil and gas it can get. Chinese strategists are working around
the clock to develop local forms of energy production.
What happens next will be closely linked to the deliberations of the
Shanghai Five, now Shanghai Six, or more burocratically, the Shangahi
Cooperation Organization (SCO): China and Russia, plus four Central
Asian republics (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Takijistan and Uzbekistan).
Manouvering with extreme care, China is using the SCO to align Russia
economically and politically towards China and northeast Asia. At the
same time, Russia is using the SCO to maintain its traditional
hegemony in Central Asia. The name of the game for solidifying the
alliance is Russian export of its enormous reserves of oil and gas.
Since the NATO war against Yugoslavia and the de facto occupation of
Kosovo - where America built its largest military base since the
Vietnam War - China and Russia have their minds set on Chechnya and
Muslim Xinjiang. For the moment, at least, America has absolutely no
way of interfering in these domestic problems, since China and
especially Russia are endorsing the war against terrorism.
The Taliban were never a target in the "war against terrorism". They
were just a scapegoat - rather, a horde of medieval warrior scapegoats
who simply did not fulfill their contract: to insert Aghanistan into
Pipelineistan. All the regional players now know America is in Central
Asia to stay, as Washington itself has been stridently repeating these
last few weeks, and it will be influencing or disturbing the economy
and geopolitics of the region. The wider world is absolutely oblivious
to these real stakes in the New Great Game.
The US at the time of the Gulf War did not show any interest in
replacing "Satan" Hussein. That would seriously compromise the
American design to establish bases on the Arabian peninsula on the
convenient pretext of helping poor Arab sheikhs against the Iraqi Evil
Monster.
More than a decade later, Satan Hussein is still there, Bush I is now
Bush II, and assorted Pentagon hawks are still fuming, trying to
fabricate any excuse to blow Saddam back to Mesopotamian ashes. But
Saddam will not be attacked, because Saddam is the ultimate reason for
American military bases in the Gulf - a splendid affair because on top
of it all it is a free ride, the expenses being paid by the
ultra-flush sheikdoms. Now, after the (also unfinished) New Afghan
War, American forces are already establishing themselves in Central
and South Asia to once again "protect the interests of the free
world".
It is never enough to remember that after the end of the communist
regime in Afghanistan, the American strategy was to deliberately let
Islamic extremism go wild - a perfect way to scare the unstable
regimes in the Central Asian neo-republics. Islamic fundamentalism has
always been a key card in the American strategic design since the Cold
War days when the CIA subcontracted to the Pakistani ISI the
arm-them-to-their-teeth policy regarding the mujahideen. It is always
easy to forget that the good-guys-turned-bad-guys were once were
hailed by Ronnie Reagan himself at the Oval Office as "the moral
equivalent of the founding fathers".
America has been trying hard to "get" Afghanistan - the heart of Asia
in Antiquity, the Pipelineistan crossroads of Asia nowadays - for more
than 20 years. In the process, the mujahideen transformed Afghanistan,
with CIA blessing, into the world's leading producer of heroin,
opening the crucial and ultra-profitable drug pipeline
Afghanistan-Turkey-Balkans-Western Europe. More than a martini,
oil-arms-drugs is the classic CIA cocktail. This "Drugistan" road has
just been spectacularly reopened after the fall of the Taliban.
Pipelineistan is not an end in itself. Oil and gas by themselves are
not the US's ultimate aim. It's all about control. In Monopoly,
Belgian writer Michel Collon wrote: "If you want to rule the world,
you need to control oil. All the oil. Anywhere." If the US controls
the sources of energy of its rivals - Europe, Japan, China and other
nations aspiring to be more independent - they win. This explains why
pipelines from the Caucasus to the West have to be America-friendly -
ie Turkish or Macedonian - and not "unreliable", meaning
Russian-controled. Washington, always, has to control everything:
that's what Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger always said. The same goes
for the military bases in Saudi Arabia, and now in Pakistan and
Afghanistan.
There's no business like war business. Thanks to war against Iraq, the
US has its military bases in the Persian Gulf. Thanks to war against
Yugoslavia, the US has its military bases in Bosnia, Kosovo and
Macedonia. Thanks to war against the Taliban, the US is now in
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not to mention the
base in Incirlik, Turkey. The US is also in the Caucasus - in Georgia
and Azerbaijan. Iran, China and Russia are practically encircled.
There's no business like show business. Raise the curtains. Enter
Pipelineistan. (Applause).
Related Articles
Russian oil a challenge to OPEC (Jan 25, 2002):
http://atimes.com/c-asia/DA25Ag02.html
Turkmenbashi reaches out (Jan 24, 2002):
http://atimes.com/c-asia/DA24Ag01.html
Reconstructing Afghanistan - on oil and gas (Nov 24, 2001):
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK24Ag01.html
The oil behind Bush and Son's campaigns(Oct 6, 2001):
http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/CJ06Dj01.html
Part 1 of this article: http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA25Ag01.html
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of
which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I
am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding
of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,
scientific, and
social peace-and-justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a
'fair use' and 'research purposes' benefit of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.
"This is not a monarchy.... We've got a dictatorial President and a
Justice
Department that does not want Congress involved.... Your guy's acting
like
he's king."
--Congressman Dan Burton, referring to George W. Bush
"Did Bush really do it all? Here are some things people suspect he's
done. Just imagine what we're dealing with if they were true. They
very well might be, some of them
definitely are: Fixed election. Created California energy crisis.
Pushed the NMD, which he knows doesn't work. $$$ for him & allies.
Enron and more. Knew in advance about an imminent terrorist attack.
Excuse for "war on terror" and for police state in US. Will also allow
dream pipeline in Afghanistan for his oil buddies. Tried to kill Tom
Daschle with Anthrax. Brands all opposition as "traitors" and "evil
doers". Who the fuck does he think he is? Continues to support
terrorist organizations while claiming to fight a war on terror.
Siphoned millions (billions?) of taxpayer $$$ to allies under cover of
"war on terror". Continues to protect notorious international criminal
Bill Klinton."
- O§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí
|My theory is that Bush will, by pulling us straight and far back into
|the past, become the catalyst for a great jetisoning into a truly
|progressive future...based on progress beyond the struggle to meet the
|bottom line, or the need to inflict some homogeny or hegemony.
|When his economic policies finally get us deep into deep shit (and
|every business venture that Bush has touched has ended up there),
|America will finally see a clear new direction. The exact opposite
|direction of the Bu(ll)sh(it) administration...away from corporate
|dominance and state sponsored terrorism ('counter terrorist' wars and
|anti-demonstration riot police), and back towards harmony and
|humanity.- Goddess Bless America.
fwd/skye
1.13.2002
sk...@nowhere.man
>(snipped)
>>Evidence?
