download latest war games here:

http://www.shareware123.com/games/strategy_war/

Lberra,

Today it is those who believe the 9/11 commission who are "out there."

What it does not take to defend this country is starting wars with a nation that did not attack the U.S.

What it does not take is not responding to multiple warnings from friend and foe alike.

What it does not take to defend this country is a criminal administration spying on Americans, torturing the "enemy," subverting science, distorting the news, pushing superstition, creating phony legislation, robbing the treasury, therefore all taxpayers, stealing elections, and forcing the concept down Americans throats that checks and balances do not matter, the rule of law does not matter, and finally that freedom is the freedom to make legal purchases.

In short, the U.S. has an administration that has no respect for the people or the law. This alone should condemn them in the minds of freedom loving people everywhere.

Just read the rant posted by (Once more for the road)A larger collection of mis-statements and unwaranted assumptions I have never seen in one post. I suspect this writer has what passes for the modern equvalent of an education. ("Don't bother to see where the road leads just take it and drive fast.") One of my Uncles had a saying that sort of covered this. (" He always said you can send an idiot to college but all you will get is an educated idiot") Before making statements and alegations about the President or anyone else for that matter one should check the facts.

Mr. Arkin has crossed the line several times in his articles. The line being between good judgement and good analysis. Mr. Arkin shows his bias by the way he always prefaces his comments about the war on terror by calling it the so-called war on terror. Mr. Arkin while refering to himself as a former Army inteligence analyst conveniently leaves out any inteligence that dis-agrees with his pre-concieved theory's. Perhaps that is one of the reason's why he is a former inteligence analyst! (" I wonder what those planes found in the Iraq desert were for? perhaps to train people to hi-jack planes for peaceful purposes.")I for one would hate to depend on his ability's as an analyst to protect us from the next attack. That attack will be atteampted if not actually carried out. I'm sure Mr. Arkin will have more excuses for the ones who attack and criticism for those who try to stop them before they do so. In Mr. Arkins world their is no evil that threaten's America. It's all in the heads of the conservatives. We have to have a threat to justify our existance.

There is no excuse for unauthorized disclosures of classified information, it is argued, because whistleblowers who have legitimate complaints about classified government misconduct can use official channels to convey those concerns on a classified basis.

But as a practical matter, those channels are often blocked or ineffectual.

That is what former National Security Agency employee Russell D. Tice discovered when he attempted to initiate contact with the Senate and House Intelligence Committees to report what he believed to be "probable illegal conduct" by the NSA.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) did not respond to Mr. Tice's approach at all.

House Intelligence Committee staffers met with Mr. Tice but concluded that neither they nor any member of the Committee had the requisite security clearances to receive his complaint. (so who does?)

And by the way....
In the security policy equivalent of shutting down the government, the Defense Security Service announced Friday that it would no longer process applications from industry for new security clearances or reinvestigations of existing clearances.

"Owing to the overwhelming volume of requests for industry personnel security investigations and funding constraints, the Defense Security Service has discontinued accepting industry requests for new personnel security clearances and periodic reinvestigations effective immediately and until further notice," DSS said in an "urgent notice" sent to cleared contractor organizations on April 28.

Three thousand new applications for security clearances have already been put on hold, the Washington Post reported on April 29.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2006/05/050106.html

So, to summerize the government (senators, congressman) cannot hear compliants of treason, high crimes, etc. because they don't have security clearances. And they cannot get security clearances because the government (NSA) will not issue them.

Wake up before it's too late.....

But then again, I guess there is no conspiracy here, just a bunch of coincidental breaches of government and public responsibility.

We must take to the streets and take it back before it's too late.

the reality is Mr. Daen that:

REMEMBER the current fiasco/regime STARTED?

probably not, it was actually more than a few years ago.

key player:
Bush Sr. is the former head of CIA, Congressman before that, Vice President, then President...probably more than 30 years of his life making connections...


George H.W. Bush Sr.:
sent April Gillespie to Iraq, who with a nod and a wink told Saddam that his border dispute with Kuwait was an internal matter. I think Saddam was suckered into invading because the US needed a new enemy after the collapse of the soviet union....


Saddam invades Kuwait, we now have an official reason to be there....
looks like we'll establish a presence in Kuwait, we already have one in Saudi...our CIA trains them...CIA trained the 9/11 pilots.

Saudi Royals was given the rights to Saudi Arabia by the Brits after WWII, the Royals were put into power...

who owns the ports on US soil? the Brits...who's supporting us in Iraq?

Protecting the Kuwaiti's:
We go into Iraq with Stormin Norman....and kill a couple of 100 thousand Iraqis and

stop short of Bagdhad....you know why, WE'RE GOING BACK...that's why we stopped...


and now that we occupy, are embedded in Kuwait,
we put the country of Iraq in stasis with embargoes until we need it........or the world economy is shifting and things are ripe....China Pakistan, and India are emerging...

THEN, the family needed to intervene....in this case the international riche, which includes the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and the US Affluent that stand to make a bit of cash....mind you the Germans, English and French have their hands in this...but your buddy dubya, is the gawdfathers only visible son....unless you need the state militia called to keep Terry Schiavo from being unhooked...as a grandstanding event...


so we intervene on national television...bombs going off, constant coverage, city surrounded, surveillance on every living thing that's bigger than a booger..


and somehow, miracle of miracles, like the virgin mary turning up on your french toast:
Saddam escapes from Bagdhad with three tractor trailer loads of cash, $9 BILLION$ in CASH right? Anyone in dubyas extended family gotten riche lately?

the museums were emptied right? ha ha ha...that's rich.

as far as conspiracy goes,

there never was a CIA/NORIEGA/BUSH Sr. connection right? and the Chilean president wasn't asassinated in DC with full CIA knowledge, and where'd that white up George W. Bushes nose come from? Panama?

the thing of it is,
the United States suckered, under George H.W. Bush, Saddam Hussein into attacking Kuwait, so we could be the "heroes", and become military occupiers...to lead us to this point....


walking down the road with no impetus to replacing our dependence on oil, a non-renewable resource....because it's not to the benefit of the countries leaders

this has a lot to do with _families_ working together _not related by blood_, as well as politics that don't include you as a positive recipient of thier efforts, as well as...

helping you to understand that it isn't all cowboy hats and honesty leading you...

Saddam was deliberately mislead into attacking Kuwiat, by President George H.W. Bush, we indicated that we would look the other way if Saddam wanted to reacquire some land and oil wells that he thought the Kuwiatis had taken.....so we would have an excuse to extend our influence.

did we tell Saddam Hussein the truth?

no.

it wasn't to our advantage.

the bushes intimately understand the middle eastern tribe mentality, they have trbal mentality, they protect and work with their own....they use the government to get what they want for their tribe

ps. you're not included in their tribe....

morons in charge and morons voted them in...using demagoguery as a political tool needs to be exposed....predjudice as a tool.

you want a better country quit pandering to morons and pandering to hate.....

the point of it is, the bush family, is trying to bury some information that needs to be understood

the ultimate threat to this country is people that can write but can't think or see...or don't want you to.

I would suggest that those who would use thier governmental office for personal gain at the expense of the citizens lose thier citizenship, and be charged with treason and their properties confiscated....

intimidation as control shouldn't be tolerated....
read the bill of rights, the right to bear arms was specifically inserted into the Bill of Rights to prevent the United States from being taken over from within, which is what what is happening now....

that's the point, a dictatorship and a congress that takes advantage of citizens, doesn't deserve to serve....

tom delay: violated his oath of office twice and not a single member of congress has the oats to call him on it....cowards or fellow crooks?

who needs to look for leaks when anyone with two eyes can see a pattern...of deceit and corruption.

In the monarchical minds of Republicans, George Bush = United States. Therefore anything that diminishes his job security diminishes national security.

Meanwhile, when Sens. Pat Roberts and Orrin Hatch blabber genuinely classified material so that they can posture, or when Scooter Libby and others leak classified material for political gain, no harm to national security has been done.

It all makes sense if one is sufficiently confused.

Charles of Mercury Rising
http://www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

Archimedes:

staying the course, however you define that,
in Afghanistan would not have been sufficient
to defeat violent Islamism.

Perhaps not, but it would have been more effective than shifting the focus to Iraq.

The various opposition sects that exist counter
to the current American foreign policy direction
share at least one common quality, that of a lack
of viable alternatives given a modern and dynamic
international environment.

In other words the invasion and occupation of Iraq that this administration, by choice, put into motion 4 years ago has created an "environment" that has overstretched our military, increased our enemies, and decimated our allies around the world and so left us without many "viable alternatives".