This transcript is produced from the teletext subtitles that are
generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the
programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility
for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious
errors.
Has someone been sitting on the FBI? 6/11/01
GREG PALAST:
The CIA and Saudi Arabia, the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. Did their
connections cause America to turn a blind eye to terrorism?
UNNAMED MAN:
There is a hidden agenda at the very highest levels of our government.
JOE TRENTO, (AUTHOR, "SECRET HISTORY OF THE CIA"):
The sad thing is that thousands of Americans had to die needlessly.
PETER ELSNER:
How can it be that the former President of the US and the current
President of the US have business dealings with characters that need
to be investigated?
PALAST:
In the eight weeks since the attacks, over 1,000 suspects and
potential witnesses have been detained. Yet, just days after the
hijackers took off from Boston aiming for the Twin Towers, a special
charter flight out of the same airport whisked 11 members of Osama Bin
Laden's family off to Saudi Arabia. That did not concern the White
House.
Their official line is that the Bin Ladens are above suspicion - apart
from Osama, the black sheep, who they say hijacked the family name.
That's fortunate for the Bush family and the Saudi royal household,
whose links with the Bin Ladens could otherwise prove embarrassing.
But Newsnight has obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of
other members of the] Bin Laden family for links to terrorist
organisations before and after September 11th.
This document is marked "Secret". Case ID - 199-Eye WF 213 589. 199 is
FBI code for case type. 9 would be murder. 65 would be espionage. 199
means national security. WF indicates Washington field office special
agents were investigating ABL - because of it's relationship with the
World Assembly of Muslim Youth, WAMY - a suspected terrorist
organisation. ABL is Abdullah Bin Laden, president and treasurer of
WAMY.
This is the sleepy Washington suburb of Falls Church, Virginia where
almost every home displays the Stars and Stripes. On this unremarkable
street, at 3411 Silver Maple Place, we located the former home of
Abdullah and another brother, Omar, also an FBI suspect. It's
conveniently close to WAMY. The World Assembly of Muslim Youth is in
this building, in a little room in the basement at 5613 Leesburg Pike.
And here, just a couple blocks down the road at 5913 Leesburg, is
where four of the hijackers that attacked New York and Washington are
listed as having lived.
The US Treasury has not frozen WAMY's assets, and when we talked to
them, they insisted they are a charity. Yet, just weeks ago, Pakistan
expelled WAMY operatives. And India claimed that WAMY was funding an
organisation linked to bombings in Kashmir. And the Philippines
military has accused WAMY of funding Muslim insurgency. The FBI did
look into WAMY, but, for some reason, agents were pulled off the
trail.
TRENTO:
The FBI wanted to investigate these guys. This is not something that
they didn't want to do - they wanted to, they weren't permitted to.
PALAST:
The secret file fell into the hands of national security expert, Joe
Trento. The Washington spook-tracker has been looking into the FBI's
allegations about WAMY.
TRENTO:
They've had connections to Osama Bin Laden's people. They've had
connections to Muslim cultural and financial aid groups that have
terrorist connections. They fit the pattern of groups that the Saudi
royal family and Saudi community of princes - the 20,000 princes -
have funded who've engaged in terrorist activity.
Now, do I know that WAMY has done anything that's illegal? No, I don't
know that. Do I know that as far back as 1996 the FBI was very
concerned about this organisation? I do.
PALAST:
Newsnight has uncovered a long history of shadowy connections between
the State Department, the CIA and the Saudis. The former head of the
American visa bureau in Jeddah is Michael Springman.
MICHAEL SPRINGMAN:
In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept
officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These were,
essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their
own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to
the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General Accounting
Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Inspector
General's office. I was met with silence.
PALAST:
By now, Bush Sr, once CIA director, was in the White House. Springman
was shocked to find this wasn't visa fraud. Rather, State and CIA were
playing "the Great Game".
SPRINGMAN:
What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits,
rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the
CIA. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the
then-Soviets.
The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 did not shake the State
Department's faith in the Saudis, nor did the attack on American
barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia three years later, in which
19 Americans died. FBI agents began to feel their investigation was
being obstructed. Would you be surprised to find out that FBI agents
are a bit frustrated that they can't be looking into some Saudi
connections?
MICHAEL WILDES, ( LAWYER)
I would never be surprised with that. They're cut off at the hip
sometimes by supervisors or given shots that are being called from
Washington at the highest levels.
PALAST:
I showed lawyer Michael Wildes our FBI documents. One of the Khobar
Towers bombers was represented by Wildes, who thought he had useful
intelligence for the US. He also represents a Saudi diplomat who
defected to the USA with 14,000 documents which Wildes claims
implicates Saudi citizens in financing terrorism and more. Wildes met
with FBI men who told him they were not permitted to read all the
documents. Nevertheless, he tried to give them to the agents.
WILDES:
"Take these with you. We're not going to charge for the copies. Keep
them. Do something with them. Get some bad guys with them." They
refused.
PALAST:
In the hall of mirrors that is the US intelligence community, Wildes,
a former US federal attorney, said the FBI field agents wanted the
documents, but they were told to "see no evil."
WILDES:
You see a difference between the rank-and-file counter-intelligence
agents, who are regarded by some as the motor pool of the FBI, who
drive following diplomats, and the people who are getting the shots
called at the highest level of our government, who have a different
agenda - it's unconscionable.
PALAST:
State wanted to keep the pro-American Saudi royal family in control of
the world's biggest oil spigot, even at the price of turning a blind
eye to any terrorist connection so long as America was safe. In recent
years, CIA operatives had other reasons for not exposing Saudi-backed
suspects.
TRENTO:
If you recruited somebody who is a member of a terrorist organisation,
who happens to make his way here to the US, and even though you're not
in touch with that person anymore but you have used him in the past,
it would be unseemly if he were arrested by the FBI and word got back
that he'd once been on the payroll of the CIA. What we're talking
about is blow-back. What we're talking about is embarrassing,
career-destroying blow-back for intelligence officials.
PALAST:
Does the Bush family also have to worry about political blow-back? The
younger Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company
partly funded by Salem Bin Laden's chief US representative. Young
George also received fees as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle
Corporation, a little known private company which has, in just a few
years of its founding, become one of Americas biggest defence
contractors. His father, Bush Senior, is also a paid advisor. And what
became embarrassing was the revelation that the Bin Ladens held a
stake in Carlyle, sold just after September 11.
ELSNER:
You have a key relationship between the Saudis and the former
President of the US who happens to be the father of the current
President of the US. And you have all sorts of questions about where
does policy begin and where does good business and good profits for
the company, Carlyle, end?
PALAST:
I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US intelligence
agency. He tells me that while there's always been constraints on
investigating Saudis, under George Bush it's gotten much worse. After
the elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the
Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents. I'm told that
since September 11th the policy has been reversed. FBI headquarters
told us they could not comment on our findings. A spokesman said:
"There are lots of things that only the intelligence community knows
and that no-one else ought to know.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democracy, scientific, and social peace-and-justice issues, etc. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' and 'research purposes' benefit
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the
US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.
fwd//skye
2.14.2002
sk...@nowhere.man
>
>evidence?
Wayne Madsen, former intell employee at NSA, opens the lid on the
extended meaning of the CIA green light to assassinate foreign
terrorists. This blanket permission, accorded on or about 9/15, may
explain some recent deaths in foreign lands. (Of course, the CIA has a
record of killing people that goes way back.) To be looked into--the
murder of Theys Eluay, "West Papuan independence leader (Indonesia)."
Eluay was assassinated in November, after he was kidnapped by
KOPASSUS, a special Indonesian ops group trained by the CIA and US
Special Ops personnel. Eluay was a "thorn in the side of Freeport
McMoran, a Lousiana-based mining company that has pillaged West
Papua's natural resources..." Henry Kissinger is a board member of
Freeport with the title of director emeritus. Addullah Syafii. An
assassinated member of the Free Aceh Movement. Aceh is a region in
northwest Sumatra. The Movement "has been at loggerheads with
ExxonMobil, which has extensive drilling and refining operations in
the territory."
Apparently Syafii was carrying a letter from the Aceh governor which
contained a microchip that allowed COPASSUS soldiers to track him and
murder him. Elie Hobeika was going to testify against Ariel Sharon at
an upcoming Belgian war crimes tribunal. A Mossad car bomb in Bierut
killed him. "The CIA, now closely allied with Mossad, is said to have
given the approval for the action." Chief Bola Ige. On 12/23, this
attorney general of Nigeria was killed in his bedroom. Ige was
championing tribes which have "grievances against exploitative Western
oil companies that have spoiled their lands with pollution and have
pocketed most of the oil revenues for themselves and corrupt Nigerian
politicians...A lucrative CIA and Pentagon front operation, the
private military contractor MPRI, has been training special units of
the Nigerian armed forces." These Nigerian troops have been putting
down anti-oil protests on the coast of Nigeria. Michael Boskin, who
was the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush the
Elder, is on the ExxonMobil board. Condoleeza Rice, who is now the
president's National Security Advisor, once served on the board of
Chevron, which is also quite active in Nigeria.
Terrorists defined as those who get in the way of corporate takeovers
in the so-called Third World. Madsen predicted the Indonesian murders
several months ago. He believes all of the above assassinations were
"likely known to the CIA and allowed to take place unhindered.." In
other words, green-lighted.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democracy, scientific, and social peace-and-justice issues, etc. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' and 'research purposes' benefit
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the
US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
fwd//skye
2/14/2002
Joshua P. Hill
>josh wrote;
>>(snipped)
>>>Evidence?
>
>
>This transcript is produced from the teletext subtitles that are
>generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the
>programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility
>for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious
>errors.
>Has someone been sitting on the FBI? 6/11/01
>
>GREG PALAST:
>The CIA and Saudi Arabia, the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. Did their
>connections cause America to turn a blind eye to terrorism?
After reading this, I would have to say no (in the sense of no
evidence whatsoever . . . )
>UNNAMED MAN:
>There is a hidden agenda at the very highest levels of our government.
Meaningless without evidence of such
>JOE TRENTO, (AUTHOR, "SECRET HISTORY OF THE CIA"):
>The sad thing is that thousands of Americans had to die needlessly.
Meaningless without evidence of such
>PETER ELSNER:
>How can it be that the former President of the US and the current
>President of the US have business dealings with characters that need
>to be investigated?
Again meaningless. Quite a few presidents have had business dealings
iwth characters that need to be investigated -- the Bushes, Nixon,
Clinton being the more recent ones I know of.
>PALAST:
>In the eight weeks since the attacks, over 1,000 suspects and
>potential witnesses have been detained. Yet, just days after the
>hijackers took off from Boston aiming for the Twin Towers, a special
>charter flight out of the same airport whisked 11 members of Osama Bin
>Laden's family off to Saudi Arabia. That did not concern the White
>House.
Yes, I know that. It was widely reported at the time.
Relations between the US and Saudi Arabia entered a critical phase
*before* Sept. 11th over Israel and Palestine. There was almost a
parting of the ways, which had to be patched up actively. The return
of Bin Laden's family at the request of the Saudi government is I
think far more likely to have reflected the delicacy of a crucial but
fragile strategic relationship than any malfeasance on Bush's part.
Note that I'm not suggesting that there hasn't been malfeasance on the
part of Bush or his associates -- I'd be surprised if there hasn't
been -- just that it wasn't reflected in recent events.
Yes, we know that. There have been repeated cases of that -- the
Saudis fail to cooperate, and the government tells the FBI or the CIA
to lay off. A lot of people in government are upset at the constant
stonewalling of the Saudi rulers, but what's the alternative? We need
them, and we have much larger problems on our hands, e.g., Iraq or
Iran. And so we've made a strategic decision to accede to their
requests.
What does this have to do with anything? Of course the CIA trained
members of the Afghan resistance, and supported bin Laden; I remember
a lot of concern at the time over the possibility of blowback, e.g.,
Stinger missiles getting into the hands of the terrorists, but that
was the perceived necessity at the time.
>TRENTO:
>If you recruited somebody who is a member of a terrorist organisation,
>who happens to make his way here to the US, and even though you're not
>in touch with that person anymore but you have used him in the past,
>it would be unseemly if he were arrested by the FBI and word got back
>that he'd once been on the payroll of the CIA. What we're talking
>about is blow-back. What we're talking about is embarrassing,
>career-destroying blow-back for intelligence officials.
What we're talking about is speculation about motive, always a
dangerous game.
>PALAST:
>Does the Bush family also have to worry about political blow-back? The
>younger Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company
>partly funded by Salem Bin Laden's chief US representative. Young
>George also received fees as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle
>Corporation, a little known private company which has, in just a few
>years of its founding, become one of Americas biggest defence
>contractors. His father, Bush Senior, is also a paid advisor. And what
>became embarrassing was the revelation that the Bin Ladens held a
>stake in Carlyle, sold just after September 11.