I still also maintain that with the events of 9/11,
the US did not have any "good" options in combating
violent Islamsim and that yes, Bush picked the best
of the worst in invading Afghanistan and ultimately Iraq.

I still don't see why you see the invasion of Iraq as a good "option" for fighting Islamist terror. It is not true, as it was with Afghanistan, that this was a base operations for those people.

And the arguments the administration used to somehow link Iraq to terrorists seem to be the weakest part of the case. All the attempts to imply, without saying, that Saddam was involved in 9/11, the bogus claims about WND coupled with the implausible that suggestion that if Iraq did get them it would hand them right off Islamic terrorists -- what a strange idea.

The problem is that terrorism is a tactic of the weak
and as such you must address the people who use
terrorism to achieve the goals. I

The invasion of Iraq with too few troops to secure the country has both made Arabs feel weak and also given ordinary Sunni Arabs, who would not be capable of moving here and forming sleeper cells, a way to actually fight us with some chance of success. This operation is more of an al Qaeda training camp and requiting drive than a way to "address" the causes of terror.

In the current case, the desires of Bin Laden and
his ilk are not something the West or America
can grant him, in whole or in part.

At the start that might have been tore, but now that we have grabbed hold of the Iraqi tar baby bin Laden can frame his demand in terms of "Crusaders Go Home" and present a picture easy to explain to any Moslem who feels hopeless and powerless.

If you have ever tried to reason with a Falwell disciple
you know that reason and logical debate are of no use
in dealing with people like this. Thus there are limited
options in dealing with this problem, none of which are
particularly desirable in that the possibilities of blowback
are destructive and negative with regard to the interests
of the US.

That is true enough, but it is a good argument as to why electing to launch a major military adventure in Iraq was a uniquely undesirable and counter productive "option".

www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info
www.wsws.org
otherside123.blogspot.com

THE BIG LIE!!!!!!!!!!

"Flight 93" the movie, why?

By Jerry Mazza

Why would anyone make a 9/11 movie based on a number of cell and air phone calls that might have been scientifically impossible on September 11, 2001, simply because the technology couldn't handle calls of that distance, six to seven miles up.

Well, they made Flight 93 because the calls were used as spin-evidence that a band of brave Americans fought off a smaller vicious band of terrorists, when in fact the entire event is surrounded in a mire of questions? Like the once-quarried bog that supposedly swallowed Flight 93's 757 in a grassy field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, leaving a smoking hole, grave deep, some 20 by 10 feet wide, and little else.

But maybe the "why" can be answered in part by "who" made Flight 93. It arrived packaged and promoted by Universal Studios, which is owned by NBC Universal, which also owns NBC, which is all owned by General Electric, media giant and major weapons contractor. What's more according to la.indymedia.org, General Electric donated $1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election "run." MSNBC is an NBC joint venture with MS or Microsoft that kicked in $2.4 million to get GW Bush elected. Now, where do you think the movie's point of view is coming from?

Also, Flight 93's patriotic spin landed before the sentencing of Zaccharias Moussaoui, who has been thrust in the role of scapegoat for the entire 9/11 debacle, even though he was in jail at the time. So we have a little multi-media propaganda to stir up the jury and America's misguided rage. There are no accidents in the world of US government spin.

Flight 93 the movie also lands in the middle of Robert DeNiro's prestigious Tribeca Film Festival although its hangar is the uptown 1,000 seat Ambassador Theater. Spare no expense. Has DeNiro the once Raging Bull turned into one of the corporate Goodfellas? Or doesn't he read books or surf the web?

Was it love for New York and hate of the 9/11 event blinding him to see who really sat behind the controls of the whole op? Hey, Bobby, we love you, but wise up. You're traveling with bad faces. This gang makes the Mulberry Street guys look like Boy Scouts.

In all fairness, I realize DeNiro holds an honest commitment to Independent film-making (though this is hardly an Indy). And he has a deep commitment to Tribeca and New York, in which he lives, has his Film Center and Tribeca Grille. After 9/11 he kept it open as long as possible to preserve jobs, even though the area was devastated by the attack. As soon as he could, he reopened the expensive restaurant. He is, I believe, a stand-up if not misguided guy.

Did DeNiro realize the film he was endorsing lands story-wise right next to the government myth? That Flight 93, a United Airlines Boeing 767 departing 45 minutes late from Newark was hijacked on route to San Francisco. Somewhere near Cleveland, it made a sharp left to southeast, heading conceivably towards the White House or the Capitol (bye bye Congress, bye bye Mrs. Bush, I think I'm gonna di-ie).

But on board, as the myth goes, said brave set of passengers challenged the hijackers, fighting gallantly, but losing ultimately as the pilot lost control of the giant plane. Then its 46 passengers, including four terrorists, and more than 11,000 gallons of fuel, hit the ground that supposedly covered an old quarry. And so the plane vanished into the rabbit hole, not burning aboveground, just smoking, smoking. But you know, where's there's smoke there's fire, enough to evaporate the plane, the passengers, the engines, etcetera, etcetera, bullshit.

In fact, does DeNiro know there was no plane left to see when nearby residents and first responders arrived? See at it the link above, folks. No engines, fuselage, luggage, bodies in the 20 feet long by 10 feet wide grave, not a particularly large area for such a large plane. Only this confetti-shower of itsy bitsy pieces was left.

Enter David Griffin and The New Pearl Harbor

But then we have one of the most important 9/11 books, David Griffin's, The New Pearl Harbor - Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11. Griffin is a professor of philosophy and religion at the Claremont School of Theology in California for over 30 years. He also is the author and editor of more than 20 books, a fastidiously scrupulous and honest scholar, not a writer of blockbusters, though The New Pearl Harbor became one simply because of its amazing array of factual and logical thinking that contradicted the 9/11 myth, including Flight 93.

In Chapter Three, pages 49-55, Griffin presents us with a very different scenario. It amounts to the fact that numerous eyewitnesses saw two F-16's tailing Flight 93 minutes before it went down, at 10:06, which time was arrived at by a seismic study. That is not 10:03, the official time, which leaves the last three minutes off the cockpit recorder tape, the most important part, what's said as it hits. Subsequent to 9/11, Griffin also reports, the government released flight controller transcripts, except for Flight 93.

Again, according to eye-witness reports in Chapter Three, one of the F-16s moved closer and fired, once, then twice, what were probably two sidewinder missiles, thump, thump, and boom, one of them catching at least one of the huge engines and the "plane dropped," someone said, "like a stone."

Someone else heard "a loud bang" and then saw the plane's right wing dip, and then 93 plunged to earth. A Vietnam vet said, he "heard a missile," which sound he was familiar with. In fact, the multiple accounts add up to a missile strike. By our own planes, and then a fly-over the site by a smaller white plane, military-looking, with two rear engines and a spoiler tail. Is that box office, baby? I don't think so. Or maybe it is. Maybe people would like to see the truth or an opposing view, like LooseChange2.

Also, Griffin refers to Paul Thompson's Timeline, in which witnesses saw burning debris fall from the plane "as far as eight miles away, with workers at Indian Lake Marina saying that they saw 'a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion.'" Also this debris, along with human remains, was found again as far as eight miles from the site. Also the debris fell from the sky, not exploded upward out of the hole.

What's more Griffin tells us "an F-15 pilot was told that a military F-16 had shot a fourth airliner in Pennsylvania." Even Paul "the Wolf" Wolfowitz said "the Air Force was tracking the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania . . . and had been in a position to bring it down if necessary." Apparently it was necessary to some people. Would they be Dick Cheney and Connie Rice, calling the shots in the White House and then its basement bunker?

Were those scenes in the movie, the fireball in air and the parts falling, or Cheney and Rice in the White House? And were those eyewitnesses mentioned by Griffin and Thompson considered misguided, blind or on acid? This film poses as totally "factual." In Hollywood that may have a slightly different meaning.

Also, was it mentioned that were five parallel terror-hijacking drills going on that day that siphoned off planes to defend New York City or Washington, DC and that filled air controllers' screens with some 22 planes? This was not an accident but an unbelievably, well planned mega-ops, with all the usual participants to round up: NORAD, DOD, Pentagon, The White House CIA, FBI, etc.

Were the 'Good Guys" Shot Down for Winning?

And, even if one buys in to the passenger revolt on F 93, could it be that the real reason the hit was necessary was because the good guys on the plane were taking the bad guys and the plane would land safely? And maybe the bad guys then would spill the beans about whom they were working for, like the US government. Aha. Sure, boss, we made the deal with the devil. Can I go home now?