What was embarassing about that?
>ELSNER:
>You have a key relationship between the Saudis and the former
>President of the US who happens to be the father of the current
>President of the US. And you have all sorts of questions about where
>does policy begin and where does good business and good profits for
>the company, Carlyle, end?
>
>PALAST:
>I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US intelligence
>agency. He tells me that while there's always been constraints on
>investigating Saudis, under George Bush it's gotten much worse. After
>the elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the
>Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents. I'm told that
>since September 11th the policy has been reversed. FBI headquarters
>told us they could not comment on our findings. A spokesman said:
>"There are lots of things that only the intelligence community knows
>and that no-one else ought to know.
And no one else does. Everything I've read here has either been widely
reported and subject to widely varying interpretation or is
speculation about motive, and the fact that it's so obviously weighted
to one set of sources and possibilities -- something no responsible
journalist would countenance in a straight news piece -- leads me to
discount it further.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
>On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:37:36 GMT, sk...@nowhere.man wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 00:32:01 GMT, Joshua P. Hill
>><josh...@snet.net.remove.this> wrote:
>
>>>America wants the region under total US domination.
>
>>Evidence?
>Provided in previous answers, plus
>included: Part Two: http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA26Ag01.html
>I had already posted this as reply to Anonymous in Pipelineistan Part
>One, apparently you hadn't read it as it answers/rebuts your primary
>'objections', and otherwise substantiates key points made in this
>article;
>Also, see: Part One: http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA25Ag01.html
>
>>>The Caspian Basin has an estimated $5 trillion of oil and gas
>>>resources, and Central Asia has 6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas
>>>and 10 billion barrels of undeveloped oil reserves. Interconnecting
>>>pipelines are the key to accessing and distributing oil and gas to
>>>European, Chinese and Russian markets.
>
>>This does not support or even have anything to do with the assertion
>>that "America wants the region under total US domination."
>
>I cannot understand on what possible basis you contest this point: I
>have already included sources for substantial verification that the
>Caspian/Central Asian reserves are keystones to American Energy Policy
>and strategic Geopolitical/economic/military plans for the region;
Skye, even if they were "keystones" (as opposed to just important -- I
think there are lots of aspects of energy policy that are more
important, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.), that would *not* be
evidence that "America wants the region under total US domination."
The second does not follow from the first *in any way.* We have every
reason to look out for our strategic and economic interests. But such
interests are rarely served by "domination" in the modern world. In
today's open economic climate, empires are far more trouble than
they're worth.
>This article is based on published facts and sources, testimony,
>logical inference and compelling circumstantial deduction
What you find "compelling circumstantial deductions" I find the
equivalent of those TV shows about "pyramid power," which is to say
your threshhold of evidence here is much too low.
>; Your
>objections and repudiations lack logical basis; Your specific
>objection here is an example of a predisposition to deny necessary and
>rational conclusions. The case for high-level organized US strategy of
>deliberate subversion and destabilization of the Middle East as part
>of an intricate plan for Imperial Hegemony can HARDLY be made more
>clearly.
You must be kidding.
This is quite a mouthful. And because some of what you say has been in
some cases true, it's hard to argue with without going into impossibly
tedious detail. But, as always, it's not a good idea to get so bogged
down in detail that one loses the forest for the trees. One runs the
risk of describing 100 grizzly murders that took place in a city in a
year, one by one, and concluding on that basis that the city is
populated by murderers. When one starts including cirucmstantial
evidence, creative scenarios, and insinuations in the mix, it becomes
fairly impossible to do anything with it.
>It's my belief, based on my life experience and long scholarship/study
>of politics/sociology/psychology/human nature/philosophy that the War
>on Terrorism is a massive hoax being perpetrated by the Bush
>Administration and other Key players to orchestrate the US being
>firmly established in Central and South Asia, in perfect position to
>control the flow of oil to China and Russia, who we are in ideological
>opposition with
That's really so far off base I can't characterize it without starting
an argument I don't want to.
>; As the concluding paragraph of the reprinted articles
>iterates:
>"There's no business like war business. Thanks to war against Iraq,
>the US has its military bases in the Persian Gulf. Thanks to war
>against Yugoslavia, the US has its military bases in Bosnia, Kosovo
>and Macedonia. Thanks to war against the Taliban, the US is now in
>Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not to mention the
>base in Incirlik, Turkey. The US is also in the Caucasus - in Georgia
>and Azerbaijan. Iran, China and Russia are practically encircled.
>There's no business like show business. Raise the curtains. Enter
>Pipelineistan. (Applause).
This is just opinion mongering! Can't you see the difference between
this sort of thing and fact?
"There's nothing like beating your wife, is there, Mr. Skye? Sort of
makes you feel good inside, doesn't it, Mr. Skye? And how did it feel,
Mr. Skye, to pick up the murder weapon -- feel the heft of the knife
in your hand, see the gleam of its razor-sharp point, the point that
would in a moment plunge into the heart of the woman who had loved
you, raised your kids, stood by you for 40 long years?"
Objection, your honor.
This is just nuts. Masterminded the disintegration of the baltic
states? There was a general consensus *years ago* that the moment Tito
died, the Yugoslav republics would be at one another's throats, as
they had been for at least a thousand years.
Anyway, I'm sorry, because I know you spent a lot of time gathering
this information but I can't bring myself to read further. It's just
too way out their on the scale of political paranoia, and there are so
many things that *really* need addressing. I spent the morning fuming
about the attempts of the corrupt and cynical Republican leadership to
bury campaign finance reform in a way that would prevent them from
having to take responsibility for it, by, forex, passing amendments
that ostensibly strengthened the bill when in fact their real purpose
was to throw the bill back into the Senate and obtain a year's delay.
I was repelled by Bush's use of the war in a below-the-belt campaign
ad. I read that some people were saying Ashcroft should have removed
himself from the obscene Microsoft deal because he'd received a
campaign contribution from them. And I worried, as I had every day
since the 11th and some days before that, how civilization would
survive the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by ever-smaller
and nuttier countries and groups.
God knows, there are enough wrongs and we have enough problems! The
creation of ideological fantasy-scenarios just detracts our attention
from these real problems, and muddles our thinking to the point where
we can't address them in a meaningful way.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
Joe sat on the board of directors of Samco which had business dealings
with Boobalania and the Mossad assassinated Frupu the military attache
of the Boobalanian opposition and Salieri poisoned Mozart . . .
"Believes they were likely known to the CIA?" Skye, this isn't
evidence, it's a draft for a screenplay!
Josh
sk...@nowhere.man
>>America has repudiated every agreement that contradicts the War on
>>Terror,
>I'm not sure which agreements you're referring to . . . ?
"AGREEMENTS" with our allies, neighbors, trading partners, enemies,
and International bodies of law, trade, finance, diplomacy, etc.,
which either prohibit illegal wars, regulate National acts of
aggression, insure peace between nations, declare the Nation as
intending to abide by Treaties of cooperation and/or peace, respect
the principles of the United Nations, endorse the World Court as an
International forum for the arbitration of conflict and disagreement,
prserve the Principle of harmony and peace between peoples of the
planet; and so forth, For instance. The US military action in
Afghanistan is illegal according to protocols/treaties we are
signatories to; The "War on Terrorism" is a unilateral act that we
coerced our allies into tacitly accomodating. Well, our allies are
speaking ou quite vocally about our 'high-handedness' and declared
intent to act against Iraq, and they are NOT recognizing the principle
that the US can act as it wills because it has the capability and
desire; This is VERY inconscionable; In that it is MY contention, as
well as many people who have availed themselves of published,
documented information, that the US, especially during the past 20
years, has been engaged in violent manipulative interventionism around
the world, fomenting rebellion, discord, social disorganization, and
chaos, preventing unity and democratic reform movements, in order to
insure its unofficial and covert policies of securing
uncompetitive/protected/exclusive access to resources/markets for US
corporations; This is NOT a benign or benevolent or enlightened form
of 'capilalism' which you apparently think it is--it is ruthless,
brutal and entirely self-serving narrow American/Corporate interests;
To a large extent, the US has been responsible, directly and
indirectly, for creating the climate of Terrorism that we are NOW
using as rationale to aggressively pursue our Militant foreign policy
interests; American citizens, for all their flag-waving liberty and
freedom, have been duped into going along because they aren't willing
to search for the Truth behind the 'stories'; About three years ago, I
had an acquaintence staying at me for a couple of months, this fella
had worked in the late 80's and early 90's as a machinist/engineer,
making plutonium bomb triggers on DoD subcontract; A very talented
machine-tool operator/programmer, but kinda foolish in some ways too;
The company he worked for skimped on safety regulations, didn't have
appropriate air-filtration or safety standards to keep the workplace
'clean' and safe; It turns out, all the tool-operators got
contaminated with uranium or plutonium dust, and most if not developed
cancers; My acquaintance had a lung removed, but he's still sick;
Anyway, he was looking for work, I helped him write a resume, and he
was interviewed by a company based near a military base outside of Las
Vegas (or Reno, I don't remember which); Turns out, they (the company)
really tried to woo him, nice hotel, airfare, meals, a $500 hooker (he
said he declined), gambling chips; The 'company' (he said it was like
a civilian deal with shadow military oversight, crew-cut 'FBI or CIA
type guys' in the main office, they were looking for qualified
machine- tool-operators to help design biological land-mines, they
needed a 'prototype' to float before DoD; He acted polite and all, but
hangin' with me he had become 'infected' with my peace-conspiracy
attitudes, and he declined the 'offer' they made him, would have hired
him on-the-spot at something like 70 K per and moving/living
allowance, car, perks; So like, who ARE these people, making
bio-landmines? Bush keeps talking about countries seeking 'weapons of
mass destruction', think of the godamned hypocrisy! WE'VE dropped more
'weapons of mass destruction' in the last 20 years than the rest of
the world put together, forever!!@! A B52 making an air-drop is
dropping, what else?-Weapons of 'mass destruction'; PLUS, it's a
weapon of TERROR too! Call a spade a spade . . .
I still have hope that you will use your sharp intellect to question
the 'reality' of what you are told through the mainstream
corporate-financed media and one day realize that things are NOT as
they appear; You're much too smart to not see through the cover for
the Imperialist agenda the US policy engineers have erected to
'legitimize' and 'rationalize' the things that are done on behalf of
US citizens; If more people knew the truth they'd realize how
pervasively the US ambition for control and domination has created the
situation of unrest, fear and terror the world is now in; It's the
same attitude of aggression that third-world colonialist-exploited
countries and Native Americans have come to 'see' as the poison that
only uses 'liberty' as a smokescreen; But regardless of what you and I
happen to believe, world events will play themselves out; I have faith
that in the long-run, the Truth will prevail and the
power-broker-moguls will be brought low, and THEN perhaps we can work
together to create a world of peace and true prosperity for all, NOT
just the Defense Industry and corrupt politicians and Big Business and
Special interests; What we see now, with Enron and Global Crossing, is
NOT capitalism, it's corruption at the highest level, bipartisan
"business as usual" quid-pro-quo;
>I have nothing against justified criticism of American meddling or
>high-handedness, but -- where's this American "empire" I keep hearing
>about? We've had empires aplenty throughout the ages, and it seems to
>me that they were rather obvious beasties . . .
>
>>Seen within this broad framework, Enron's activities are not only
>>inherent manifestations of the ruling order, but official policy.
>Nonsense.
>>Enron at Home: Extortion and Racketeering for Bush and Gang
>>While media coverage and congressional inquiries have dwelled on the
>>fraud, accounting irregularities, swindled mutual fund managers and
>>stock jockeys, and ripped off pension fund owners, the most sinister
>>aspects of Enron's operations remain cloaked.
>>Through manipulation of energy distribution, Enron was effective in
>>subverting and controlling the politics and pocketbooks of entire
>>populations within the US and overseas.
>>One of Enron's first acts on behalf of the present Bush administration
>>was the manipulation of the California energy grid, which essentially
>>blackmailed the state.
>
>I confess to being fairly unimpressed. I mean, I don't need convincing
>that many businessmen are sleazy, or that government is corrupted by
>campaign contributions, or that countries have concentrated and
>powerful elites, or that favors get done. But what else is new? The
>advantage of capitalism is that it *minimizes* these factors or turns
>them to the common good compared to other systems.
>
>Anyway, what I think we have here is some everyday sleaze, and an
>everyday scandal, pumped up by strange insinuations and the
>smoke-and-mirrors multiplicity of charges into something far worse
>than it actually is.
>
>And I think the best way to see beyond the smoke and mirrors is to
>look at the large picture. Rough and ready capitalism is the best hope
>of the third world to advance to prosperity and a relatively
>democratic, humane society, just as it was the best hope for the
>people of the now industrial world. Competition and democracy are far
>better weapons against greed and funny business than socialism or
>royalism or theocracy or any of the other systems I've seen, which end
>up giving far more power and unaccountability to the elite than
>capitalism ever did.