Or, we have the more patriotic reason, I mean relatively speaking, that the plane was about to leap towards the White House or the Capitol and flatten one or the other. And lord, what would we do without the White House? And what would we do without the robot Congress about to give Bush cart blanche to declare and spend, spend, spend on the War on Terror, attacking Afghanistan, eventually Iraq illegally, naming Bin Laden as Perp in Chief (and never catching him), Georgie walking away clean as a whistle with his goat book, at least for a while?

And curiously Flight 93's demise made celebs of lots of people, including local coroner Wally Miller, flight victim Todd (Let's Roll) Beamer, and his wife Lisa [who was on the ground], later summoned to the White House for agit prop purposes. Also elevated to star status were victims Tom Burnett, Mark Bingham and Jeremy Glick, all whose souls should rest in peace, no question, though many other victims' families resented not being recognized nearly as much as the others.

And just like real unreal life the movie Flight 93 will now make stars out of its fairy tale actors and actresses and director. So what, right? That's entertainment. Who's getting hurt? Who knows, but one of my spies tells me "Flight 93" gets blasted on Universal's own blog. She adds another quote "Think this film will be the 2006 contender for some type of Leni Riefenstahl Propaganda Film Awards?" Hey, anything's possible, especially with the goose-steppers.

I mean things were very convivial at the opening. Lots of media coverage. People had a good time, including victims' family members. I suppose they deserved to. Nobody hung their head mumbling bullshit. Well, maybe just a few guys from the 9/11 movement who knew better, and were trying to spread the word without getting their heads bashed in by security or the cops.

But hey, what do they know, scruffy sign carriers, pamphlets in hand, like flower kids sticking daisies in rifles at the Pentagon way back when. Remember grandma? Only then we had, Apocalypse Now, Marty Sheen [father of Charley Sheen], Brando, and Robert Duvall, saying, "You know what I love? The smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like . . . victory."

Right, only Flight 93 the film and those behind its propaganda, and those behind that stink of diesel fuel and explosives they made that horrible blue morning, have more crooked angles to them than cinematographer Gregg Toland shooting Citizen Kane, the fictional portrayal of media mogul, yellow press boss, William Randolph Hearst. And you can take that to the bank, Bob. And not for nothin, my fellow Italo-American, find out what really happened, by clicking the blue words.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer born, raised, and living after all these crazy years in New York. Reach him at the candy store or gvmaz@verizon.net.

Archimedes,

" ... I don't think that an argument's validity is at all inherent, rather it is a derivate of method and form. Thus, some of the arguments posted here are completely invalid, regardless of which side they are lobbed from."

An individual's argument/point of view is indeed inherently valid - if only to them. You may be confusing the term valid with the term validated, meaning whether one's argument can be substantiated or confirmed? Method and form assist in the presentation of an argument/point of view. However, the development, interpretation, and possible agreement with an argument/point of view are, by nature, subjective.

" ... I also take issue with your labeling me a "self-avowed Bush supporter" as I have avowed nothing of the sort."

You wrote that " ... Bush is doing what needs to be done ... regardless he is doing what those who came before him lacked the courage to do, Reagan and his father included."

As I stated, you support the man and believe him to be courageous.

" ... I simply think that faced with a long list of bad options in confronting Islamic radicalism, Bush chose the best of the worst."

We do not agree. (I have described other possible options in previous posts.)

" ... My support for that stems not from who made the choice but from the fact that it is my country that was forced to choose."

I agree that we were forced to respond, but I believe that we have responded poorly to date with regard to 9/11.

" ... Yes, I absolutely think that being "nice" to some of the bad guys is exactly what is needed. It is, IMHO, the preferrable option to agression and violence and can actually yield favorable results. It is not always possible, as Carter found out when dealing with Iran in 1978-79, but in some instances treating an adversary with respect and dignity can go a long way. It is not possible when dealing with religious fundamentalists, since no matter what you say you are still wrong and evil, and thus other options must be considered."

Very interesting comments. I'd be inclined to move forward on the basis of respect and dignity, as you stated. The obvious problem is, of course, that one must always prepare for those instances in which offering respect and recognizing common dignity fail to produce the desired results.

Your comments regarding the impossibility/stupidity of approaching 'religious fundamentalists', using the methods described above, are off base, IMHO. I say this because while certain groups may very well maintain their stance and seek to destroy individuals and nations alike - it is extremely important that their intentions, and those of the US/west, be publicized for the entire world to hear. As I stated in an earlier post, my suspicion is that neither side will 'win' the public debate because both sides will have difficulty supporting particular aspects of their arguments. So why engage in this public debate? Because it is important that citizens of the world be able to consider the details of the 'opponent's' viewpoints and widen their understanding of the issues that are fueling this conflict. Education - sometimes leads to the acceptance of different values and ideals.

One of the greatest mistakes that the BA has made was to ignore Mr. Bin Laden's call for a truce with the US because he appears, to the world, to have made a legitimate offer. As it is, the US' non-response has been interpreted as arrogance, in the sense that the US 'does not (have to/choose to) speak to 'terrorists.' IMHO, after the next attack, they will undoubtedly announce not only their victory, but also the US' missed opportunity to have averted an attack, by virtue of not having responded - to the offer of a truce.

" ... The consequences of any of the things you mentioned are hardly aboslutes and as for the collection of information by the government on civilians, this has gone on for decades, possibly centuries and what matters is the reasoning behind it."

I can guarantee no 'absolutes' for the future but I can attest to the fact that the US is in a state of disrepair and the American people know this. A simple review of the polls will support my contention that the American people are not satisfied with the current consequences of the war in Iraq, POTUS' ability to competently devise and execute foreign policy, the results of the 'WOT/LW', etc. He has lost their trust with regard to his abilities/judgment and for good reason. Additionally, the level of respect afforded to the US is also currently in decline. Again, with good reason.

As for the possible "collection of information by the government on civilians" - are these activities legal or illegal, or does the answer to that question depend upon the agency or group performing the collection? And, when did the legality of a given action performed by an individual or agency representing the United States of America become irrelevant? And why did legality become irrelevant? According to your post, a given "reason" for breaking the law is more important than the law itself. I disagree. The law is the law and it is to be respected, not just at certain times, but at all times. You can't have it both ways. Laws are either meaningful and therefore need to be observed or they are meaningless and irrelevant. If a situation exists that necessitates changing or altering existing law, then let that information be made public such that the American people remain informed. Otherwise, our laws and system of justice become the playthings of politicians and bureaucrats.

" ... Look at Arkin's citation of the Quaker issue, where the FBI investigated the anti-war groups and looked for information concerning attacks against them as well as anything illegal they might do themselves. The Feds let the protest continue unhindered and did not oppress anyone."

And afterward, they worked diligently to remove the names of the innocent from their database. How much did we pay for that effort? The military is now apparently spying on their countrymen, Archimedes. Spying on American citizens is not a task to be performed by the military - or are we to simply accept that it should now be?

Any 'tips' concerning threats to/from the demonstrators that were received by the military or FBI should have been forwarded to local LE agencies.

" ... I realize that there are people who don't like the government's actions since 9/11 and would be glad to see some or all of their policies rescinded."

Good to hear. But, rescinding certain policies should not be equated with 'weakness'. The law must be upheld while the nation is defended. Both actions can occur simultaneously.

" ... The problem I have is that quite a few of these folks have nothing to offer in replacement of the government's current policy. The world has changed and many of the old ways in which this country conducted foreign policy are no longer viable and for all its bluster, the opposition in this country and around the world, has fielded few alternatives that are viable in the current world order."

Opposition. Alternatives. I promise you that alternate ideas exist and that the 'opposition' is trying to be heard. (Visit their forums.) The question is - are you (and the current administration) prepared to listen?

We are currently a country divided according to political party lines, to our detriment. From a perspective somewhere in the middle, I can tell you that it has seemingly become more important for individuals to act as shills for a party's position versus actually discussing issues and developing viable options and alternatives for same.

I have seen 'options' presented on this blog and I appreciate them, despite the poster's political affiliation. But, can you say the same? If an individual states that Bush is a 'cocaine-using, Halliburton-supporting idiot of a President', do you automatically assume that the post was made by a 'left-wing moonbat' and that there can be no truth to any part of the statement simply because of the nature of its presentation?

While I did not agree with your comments regarding POTUS, I did not allow those comments to color my view of your statement's possible relevance. That is what I was asking you to do in my earlier post with regard to members of the 'opposition.' In fact, given your post in response to mine, I was obliged to listen again, read further, and ultimately learn something more about your position. You still appear to be a Bush supporter, but you are apparently NOT a poster-child for the commonly accepted stereotype of a typical, hard-nosed Republican in light of your comments about respect, dignity, aggression and violence.

IMHO, the problem is that centrality, rationalism, and an honest penchant for searching for answers are not characteristics that are highly valued in American society (let alone on forums and some blogs.) While the arguing and bickering between parties and posters may make for interesting reading/viewing for some, for others of us it represents a significant waste of time.

If we can not discuss issues to the extent that we can reach consensus, we deserve to be lost and disrespected, as a nation. While it may be humorous for individuals in other countries to watch as we fight amongst ourselves - when one is living the scenario - it is nothing short of painful.

We need to consider all views as valid, Archimedes, regardless of their 'presentation.'

Archimedes:

Attacking Iraq was absolutely the wrong choice. The primary focus of US foreigh policy should have been to secure US interests from external threats. Al Quaeda and the Taliban which was an Al Quaeda sponsor represented a threat. Iraq did not. Countless testimony before the 9/11 commission, and the senate have confirmed this fact, Dick Cheney and Ms. Rice notwithstanding. This administration lied repeatedly to get us into a war in Iraq from which there was no clear and present danger. Cherry-picking intelligence has been its hallmark. It has launched countless character assassinations and destroyed careers of decent patriotic Americans in a campaign reminicent of the Joe McCartey era.

It has damaged our reputation abroad and severely limited our present military options in regions when we have needed them most. It has destroyed the tremendous unity we felt at home and the sympathy we generated abroad following 9/11. This country cannot stand many more years of this manipulative, deceitful politics. We need policies that unify, not divisive policies that appeal to a small radical element of our society.

Fred in Vermont:

Your focus is too narrow. I was referring to the overall WOT, not just Iraq. That having been said, staying the course, however you define that, in Afghanistan would not have been sufficient to defeat violent Islamism. Also, my comments on rescinding an action or actions may have been poorly worded, so I will clarify. The various opposition sects that exist counter to the current American foreign policy direction share at least one common quality, that of a lack of viable alternatives given a modern and dynamic international environment. I still also maintain that with the events of 9/11, the US did not have any "good" options in combating violent Islamsim and that yes, Bush picked the best of the worst in invading Afghanistan and ulitmately Iraq.

The problem is that terrorism is a tactic of the weak and as such you must address the people who use terrorism to achieve the goals. In the current case, the desires of Bin Laden and his ilk are not something the West or America can grant him, in whole or in part. The other part of the problem is that Bin Laden has joined an impossible political goal with violent religious fundamentalism. If you have ever tried to reason with a Falwell disciple you know that reason and logical debate are of no use in dealing with people like this. Thus there are limited options in dealing with this problem, none of which are particularly desireable in that the possibilities of blowback are destructive and negative with regard to the interests of the US.

I simply think that faced with a long list of bad options in confronting Islamic radicalism, Bush chose the best of the worst.
You have got to be kidding. The occupation of Iraq was the best bad way to "confront Islamic radicalism". How can you say that?
My support for that stems not from who made the choice but from the fact that it is my country that was forced to choose.
I don't get it. Bush was not forced to chose. Bush could have just stayed on course in Afghanistan.
I realize that there are people who don't like the government's actions since 9/11 and would be glad to see some or all of their policies rescinded.
Well but of course it is hard to "rescind" an action. Particularly one like the fail occupation of Iraq.
the opposition in this country and around the world, has fielded few alternatives that are viable in the current world order.
If you are saying that there is no good solution now I will agree. But it was not the fact that 9/11 forced America to pick from bad options. It is the unforced error of Bush that now truly puts us with a list of bad options.

Redcat:

I don't think that an argument's validity is at all inherent, rather it is a derivate of method and form. Thus, some of the arguments posted here are completely invalid, regardless of which side they are lobbed from. I also take issue with your labeling me a "self-avowed Bush supporter" as I have avowed nothing of the sort. I simply think that faced with a long list of bad options in confronting Islamic radicalism, Bush chose the best of the worst. My support for that stems not from who made the choice but from the fact that it is my country that was forced to choose.

Yes, I absolutely think that being "nice" to some of the bad guys is exactly what is needed. It is, IMHO, the preferrable option to agression and violence and can actually yield favorable results. It is not always possible, as Carter found out when dealing with Iran in 1978-79, but in some instances treating an adversary with respect and dignity can go a long way. It is not possible when dealing with religious fundamentalists, since no matter what you say you are still wrong and evil, and thus other options must be considered.

The consequences of any of the things you mentioned are hardly aboslutes and as for the collection of information by the government on civilians, this has gone on for decades, possibly centuries and what matters is the reasoning behind it. Look at Arkin's citation of the Quaker issue, where the FBI investigated the anti-war groups and looked for information concerning attacks against them as well as anything illegal they might do themselves. The Feds let the protest continue unhindered and did not oppress anyone.

I realize that there are people who don't like the government's actions since 9/11 and would be glad to see some or all of their policies rescinded. The problem I have is that quite a few of these folks have nothing to offer in replacement of the government's current policy. The world has changed and many of the old ways in which this country conducted foreign policy are no longer viable and for all its bluster, the opposition in this country and around the world, has fielded few alternatives that are viable in the current world order.

**
" ... directing the Defense Department Inspector General to audit the activities of the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA)"

So they will be 'auditing' their own agency? Any guess as to what the conclusions of the audit process will be?

**
If you were indeed revealing information relevant to national security, surely you would have received notification that you were being investigated for such acts by now?

**
Archimedes,

" ... People on this forum would to well to read Thomas Hobbes or maybe Darwin as it would enlighten them as to how the world really works, which isn't how most people, myself included, would necessarily like it to work."

This isn't a forum, though certain individual's comments have served to cause it to seem as if it were. What would the world/blog be like if only all posters were as enlightened as you seem to believe that you are?

" ... The fact is that there are bad guys out there and that being nice to some of them accomplishes nothing."

Does this mean that we should be nice to some of the bad guys some of the time and not all of the bad guys all of the time?

" ... Bush is doing what needs to be done. Has he done it perfectly, no of course not, those who expect perfection are wasting their time looking for it in humanity. But regardless he is doing what those who came before him lacked the courage to do, Reagan and his father included. It is unpopular and ugly but I truly think that that is the definition of courage, doing something you know will absolutely make others hate you or bring you harm because it is what needs to be done."

Your opinion regarding POTUS' performance to date and level of demonstrated courage is admirable. However, I would respectfully disagree with your assessment.

In lieu of initiating a back and forth argument, let me just ask you to do the following. Delete 'Republican' and 'Democrat' from the scenario. Consider the war in Iraq and its consequences for the Iraqi and American people, to date and in the future. Consider the 'success'/consequences of US foreign policy, to date and in the future. Consider the 'success'/consequences of the GWOT/LW, to date and in the future. Consider the idea/consequences of US military personnel collecting information about their countrymen, to date and in the future. Consider what has happened in, and to, this country since 9/11. Indeed, consider what has happened throughout the world in response to US actions, in too may locations, domestically and abroad. Consider that the American people know - that we are in trouble as a nation.

Consider that any individual who moves to reveal, alter, or remove some of the 'changes'/'policies' that have been implemented by the US since 9/11 will likely be viewed as being truly courageous by the American people, IMHO.

Consider that all voices need to be heard and respected - in a democratic country.

It is sad that you can not recognize and respect the inherent validity of other individual's opinions, but then again, you are a self-avowed "Bush supporter"; you support - a man - and a mentality.

I respectfully submit that you may want to consider removing the politics from your discussion, taking off your blinders, and making a decision, Archimedes. Is your primary concern the support of a man and a political party - or is your primary concern about supporting - your country?

you feel a lot like george to me...

and you're saying that we're in a "war" for what reason?

to indoctrinate? to create false patriotism?

who are you interested in seeing in power for the next 20 years?

and if you're part of the sabatoging of America for the Deefense Department enabling crux...then that would make you a terrorist that was trying to use American dollars to line your pockets...wouldn't it?

sor tof like pork from senators....right..

so your viewpoint is sort of skewed in favor of making sure that some people don't learn how to see through the whoreshit that you throw out there whore...

thanks so much, now if you reall y want to serve your country, try telling the truth whore...

.

Now anyone with a mission
to do so can find out all
about these exercises since they
know the name.
They can do Internet searches.

That dude is on to something. I just did a search on "Ultimate Gambit" and learned to my shock [spoiler warning] from the blog Mutant Liberation Front that in the new X-men that not only do Spidy and Kitty start to date but that "Basically Ultimate gambit is dead... juggarnaut killed him and rogue absorbed all of his power...."