>
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/4/wilentz-s.html
The American Prospect
A Scandal for our Time:
Republicans ruled; ergo, Enron.
Sean Wilentz
The Enron affair is shaping up as quite possibly the largest political
and financial scandal in American history. Untold billions of dollars
have vanished down the drain in the biggest bankruptcy filing ever.
Political connections ensnare every level of the Bush administration.
Even more fearsomely than in the past, Americans will learn some hard
lessons: that business corrupts politics, that capitalism cannot be
trusted simply to the capitalists, and that without government
safeguards, the public trust and the public treasury are always at
grave risk.
Enron dwarfs the momentous insider infamies of the Gilded Age and the
Jazz Age. But it is also special for other historical reasons. It
signals a crisis in modern conservative thinking and politics -- a
crisis that has less to do with bad character than it does with
scandalously bad federal policy. Enron is the belated culmination of
the age of Ronald Reagan, George Bush the elder, and Newt Gingrich. It
stands as a monument to the era of deregulation and laissez-faire
business politics that has endured for more than 20 years.
There were early signals that such a debacle lay ahead. Above all, the
savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s, including the Keating Five
affair, exposed far-reaching trails of graft. But Enron looms as the
Big Kahuna, the tsunami of modern corruption scandals. At its root are
the neo-robber-baron politics and mentality that the Reaganites
ushered in, the Gingrichites expanded, and the George W. Bush
administration now advances so smugly and dogmatically.
From the advent of the New Deal until the 1980s, no such grand
financial-and-political-corruption scandal took place, on either
party's watch. That was partly because regulations were adopted,
beginning in the 1930s, to prevent such corruption. The
Reagan-Bush-Gingrich counterrevolution severely undermined those
protections. A new way of thinking about business morality -- or
rather, a very old way -- took over.
The Gilded Age, "public be damned," caveat-emptor spirit of Commodore
Vanderbilt came back from the dead, reincarnated as a self-evident,
all-American truth. Indeed, the Enron saga exemplifies "the genius of
capitalism," Bush II Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill recently
proclaimed.
Republicans ruled. Ergo, Enron.
The real "genius of capitalism," history shows us, flourishes under
the light of regulatory oversight; corruption gathers in the shadows,
when government turns its back. The Enron matter looks in some
respects like a throwback to the early industrial era, before
regulatory safeguards took shape. But in degree if not in kind, Enron
-- and de-regulation -- are new, and far more damaging.
Surely, Enron is not as simple as the sordid business machinations
that famously beset the administration of Ulysses Grant in the
nineteenth century. As the nation began to industrialize heavily,
stockholders in the Union Pacific Railroad formed a venture called
Crédit Mobilier of America, gave it contracts to build the railroad,
and then sold or gave influential congressmen Crédit Mobilier shares.
When the congressmen helped themselves by voting federal subsidies for
railroad construction, with no checks on costs, the Union Pacific
plotters made profits to the tune of a then-incredible $23 million.
And there were other scandals in the offing. In 1875 it was discovered
that whiskey distillers had been able to retain money collected as tax
revenue by bribing various government officials, who in turn used the
bribes to finance political activities and silence snooping
journalists. A year later, Secretary of War W.W. Belknap was caught
taking illicit payments from traders at government Indian posts.
These Gilded Age scandals look fairly primitive today, befitting the
relative simplicity of that era's corporate economy. Corruption back
then consisted of blatant bribery schemes by which businessmen, large
and small, gained public favors. Much more sophisticated were the
scandals of the 1920s, under President Warren Harding and his
so-called Ohio Gang. The famous Teapot Dome affair of that period
reflected the growth of both business and government throughout a
period of high industrialism. During Theodore Roosevelt's presidency,
reserves of natural petroleum (or "domes") located on public land in
California and Wyoming were set aside for exclusive use by the U.S.
Navy. Big oil companies, eager to sell their own reserves to the
government, naturally opposed the program.
In 1921, Harding appointed one of the most zealous pro-oil
legislators, Senator Albert B. Fall of New Mexico, as his interior
secretary. Fall persuaded the Navy Department to hand him
administrative power over the reserves. Then, in return for gifts and
loans totaling about $400,000, he secretly leased Teapot Dome in
Wyoming to the Mammoth Oil Company and the Elk Hills reserve in
California to the Pan-American Petroleum and Transport Company.
Although Fall had made the lease deals so complicated that they
could be defended legally, and although he had powerful friends in the
administration, he eventually was jailed for a year and fined
$100,000. One oil magnate, Harry F. Sinclair, was jailed briefly on a
technicality, but otherwise Mammoth and Pan-American officials escaped
punishment.
Political corruption hardly ended with the Harding administration. It
remained especially hale in local politics, where organized crime
milked old political machines undermined by the advent of the New
Deal. Strikingly, however, efforts at systematic federal-level bribery
and corruption declined between the 1920s and the 1960s. This shift
can be credited largely to the regulatory efforts of the 1930s, begun
in response to the stock-market crash and ensuing Great Depression.
Not least significant was the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
established in 1934. The new agency had the power to regulate
exchanges, brokers, and over-the-counter markets as well as to keep
track of company financial disclosures. Within a year of its founding,
the SEC also gained substantial power to regulate public-utility rates
and financial practices. It would no longer be possible to own
fraudulently intertwined utilities through holding companies. Stock
manipulations of the sort that had been the mainspring of both
political corruption and financial panics would now be far more
difficult to execute.
Thence began what looks, in retrospect, like a long golden age. With
some relatively minor exceptions under Harry Truman and Dwight
Eisenhower, the period from the advent of the New Deal to the advent
of the Great Society was remarkably scandal-free at the federal level.
And when, in 1964, concerns about alleged influence-peddling arose
around Robert G. ("Bobby") Baker, a longtime aide to Lyndon Johnson
and the Senate majority leader's secretary at the time, both the House
and the Senate undertook historic campaigns against corruption. In
both houses, select committees on standards and conduct were
established to monitor strict ethics codes for members. The Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (subsequently strengthened after
Watergate), the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, and the Ethics
in Government Act of 1978 established strict guidelines for financial
disclosure by federal officials, forbade payments by American
companies to foreign officials, and closed loopholes in previous
public-ethics codes.
To be sure, even the most vigilant efforts could not wipe out greed
and venality in Washington. Richard Nixon got mixed up in corruption
scandals involving International Telephone and Telegraph and the dairy
lobby. In the so-called Koreagate scandal of 1976-1978, dozens of
congressmen were found to be on the take from the South Korean
government, with relatively little political consequence. The Abscam
sting operation at the end of the Carter years netted numerous federal
officials willing to take money in exchange for favors from
immigration officials. But as unsavory as these scandals
were, they concerned relatively trivial amounts of cash and influence,
and they did not involve any structural changes to the law, political
culture, or economy.