Bummer. And now anyone who searches the web for "Ultimate Gambit" can learn this as well.

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=353

Osama, Abu, and Ayman: al-CIA-Duh Telethon

Friday April 28th 2006, 10:54 pm

First it was Osama bin Laden, then Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and now Ayman al-Zawahiri. In the span of a week, these three al-CIA-duh heavyweights (two from beyond the grave) have issued communiqués. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq alone has carried out 800 martyrdom operations in three years, besides the victories of the other mujahidin. And this is what has broken the back of America in Iraq," al-Zawahiri, or somebody we are expected believe is al-Zawahiri, said in a videotape released this evening. Ayman al-Zawahiri made this latest tape--or somebody in the basement of the CIA building did--from the wilds of Pakistan, Afghanistan, or from his prison cell in Iran (on February 18, 2002, the Guardian reported al-Zawahiri was imprisoned in the Evin prison in Iran). Of course, the Iraqi resistance is responsible for breaking the back of the occupation, not al-CIA-duh, the spook league of patsies and useful idiots.

It is interesting to note this latest production "was first obtained by IntelCenter, a United States government contractor that does work for various intelligence agencies," according to the New York Times. According to former Army intelligence analyst and consultant William M. Arkin, IntelCenter is one of many cottage industries that have "sprung up since the early 1990's to feed at the counter-terrorism trough" and its "primary client base is comprised of military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the US and other allied countries around the world," in other words the folks who have a vested interest in making sure al-Zawahiri and the half-wit al-Zarqawi--by way of magic trick and computer graphics--check in every so often and make absurd claims, stealing the thunder of the Iraqi resistance.

"American counterterrorism officials were aware of the video and analyzing it. One American official said it was part of Al Qaeda's ongoing propaganda campaign to try to demonstrate that it remained relevant," the New York Times concludes. No doubt these "counterterrorism officials" will give the video a stamp of approval, as they routinely do to most al-CIA-duh communications, even those demonstrated to be crude forgeries in short order. Naturally, "al-Qaeda" must remain "relevant" (i.e., take all the credit for the Iraqi resistance), otherwise the "long war" would soon peter and fizzle out. Osama and crew must remain front and center, lest the attention of the fickle and generally peace-loving American public turns elsewhere.

"Zawahri also called for the overthrow of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who has survived several al Qaeda-inspired assassination attempts since allying himself with Washington. Pakistan has captured or killed hundreds of al Qaeda members," reports the CIA's favorite newspaper. Musharraf has long claimed to have "completely shattered" al-CIA-duh in Pakistan. But like a game of whack-a-mole, the head of "al-Qaeda" keeps cropping up. Moreover, there seems to be an "al-Qaeda" training camp within shouting distance of Musharraf's Rawalpindi headquarters, according to Maulana Fazlur Rehman, a Pakistani politician and friend of the Taliban (another CIA and ISI created monster). "That's a bit like having a terrorist training camp on the outskirts of Washington, D.C.," mused Richard Clarke, the nine eleven opportunist. "It is a fact that the Musharraf regime was the biggest supporter of the Taliban, who harbored al-Qaeda, which was recruiting and training men for terrorism prior to 9/11," Benazir Bhutto, daughter of former premier Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, told the Asia Times in late 2004. Recruiting Musharraf to go after "al-Qaeda" is like recruiting a pimp to stamp out prostitution.

But never mind. Our rulers need these cardboard villains and it is brand recognition alone that drives the "long war" and its transparent propaganda effort. "In his last Internet message in March, Zawahri called for attacks on the West, urging similar strikes as those against New York, London and Madrid," the Washington Post adds, attacks that have yet to occur. Of course, as time creeps forward, and the coming maelstrom aimed at Iran picks up steam, such attacks become more likely. Bush's approval ratings are in the dumpster and with every passing day he looks more and more like Richard Nixon--although Nixon's crimes were small time by way of comparison.

it's an occupation.

we were no t attacked.

we attacked, be honest george, you owe it to your country...

it's been planned since it became apparent that oil meant power and money and there were new players emerging....woulda happened second term for Bush Sr. if the mask hadn't slipped.

.

maybe you getting arrested and your property being sold as reparation for the people that have died so that your friends can have nice toys....

is what needs to happen to keep this country on the right track...that isif your middle name is walker or h.w. and your last name is bush...

because I think you owe that to your country that when you steal the family car and take it for a ride without family permission (the rest of us), why that's called grand theft auto...stolen country, military used w/o permission to hep out a coupa you frens?

and I don't remember you asking permission to

_intervene_ in fact I don't remember you asking or campaigning on that...if I remember correctly you campaigned on homophobia and "hate" disguised as "family values".........

and why'd you send the National Guard over there w/o proper training initially? Don't you remember your days in the National Guard...why is that? dead brain cells? or is it just that you _always_ get treated differently than other people because of who you daddy is...

.

FOR UNCENSORED NEWS PLEASE BOOKMARK:

www.onlinejournal.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
otherside123.blogspot.com

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_743.shtml

House passes draconian intelligence bill

By Bev Conover
Online Journal Editor & Publisher
Apr 27, 2006, 00:37

The cretins in Congress better start using their gray matter, if they have any, because the repressive legislation they pass that bites the people today will also bite them tomorrow.

No one is immune from the horrors of a police state. No one. None. Fall out of favor with the ruling clique, for whatever reason, and your goose is cooked.

And a police state is what they are creating, all under the guise of "national security" and keeping us "safe" from "terrorists."

The latest nightmare is buried in the HR 5020, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which the House of Representatives passed, 327-96, yesterday. Among its provisions are giving National Security Director John Negroponte authority to devise a plan for revoking the pensions of retired intelligence agency employees "who commit unauthorized disclosures of classified information." That takes care of any retired whistleblowers.

If that weren't bad enough, the Baltimore Sun is reporting "It also would permit security forces at the National Security Agency and the CIA to make warrantless arrests outside the gates of their top-secret campuses."

Plus, according to the Sun, "The measure also directs Congress to conduct a study of possible new sanctions against those who receive leaks of classified information, including journalists."

In effect, a total shutdown of any knowledge of the crimes your government has committed or is committing in your name.

Is this a sign that we are reaching the tipping point and the real terrorists in the executive branch and their fellow travelers in Congress are fearful of a rebellion? Is this a preemptive attempt to thwart an uprising?

It's better to put all the control mechanisms in place while most Americans are still preoccupied with the daily dose of lies and omissions dished out by their handmaidens in the corporate media. After all, how long can the Busheviks continue to trot out phony Osama tapes and Zarqawi videos, threatening mayhem, when things are going badly for the administration?

With Hitler, it was the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and anyone else who opposed him. With Bush, it's darker complexioned people ("terrorists," possible "terrorists," and aiders and abettors or sympathizers of "terrorists") and anyone else who opposes him.

Fascism doesn't descend all at once. It comes creeping in, in seemingly benign ways at first. A little chip off your liberties here and a little chip there -- all for your safety and welfare, you're told -- and one day you wake up to find all your liberties are gone. We are nearly to that point.

The USAPATRIOT Act, which too many persist in calling the Patriot Act, has nothing to do with patriots or patriotism. The full title alone should have horrified people: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. As slickly as it was rammed through both houses, without being read or debated, in the wake of 9-11 and reauthorized this year, its provisions weren't harsh enough to keep us in line. So now the Congress critters have come up with HR 520 to punish anyone who discloses things the Busheviks want kept secret. The question is will the Senate also vote for this abomination?
The irony is that the chippers in Congress, in the state legislatures, in the city halls, fail to realize that one day they, too, make become victims of their chipping. Absolute power may corrupt absolutely, as Lord Acton noted, but power of the smallest degree is a siren song that tends to blind.

This is a difficult situation, and journalists should not be adding to it by reporting more than they need to about US operations. That's what endangers lives. No one in World War II would have disclosed this type of information. You may not agree with the war in Iraq, but I think it would be hard to oppose our motives for going into Afghanistan. Most of the Afghani people want us there, too, unlike the Iraqis. Hopefully your paper, if not you, understands this and will seek to make you understand as well. Sometimes it takes a blunt instrument approach to get people to pay attention. No one would want to see reporters getting fired unnecessarily, but if that's what it takes to protect the lives of soldiers, so be it.

conversation and that is that spin and framing have been obvious and deceitfully intended, as part and parcel of this administrations' way-of-conducting-business....

to simply ridicule or mock those that would point out the president is a liar

does nothing to remove that

fact.

address the fact rather than blow smoke, be real patriots rather than burecrats trying to justify your pensions.

deny these facts if you can:

that he lied about the Valerie Plame leak.

that he is a draft-dodger that sent the National Guard to Iraq, when he joined that unit to AVOID serving in a war zone...that he doesn't respect your right to chose how you will serve your country...

he lied about WMD knowingly, proof in the form of talking with Blair about provoking Iraq to attack us and avoiding disclosure of information from CIA intelligence that said that there were no WMD....

he said that there was an Iraqi link, which there wasn't, with 9/11 and lied by omission in not mentioning that the pilots of the 9/11 aircraft were Saudi and UAE....these are known facts documented, confirmed.

geo w. bush started an occupation to fulfill his fathers wet-dream of taking the United States down a road that they expected to take with the father geo. h.w. bush, but couldn't

because geo. h.w. bush was exposed as a selfish, out-of-touch elitist, and didn't win a second term....so he set up a proxy for his boys to work under...

alfred e, geo walker bush...

PNAC contains the details of the framing....and the oil invested come out the winners...along with the Defense Department

anyone can check out the veracity of this information,

and can keep talking about kool-aid, aliens and what not as if it makes the ghosts go away....whistling in the graveyard...

what they should be questioning is their own credibility, at trying to refute cold hard facts.

coke addict, alcoholic, draftdodger, son-of-wealth, friend of the Royals/UAE, international-player

with his background he couldn't get a clearance,

why is it okay for him to set security standards, that excuse him from prosecution, if he obtained the "powers" from fraud?

ansswer that one question.

and as a known liar, an unapologetic known liar, how are he or his people believable? because of his office?

he certainly didn't get the position because he's capable.

fraud, demagoguery, hypocritical behaviour, cowardice, pandering to money as a way of being

that's what go t him elected.

Hillary Clinton, the Democrats and the Iraq war: A socialist alternative

By Bill Van Auken
29 April 2006

The following statement by the Socialist Equality Party's candidate for US Senate from New York, Bill Van Auken, is being distributed to the April 29 demonstration in New York City demanding an end to the US war against Iraq. It is also available in PDF.

The tens of thousands of people marching through the streets once again to demand an end to the US war in Iraq are confronted with some painful yet inescapable political truths.

First, protest in and of itself will not shift the policy of those who have launched the illegal invasion of Iraq and who continue a bloody war that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and more than 2,400 US troops. Those who occupy the White House and the Pentagon are impervious and hostile to popular opinion, as all of their policies demonstrate.

Secondly, the two-party system that monopolizes political life in the US works to actively thwart the will of the clear majority of Americans who want this war to end and to see all US troops withdrawn now.

The one great advantage enjoyed by Bush--as a flurry of opinion polls show his approval rating dropping to barely a third of the public--is that he faces no real challenge from the ostensible opposition party, the Democrats.

These political realities are no revelation. They have been manifested continuously since even before the war began. Then, protests by millions upon millions around the globe failed to sway the Bush White House from launching its "preventive" war of aggression. And the Democrats in Congress--New York's Senator Hillary Clinton prominent among them--echoed the lies of the White House and voted a blank check authorization for Bush to launch that war.

At that time, Senator Clinton praised her husband's 1998 decision to launch "Operation Desert Fox," in which cruise missiles rained down on Iraq, killing thousands. She likewise pointed out that it was under the Democratic Clinton administration--not the Republicans--that Washington changed its "underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change."

But more than three years have passed, years of unspeakable horrors, from the massacre of Fallujah, to the torture at Abu Ghraib and the mass killings by US trained death squads. It is high time to confront these realities squarely and draw the necessary conclusion: not a single serious step can be taken to end the war in Iraq and oppose the eruption of global US militarism outside of a decisive break with the Democratic Party.

So long as it remains tied to the Democrats and the perspective of pressuring the parties and institutions of America's ruling elite, the antiwar movement will be a means not of ending the war but merely of venting the outrage felt by millions. A real struggle against war requires a new political strategy based upon the independent mobilization of working people on a socialist and internationalist program.

This is the perspective upon which I am running as the Socialist Equality Party candidate for US Senate from New York, challenging the Democrat Hillary Clinton. My party and its supporters will utilize the 2006 election not merely to expose the thoroughly rotten record of Clinton, but to bring to the widest possible audience a socialist alternative to militarism, social reaction and the unrelenting attacks on democratic rights carried out by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Clinton's record is clear. She voted in 2002 for the war and has continued to defend her vote, no matter that the vast majority of people in New York and throughout the country now know that the justification for attacking Iraq was based on barefaced lies that she herself promoted.

She opposes a withdrawal of US troops from the country and has voted repeatedly to continue funding the war.

As a leading figure in the right-wing Democratic Leadership Council, she joined in issuing a statement declaring that, "Democrats must make it clear to the public that we stand for winning in Iraq, not a rush for the exits." In other words, the bloodbath must continue until all resistance is crushed and 26 million Iraqis are subjugated to US corporate control of their country and its oil wealth.

Nor is Iraq the end of it. Clinton has sought to attack the Bush administration from the right on the issue of Iran and its nuclear program. Speaking last January at Princeton University, she denounced the administration for having "lost critical time in dealing with Iran" and accused it of having acted to "downplay the threats" and "standing on the sidelines." This, under conditions in which the Bush administration has carried out endless threats against Iran. Then, Clinton issued a threat of her own. While acknowledging the need to seek international support for sanctions, she added, "We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran." One of those options was revealed recently: launching nuclear strikes against Iranian targets.

There are those who have protested against Clinton's policies, but she is by no means an aberration. Hillary Clinton is the most representative leader of the Democratic Party as a whole and its attitude towards war, which is why she is considered the front-runner in the bid for the 2008 presidential nomination.

Indeed, the Democratic National Committee, at its spring meeting last week in New Orleans, took a decision not to discuss Iraq until after the election. Once again--as in 2002 and 2004--the Democrats are working to deliberately disenfranchise the tens of millions of Americans who want an end to this war and to prevent the elections from being turned into a referendum on Iraq.

Instead, the Democrats are running on a "real security" platform, unveiled last month, which vows to "rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary." As part of this pledge to outdo even the Bush administration in military spending and international aggression, the party promises to double the size of the Special Forces, the Army's elite killing units developed for the suppression of popular insurgencies.

Even the supposedly "liberal" wing of the party supports continued US intervention, as evidenced by the amendment to the latest "emergency" war appropriations bill put forward this week by Senator Russ Feingold. In presenting his proposal, Feingold stressed that his call for "withdrawal" concedes "the need for certain US forces to be engaged in counter-terrorism activities, the training of Iraqi security services, and the protection of essential US infrastructure." In other words, tens of thousands of US troops would be redeployed to continue attacks on the Iraqi people and assure American control of the oil fields.

Those who claim that a blow can be struck against Bush and the war by supporting the Democrats against the Republicans in November are either fooling themselves or deliberately deceiving others. This is the Democrats' war is as much as it is Bush's.

The platform of the Socialist Equality Party upon which I am running against Clinton provides the only politically viable basis for mounting a genuine challenge to US militarism.

We call for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US military forces from Iraq. We demand full compensation to the Iraqi people for the death and destruction unleashed upon their country, as well as to those who have suffered the consequences in the US itself--the families of slain troops and the soldiers who have returned with grievous physical as well as psychological wounds from this war.

And the SEP insists that all those responsible for conspiring to launch this illegal war of aggression must be held accountable, through the convening of war crimes tribunals.

The struggle against war can be waged successfully only if it is directed at its source, which lies in the social and economic crises that plague US and world capitalism.

The Iraq war arose out of a long-developed policy that enjoys the support of the two major parties and the corporate and financial interests that they both defend. It is a policy of utilizing US military might as a means of offsetting the relative decline of American capitalism by seizing control of strategic resources and markets, at the expense of economic rivals in Europe and Asia. To maintain its position as the dominant power, US imperialism is determined to secure a stranglehold over the world's energy supplies. In this sense, Iraq is only the beginning, the prelude to far larger and bloodier confrontations.

This war is being fought for a ruling financial oligarchy whose interests and income are separated from those of working people by a social gulf unprecedented in history. Yet, the two-party system keeps this stark class divide from finding any expression in official political life, subordinating all foreign and domestic policy to the pursuit of profit and the self-enrichment of this ruling layer.

Hillary Clinton, who sits on a $20 million campaign fund and who together with her husband, now counts her income in the millions, is a member in good standing of this wealthy elite.

The struggle against war requires the political mobilization of the working population. They are the ones paying the price for militarism and the reactionary social policies pursued in the interests of the profit system, in the form of unemployment, falling living standards, cuts in social conditions and the rising number of young working class men and women killed and maimed in Iraq.