The deregulating, go-go Reagan-Bush years were different. A new
pattern of heavily deregulated industries brought with it new and
bigger scandals. In the Wedtech affair of 1986-1989, bribes from a
military contractor led to the conviction of two members of Congress
and many less prominent figures on charges ranging from racketeering
to perjury. Even more memorable was the monumental savings-and-loan
crisis of the late 1980s -- a direct result of such vast and
aggressive deregulation of the nation's savings institutions
that S&L operators like the notorious Charles Keating were able to
lend themselves money. With total government bailouts amounting to an
estimated $1.4 trillion, the S&L scandal may well be the largest
single theft in world history.
The savings-and-loan fiasco undermined public support for George H.W.
Bush and probably helped pave the way for Bill Clinton's election.
Thereafter, Republicans tried hard to deflect the blame for the S&L
matter onto Clinton, confecting what turned out to be a fake scandal
called Whitewater and tying it to a failed S&L. Whitewater, with its
phony charges, endless subpoenas, and media hype became the model for
a whole string of trumped-up scandals during the Clinton years,
culminating with Kenneth Starr's perjury trap concerning Monica
Lewinsky.
The Enron affair, however, is the real thing. Little more than a
pipeline company in the 1980s, the Enron Corporation flourished in a
new postindustrial economy, growing immense in the 1990s by evading
the checks and balances built for another age. Like the S&L crisis,
the Enron affair is a direct product of deregulation -- not so much
from the Reagan-Bush years but from the period of Republican
congressional control under Newt Gingrich after 1994. With Gingrich as
their fire-eater, congressional Republicans and their K Street
bankrollers mounted huge resistance to the regulatory efforts
of the Clinton administration, as well as to the existing regulatory
rule-books. Kenneth Lay and Enron lobbyists were particularly
aggressive.
They sought to gain political influence, largely with Republicans in
Texas and in Washington, D.C., in order to alter regulations and gain
exemptions so that Enron could operate in a completely deregulated
zone.
"Deregulation" and "free market" were mantras for both the Gingrich
Republicans and Enron. But their talk of freedom was highly
misleading. The Gingrich Republicans were not interested in creating
some fanciful, pristine, abstract "free market." Such a "free market"
has never existed and never will. Rather, through intensive government
efforts, they sought to create new market rules that were favorable to
Enron and a host of other influential corporations. The so-called free
market that resulted was no state of nature. It was a highly-crafted
artifice, coolly manufactured on K Street and on Capitol Hill by the
Republican Congress -- and in Enron's case, with the help of Kenneth
Lay's close friend, the new governor of Texas, George W. Bush.
Only one force stood between the Gingrich Republicans and total
success: the Clinton White House and the Democrats. Clinton, to be
sure, recognized the need to reform old regulatory rules and other
laws in accordance with changed economic realities. And the Democrats
had plenty of their own connections to K Street. But Clinton and the
vast majority of his party also realized that radical deregulation of
the sort Gingrich advocated could spell disaster. And now, in the
Enron crisis, the disaster has unfolded.
Consider, first, the Enron employees and stockholders, who are the
scheme's most obvious victims. In 1997, California Democrat Barbara
Boxer pushed a Senate bill restricting 401(k) retirement accounts that
would have prevented or at least mitigated the disaster that hit
Enron's innocent holders. But that would have been regulation; so the
Republican free-marketeers and business lobbyists watered down the
bill to the point where it protected almost nobody.
Second, consider Enron's shenanigans with its auditing firm, Arthur
Andersen. In the late 1990s, then-SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, Jr.,
tried to banish such cozy connections between auditors and the
companies they audited. But that would have been regulation; so the
accounting lobby defeated Levitt's efforts. And the current President
Bush did the lobbyists one better: He appointed the leader of the
anti-Levitt effort, Andersen lawyer Harvey Pitt, as Levitt's successor
at the SEC.
Third, consider the matter of tax shelters, such as the labyrinth of
offshore hideouts where Enron placed about one-third of its assets in
order to conceal its losses. President Clinton's treasury secretary,
Lawrence Summers, tried to put a stop to that practice, but that would
have been regulation; so congressional Republicans beat him back.
Current Treasury Secretary O'Neill has obstructed even modest efforts
by intergovernmental agencies to monitor the tax-shelter scams.
Fourth, consider the energy-derivative schemes -- obscure financial
arrangements so new that they escaped regulation completely. In 1997,
Clinton administration officials proposed more-exacting disclosure of
energy derivatives. But again, that would have been regulation; and so
Enron, with the help of congressional Republicans led by House
Financial Services Committee Chairman Jim Leach of Iowa, put a stop to
the reformist nonsense.
Measured strictly in dollar amounts, Enron might seem to be a smaller
scandal than the savings-and-loan collapse. But in terms of public
pain and political fallout, its impact could be much greater. The
federal government did, after all, eventually bail out the S&Ls,
making up for the fraud with taxpayers' dollars -- although the delay
in its response vastly increased the damage to the federal treasury.
By contrast, there seems to be, as yet, no way for the defrauded Enron
investors -- including the hundreds of employees with now worthless
401(k) plans -- to recover their life savings from Kenneth Lay,
Jeffrey Skilling, and the other Enron executives who looted the firm.
Politically, the Enron fallout is potentially far more damaging than
that generated by the S&L controversy that preceded it. The
savings-and-loan crisis implicated some on Capitol Hill, most famously
Alan Cranston, John McCain, and the other senators who had had links
to the fabulously corrupt S&L owner Charles Keating. But Enron raises
even deeper and more disturbing political issues than the standard
scandal story-lines about who paid what to whom for what.
George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency largely on the character
issue, as though character were purely a personal matter. But
character is not just personal. Regardless of whether Bush himself is
unblemished in the usual way of taking bribes or pushing graft, the
Enron scandal testifies to the character of his politics and beliefs.
It also testifies to those of the modern Republican Party.
Enron shows us what happens when tiny groups of corporate special
interests manipulate government to their own benefit; when matters of
corporate governance are left entirely to the corporations; and when a
company's treatment of its employees is considered a purely private
matter.