The Socialist Equality Party advances a program for the radical reorganization of the economy in the interests of working people, including the repeal of the past two decades of tax cuts for the rich and a sharp increase in tax on corporate profits and the accumulated wealth of the super-rich. We propose the transformation of major corporations into public utilities to make resources available to put an end to poverty and create social equality.

I urge all those who support the fight for an end to war and inequality to join in the SEP's campaign. Participate in the drive to place our party on the ballot this summer and join in distributing our program as widely as possible. Through this fight we will lay the foundations for the emergence of a new mass socialist party of the working class.

Support the SEP campaign and build the socialist alternative to the Democrats and the Republicans!

Public Meeting
New York City
Saturday, May 20, 2 p.m.
Hudson Guild Carpenter Room B,
second floor 441 West 26th between 9th and 10th Ave
(Closest subway: 23rd St. stop on the "C" train.)

T

I was working a night shift as a security guard and I noticed a bright light coming from behind the building I was guarding. I went to investigate and saw a strange elliptical sahped object hovering a few inches off the ground. As I approached I was blinded by an intensely bright light. The next thing I remember I was standing in a strange looking room with a humanoid creature with blue skin and it simply stared at me while I felt as if I could hear my own thoughts. I blacked out again and when I awoke I was surrounded by military personnel and the officer in charge showed me pictures of my family and elderly mother and told me if I ever went public with my story then there would be repercussions.

If you read this or anything like it and actually believed it your have had

While working as a manager in a facility that manufactured electrical control
panels, I happened across a young woman who was fresh out of the military and was seeking a career.
After working for several months, she confided in me a few interesting, yet troubling stories:
One story was of a lab in the Congo, which her 'detail' was ordered to investigate. Upon entering the secured and 'camouflaged' facility, which appeared to be a R&D lab (as she described it), they discovered that all of the people were dead and "bleeding through their pours".
I asked her to clarify the "lab". She said that they were ordered into the facility in full bio-hazard garb with 'live' weapons and that the lab was secured by a coded entry. She also stated that when the medics observed the bodies on-sight (to determine the deaths), the organs had been liquefied.

Shortly after this episode, Ebola broke out in the area and was confirmed as a new strain.

If there are people who actually doubt that their own government is above the influence, perhaps they should actually discuss the facts with those who are acting in their name.

Do not assume that the only threat exists in a far-off land

This was an operation carried out by the US military.

If this is what Canadian think tanks come up with then Canada is in trouble. Sure Bin Laden never existed and was made up by, what a surprise, those crafty devils at the CIA. The same near-omnipotent bastards who killed Kennedy, invented AIDS to keep the third world down, covered up the existence of aliens, but can't seem to keep the existence of secret prisons or nuclear/bioweapons programs secret. Hmm, lots of credence to this rehashed bologna, especially since Bin Laden has numerous siblings and a very prominent Saudi family, who I'm sure, are all just actors from Mississippi. When will people pull their heads out of their asses and realize that the world is more complicated and less organized than asinine Hollywood-esque plots make it out to be.

The latest session of the Ganaraska Think Tank (Canadian) was called to ponder the question of the existance of Osama bin Laden.
Is bin Laden alive? indeed has he ever been alive?
Can the failure to capture him be explained by the fact he isn't there, in fact he isn't anywhere and never was.
The think tank members agree that if bin Laden never existed, he would have to be created.
If there is any credence in all the 9/11 consiracy theories, it is vital for the perpetrators to find or invent someone to blame, hence bin Laden was a necessity.
What about those photos and tapes?
Easy enough to fake. It all could have been produced right in a sandy, rocky area of the United States for the visuals and in a sound studio right in Texas for the tapes.
Believers might argue that they are convinced the nearly seven foot tall Arab is alive and well, cynics could claim he's simply an aging former basketball player from Mississippi who has found a unique acting role.
Only the CIA knows and baring a leak, we'll never know if bin Laden is flesh or a convenient political phantom.

No, I gotta agree with Berra on this one. People on this forum would to well to read Thomas Hobbes or maybe Darwin as it would enlighten them as to how the world really works, which isn't how most people, myself included, would necessarily like it to work. The fact is that there are bad guys out there and that being nice to some of them accomplishes nothing. Bush is doing what needs to be done. Has he done it perfectly, no of course not, those who expect perfection are wasting their time looking for it in humanity. But regardless he is doing what those who came before him lacked the courage to do, Reagan and his father included. It is unpopular and ugly but I truly think that that is the definition of courage, doing something you know will absolutely make others hate you or bring you harm because it is what needs to be done.

For those who get their (dis)information from fox and the like:
con•spir•a•cy
n. pl. con•spir•a•cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
Yes, there is a conspiracy. If there are actually naive individuals, who believe that it is somehow above the capacity of those in office (including the military complex), then our problem is actually one of poor educational standards within our society and one that relates to selective/poor memory.

Iran: To Attack or not to Attack

Problems, problems, problems. Now that the IAEA has come out and said they cannot confirm the scope of Iran's enriching uranium, this administration has very limited options. It could

1. Accept Iran's statement at face value that the enrichment is for peaceful electricity generation purposes. That would really lose face, something this administration cannot do in addition to all its other failures.

2. Reject Iran's claim and launch an attack. Since conventional weapons according to most military experts will not penetrate Iran's nuclear facilties, the president must order a nuclear attack. Of course, the Security Council will not go along, neither will Europe. Even approval from the Republican Congress is problematic. The best recourse is to inform but not ask Congressional approval.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 19, 2005, Condoleezza Rice was asked by Senator Chafee "So would you agree that if anything were to occur on Syrian or Iranian soil, you would have to return to Congress to get that authorization?" Rice's reply? "Senator, I don't want to try and circumscribe presidential war powers. And I think you'll understand fully that the President retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in the war on Iraq." http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102105E.shtml

So its not as if Congress did not know. By not acting they pretty much are complicit in the decision.

3. The third option of limited sanctions like keeping Iranian professors from visition Europe makes no sense. It will make a laughing stock of this Administration.

I need to make a note to myself to buy more Halibuton stock.

Yogi:

Bush is a character and a con man who never tells the truth.
Was he looking for himself during the Plame Leak Questions, but couldn't himself because there was no one home?

April

April, your right, we should all just sit around the camp fire and hug. Or, we could stand up, close our eyes, click our heels together and chant, "make the bad people go away, make the bad people go away."

FYI, it took us years after WWII in Germany and Japan. Stop bashing Bush at least he has character and real determination to do what needs to be done. That's a whole lot more than I can say for his predecessor.

The price of freedom yogi is constant vigilance, not ditto heads.

Che, you forgot to mention that aliens came down and took control of all the bodies of the airplane control tower operators, this alien abduction directly led to each of the hijacked planes hitting buildings. The aliens were working with the President of the U.S., the Israeli's, the Chinese, Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream, and of course the Canadians, who we should blame for everything.

I Thank GOD that none of the people on this blog are responsible for the safety of this country because clearly there is some clueless people writing without any understanding of what it takes to protect this country.

Remember, "FREEDOM is not FREE."

Bush is the one endangering lives by putting them unnecessarily in harms way without adequate planning, equipment, training and in a role our armed forces are not supposed to perform, OCCUPATION.

this is going to get worse before it gets better.....

if we're such an open society, why do we have so many secrets?

"too many secrets" --Sneakers

Being someone who has disagreed with Arkin in the past and who will undoubtedlydo so in the future I do have to say that I don't have a problem with his or Dana Priest's reporting on these issues, it's exactly what we expect them to do. I would agree with media critics that it isn't so simple as don't shoot the messenger but the media, mainstream or otherwise, plays a vital role in our society. There are far more insidious folks out there trying to get a look at our national secrets than the press, for the most part, and it is the job of the government to protect those secrets. Contrary to what the Orwell disciples might think, if they even think at all, the federal government is run by people, the vast majority of whom are trying to do what is right for the entire country, and some of that work is admittedly unsavory. An easy example can be found in Arkin's article where the CIFA people warned that there was a threat to both the protesters AND the pro-military forces. The protest went on uninterrupted, no one was sent to Siberia for disliking the military, nobody was taken away and cavity searched for holding dissenting views or anything like that. The truth is that the government is far far more inept and incompetent, no matter who is running it, than it has ever been insidious or diabolical. Bureacracy is large, slow, and inefficient, all of which are extemely poor qualities if the goal is diabolical conspiracy.

actually, just in case you were wondering:

"if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

Have your editors responded to the growing criticism that they are endangering all our lives by supporting the official conspiracy theory behind this so-called war on terrorism?

Have they indicated how many of our children must die before they have the courage to ask real questions about the origins of this war?

Oh yeah, and I'm sorry to have called you a half-witted corporate hack in a previous message. I was just trying to stick with your article's theme.

Just in case you were wondering:
"If you don't know what your government is doing, you don't live in a democracy."

"The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. . . The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
-Martin Luther King Jr.

www.onlinejournal.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
otherside123.blogspot.com

"False Flagg" op called Rosetta Stone of 9/11

By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Apr 28, 2006, 01:10

You know. A false flag op is when a nation attacks itself but makes it appear that an enemy has committed the attack. This way it stirs its more or less peace-loving people into going to war with the demonized "enemy." It's false flag ops 1.1.

And Flagg is not a misspelling of flag but the name of a former FBI agent, Warren Flagg who (along with a former federal prosecutor) helped direct the New England investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. Flagg was nice enough in a Newsday.com piece by Michael Dorman to mention that "one bag found in Boston contained far more than what the commission report cited, including the names of the hijackers, their assignments and their al-Qaida connections." Gee, what luck!

How wonderfully thoughtful of the hijackers to leave what Flagg termed this "Rosetta stone" behind so everything could be figured out so quickly and with such ease. You have to admit that was white of those dusky Mid-Easterners. One of the pieces of luggage was said to include "Arab-language papers amounting to Atta's last will and testament, along with instructions to the other hijackers to prepare themselves physically and spiritually for death." Boy, this Atta guy thought of everything. But why go blabbing it all in two suitcases? He was supposed to be a terrorist not a PR man.

And if that weren't enough, Mohamed Attta, purportedly the leader of the gang of 19, and who purportedly piloted Flight 11 into Tower 1, reminded the guys: "Check all of your items -- your bag, your clothes, knives, your will, your Ids, your passport, your papers. . . . Make sure that nobody is following you." Then, by another amazing coincidence, similar papers were found in the wreckage of another airliner.

In still another coincidence, slugabed Atta and co-conspirator Abuldaziz AlAlmorai checked out of room 232 of the Comfort Inn south of Portland at 5:33 a.m. on 9/11, driving their rented blue Nissan Altima to the airport, arriving in a lot at 6 a.m. with only a few minutes to catch a commuter flight to Boston's Logan Airport. In fact, their last-minute check-in caused their two bags not to make that flight. What? Yes, start the day with a screw-up and it ends in disaster. Or did it, at least for them?

I mean, as they go off to catch their later American Airlines Flight 11, their bags (or should we call them Baggs to rhyme with Flaggs?) came late to Logan and, 'mirable dictu' as Virgil would say, were discovered by the right security people. What's more, Atta and Almari's bags had all kinds of goodies in them: correspondence from the University Atta went to in Egypt, Almari's international driver's license and passport, a videocassette for a Boeing 757 flight simulator, a folding knife and pepper spray, extra heavy duty weapons they figured they didn't need.

As agent Flagg would say, "It had all these Arab-language papers that amounted to the Rosetta stone of the investigation." His sidekick, a former federal prosecutor, who did not wish to be identified publicly (and who could blame him?), certainly supported Flagg's account. Aren't you wondering by now why these "turrists" would want to lug their plans, scams, IDs et al, in a couple of bags and dump them in a last minute check-in? Generally, a gate attendant will tell you if your baggage will make your flight or land on a later one. This means you'd be leaving all this heavy-duty info spinning in the wind.

I mean, did Dillinger leave his home address in a bank safe he busted into? Did Al Capone leave a box of chocolates with a card with his name on it at the "Valentine Day" massacre in Chicago? Did John Gotti leave a calling card on Paul Castellano's bullet riddled body after the dapper don and buddy popped the Gambino crime family boss and chauffeur in front of Spark's Steak House in Manhattan? C'mon, you're pulling my leg.

I mean what kind of malefactors would be that stupid, unless they were setting up a false-flag op? Like, "see, everybody we're the guys that did it, 9/11; we are Arabs, see the writing; hey, here's a knife, some maps, a CD to fly a 757; hello, don't look so hard. We give up, ha-ha, but we'll be dead by the time you read this. And so will some 2,900 people. So you can blame The War on Terror on us as soon as possible, ASAP. Right. Here are the clues." It's like Catch Us If Can, the ultimate reality TV show. Oh god, why has thou forsaken us. Cause we're so dumb.

But Flagg Asks the BIG Question

Yup, Agent Flagg goes on to ask . . ."How do you think the government was able to identify all 19 hijackers almost immediately after the attacks. They were identified through those papers in the luggage. And that's how it was known so soon that al-Qaida was behind the hijackings." Wow, is that how they made the connection? And so fast?

I was wondering about that. And how a couple of months later FBI Director Robert Mueller said on CNN, that there was no factual proof these were the guys. But hey, maybe he didn't have his coffee that morning. The thing is what if you, we, America, were set up that day? Er, say what?

What if the clues were put there to cover the tracks of the real Bad Bush Boyz, not these lap dancer hounds, boozing and coking joy boys, trained at American military bases, conspicuously leaving a paper trail so blatant it'd make Hansel and Gretel's breadcrumbs look like canary eggs. And yet these same document droppers were barely able to get to the airport on time? They must have been exhausted driving up to Portland just to fly back to make this smoke screen where supposedly there would be less security to halt their efforts.

But wait. Can we be sure when they got back to Boston, if they did, that they even got on the planes? They weren't on the manifests. Their DNA would have been boiled to a crisp in the hits. And was it clear they even flew the planes?

It's like the old Schnozzola, Jimmy Durante himself would say: "What a revoltin' development this is." It's revolting in every way, James. Nothing like we'd ever seen before. Except maybe in the "Sinking of the Maine," "Operation Northwoods," "Operation Mongoose," "The Murrah Building Blow-Up" in Oklahoma City, The Cuba-supporting lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald, and so on. Yeah, it's the Cubans. They did it all. Let's go smoke 'em out. Our cigars are bigger than theirs.

Flagg Is Doing Okay Now

Guess what. After 22 years on terrorism and other cases, Flagg retired from the FBI before 9/11 and is now set up in his own Manhattan-based investigative firm, Flaggman, Inc. Clever, hah. He stays in touch with the Boyz at the FBI, both old buddies and prosecutors. In fact, he first heard about the old Rosetta stone (I mean luggage)'s importance to the whitewash (I mean investigation), on Sept 28, 2001, after attending the funeral of John O'Neill.

You remember O'Neill. He was the FBI chief of terrorist head-hunting who, frustrated by having his Osama-chases foiled time and time again, quit the FBI after 30 years of service. Unfortunately, he died in Tower 2. Yes, O'Neill died trying to help people out of the building, kind of guy he was, and maybe knew too much as well.

At the funeral, Flagg met a young FBI agent that he had helped train. The young agent had since left the agency for Dubai, gulp, and told Flagg all about the Suitcase Revelations. Name of the father, son and holy molly. Flagg rang up his old prosecutor buddy and got confirmation of the young guy's account.

"I was devasted because word had already leaked out of the hijacker's identities," Flagg opined. Then in a quick change of spirit added, "But I was also excited that the FBI had so much evidence so quickly." Frigging miracle.

Too bad the government couldn't put all its previous intelligence together and stopped the whole thing, seeing how it had been laid out before 9/11. Too bad NORAD fell apart that day. Too bad that five simultaneous terror hijacking drills were going on, that up to 22 planes filled the air controllers' screens, and nobody knew what the hell was real and what wasn't. Too bad, right.

But hey, the Bad Boyz left lots of breadcrumbs like suitcases along the way that led right to the White House: Dick Cheney in the Control Room, George Bush in a Florida school listening to kids read a goat story, the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld ducking the missile, NORAD, the CIA, FBI, Israeli and even Chinese black ops. And they lead to others in the US entrusted with protecting us who instead turned on us and took part in this Great American Tragedy. "What a revoltin development this is." Yes James, you're right again. So let's revolt, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.

And last but not least. Did you know that Flagg said it really was the second bag that identified all 19 hijackers? Got that? Though he didn't comment on the fact that at least seven of the "hijackers" have been noted alive, well and kicking in the Middle East. But hey, that's what a "False Flagg" op is all about, blaming the homegrown havoc on people you want to attack. Mmmm, gimme that Afghanistan, gimme theme pipelines, gimme Iraq, gimme that oil, gimme da Mid-east today, gimme da world tomorrow. Mmmm. Where'd I hear that song before?
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.