One of the more curious revelations since the Enron scandal erupted
has been that President Bush, at the urging of his political adviser
Karl Rove, has read a new best-selling biography of Theodore Roosevelt
-- a biography that, as it happens, single-mindedly minimizes TR's
progressive side. Yet one wonders what Bush makes of TR's attacks on
what he called the "malefactors of great wealth," of TR's implacable
anger at the early reactionary politics that led to scandal after
scandal, and of his trail blazing for the emerging progressive era
that culminated in the New Deal.
Maybe the president just skips those parts.
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of
which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I
am making such material available in an effort to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.
"This is not a monarchy.... We've got a dictatorial President and a
Justice
Department that does not want Congress involved.... Your guy's acting
like he's king."
--Congressman Dan Burton, referring to George W. Bush
"It's more difficult to seem bipartisan after the Daschle memo."
---Frank Luntz: GOP pollster and propaganda producer
Peace;
Regrdz;
fwd//skye
2.14.2002
Joshua P. Hill
>josh wrote:
>
>>>America has repudiated every agreement that contradicts the War on
>>>Terror,
>
>>I'm not sure which agreements you're referring to . . . ?
>
>"AGREEMENTS" with our allies, neighbors, trading partners, enemies,
>and International bodies of law, trade, finance, diplomacy, etc.,
>which either prohibit illegal wars, regulate National acts of
>aggression, insure peace between nations, declare the Nation as
>intending to abide by Treaties of cooperation and/or peace, respect
>the principles of the United Nations, endorse the World Court as an
>International forum for the arbitration of conflict and disagreement,
>prserve the Principle of harmony and peace between peoples of the
>planet; and so forth, For instance. The US military action in
>Afghanistan is illegal according to protocols/treaties we are
>signatories to; The "War on Terrorism" is a unilateral act that we
>coerced our allies into tacitly accomodating.
?
There is no law whatsoever that says our military action in
Afghanistan is illegal, or that a nation has to consult with *anybody*
to engage in a war of self defense. We did of course formally notify
the Security Council we planned to take military action (of course,
since we have a veto on the Security Council, we can do whatever we
want).
And the "war on terrorism" was decided on in surprisingly close
consultation with key allies, particularly Tony Blair, whose advice
Bush solicited very early on.
> Well, our allies are
>speaking ou quite vocally about our 'high-handedness' and declared
>intent to act against Iraq, and they are NOT recognizing the principle
>that the US can act as it wills because it has the capability and
>desire;
Not really. A few are making noises because of self interest, e.g.,
Turkey said something today because they're afraid chaos in the
Kurdish part of Iraq might reignite the indepence movement among their
own Kurds, and Russia, which has long-standing financial interests in
Iraq, wants to make sure it gets repaid. And of course the Arab
countries are concerned about public opinion, the stability of the
region, a counterbalance to Iran, etc. But there has been no major
outcry.
So not only do we violate major treaties to which we're signatories,
we tell prospective machinists that they'll be violating those
treaties?
Sorry, Skye, but you've been had.
> they
>needed a 'prototype' to float before DoD; He acted polite and all, but
>hangin' with me he had become 'infected' with my peace-conspiracy
>attitudes, and he declined the 'offer' they made him, would have hired
>him on-the-spot at something like 70 K per and moving/living
>allowance, car, perks; So like, who ARE these people, making
>bio-landmines? Bush keeps talking about countries seeking 'weapons of
>mass destruction', think of the godamned hypocrisy! WE'VE dropped more
>'weapons of mass destruction' in the last 20 years than the rest of
>the world put together, forever!!@! A B52 making an air-drop is
>dropping, what else?-Weapons of 'mass destruction'; PLUS, it's a
>weapon of TERROR too! Call a spade a spade . . .
The issue has never been a ban on weapons of mass destruction, which
is impossible, but keeping them out of the hands of terrorists and
fruitcakes, and preventing proliferation. The logic for doing so is
purely elementary.
As to ostensible weapons of terror, calling a sheep a dog does not
make it so.
>I still have hope that you will use your sharp intellect to question
>the 'reality' of what you are told through the mainstream
>corporate-financed media and one day realize that things are NOT as
>they appear; You're much too smart to not see through the cover for
>the Imperialist agenda
Skye, I'd say the same thing of you! You might begin by asking where
our empire is. Arguments that rely on calling something something else
-- an empire, terrorism, what have you -- are one of the main tools of
tyranny. Going after someone who blows up your buildings is *not* the
same as blowing up buildings, and no amount of stretching will *make*
it the same.
> the US policy engineers have erected to
>'legitimize' and 'rationalize' the things that are done on behalf of
>US citizens; If more people knew the truth they'd realize how
>pervasively the US ambition for control and domination has created the
>situation of unrest, fear and terror the world is now in; It's the
>same attitude of aggression that third-world colonialist-exploited
>countries and Native Americans have come to 'see' as the poison that
>only uses 'liberty' as a smokescreen;
Protestations of moral superiority from countries that are obscenely
brutal and repressive don't impress me. Nor do complaints about events
that happened before anyone alive was born, particularly when those
who make those complaints always seem to *completely ignore* the
Native Americans tribes that are being eradicated *today* in their
beloved third world, the blacks that are being enslaved *today* in
their beloved third world, and so on.
The simple and sorry truth of the matter is that when the governments
of poor nations stop stealing and exploiting their citizens to a
reasonable degree and let first world countries build factories, they
enjoy incredibly fast growth and become first world countries
themselves. It's happened in the US, in Western Europe, Japan, Taiwan,
South Korea, Singapore. It's happening in China and Mexico and much of
Eastern Europe, and it's about to happen in Russia The countries
whose kings/dictators/priests/potty plumbers run things for their own
benefit -- most of them -- or for the benefit of nutcase revolutionary
ideologies -- Iran, North Korea, Taliban-dominated Afghanistan, Cuba,
etc. -- remain impoverished.
> But regardless of what you and I
>happen to believe, world events will play themselves out; I have faith
>that in the long-run, the Truth will prevail and the
>power-broker-moguls will be brought low, and THEN perhaps we can work
>together to create a world of peace and true prosperity for all, NOT
>just the Defense Industry and corrupt politicians and Big Business and
>Special interests; What we see now, with Enron and Global Crossing, is
>NOT capitalism, it's corruption at the highest level, bipartisan
>"business as usual" quid-pro-quo;
You're right, it's not capitalism. If it were, capitalism wouldn't do
anybody any good, because shell-game companies that go bankrupt don't
create wealth, they waste it.
Fortunately, having a burglar on your block doesn't mean everybody on
your block is a burglar.
>A Scandal for our Time:
>Republicans ruled; ergo, Enron.
>Sean Wilentz
I could quibble, but I agree with most of what he says.
Josh