i'm fat

aaahhhhhhh!!!!

Okay everyone, why is there no coverage, or reporting of our largest trading parter and largest supplier of crude oil (Canada) and talks in Washington with new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper? Like this is more important to North America than alot of the the other crap reported in the past few days in this paper. Are we in a freakin vacuum or what? Come on, what kind of message are we sending a mesage to Canadians that they are that insignificant? Wait until we need them. It is not surprising why Canadians often think Americans are arrogant or myopic to what happens above the 49th parallel. Let's get with it!!! There is so much to be gained by a stronger northern partner on the continent. Let's get some dialogue going. Why should this visit matter and what is going on up in Canada?

Bill, what do you think of Gary Hart's new book on security in the 21st C.? Thanks.

Iraq and now North Korea vs The United Red States of George Bush!

It is nothing short of a farce, given the United Red States of America, and the rest of the world's reaction to the North Korean missile launches that took place yesterday. Given that most of the voices of most nations of the world have been muted, with regard to the independent strikes and occupation of Iraq, by the United Red States of George Bush, I cannot believe the current outcry, that is taking place, instead, against Korea.

The North Koreans, in my opinion, have the same right to ignore the U.N. and the rest of the world, as the United States does. As a result of the U.R.S.G.B., the United States has no voice at all, and is already hiding behind other nations, having them to speak out in their stead.

When will the hypocrisy and double-standards cease? If the world will do nothing about the U.R.S.G.B's occupation of Iraq, then the world should leave North Korea alone as well. The North Koreans have not murdered anyone, or taken over a whole nation and dispatched its Government!

Having said that, I empathize with those nations like Japan and others in the China Rim, and I can understand their concerns. However the right answer is and was for all of the Nations of the world, including those in that region, to be as vociferous in speaking out against and establishing sanctions against all recent aggressor nations, particularly The United Red States of George Bush..

Anybody hear about the United States' latest generation of Nuclear Usable Weapons, which were developed at the same that the the United States was telling other nations, besides Israel, that they could not posses any nuclear weapons; and how many nuclear weapons does Israel possess?

This double-standard is wrong, and it will result in the creation of even more enemies for the citizens in The Blue States of America, who do not believe in or support American duplicity!

What a country?.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

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

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885916460&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

CIA closes unit for capturing bin Laden

By JPOST.COM STAFF

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) closed the unit charged with catching Osama bin Laden and his senior deputies, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.

Established in 1996 and known as "Alec Station," the unit was dismantled at the end of 2005 and its employees reassigned in the CIA Counter-terrorist Center; however, its dissolution was publicly announced only recently.

The decision was a milestone for the agency and indicates a significant change in perspective regarding bin Laden's place in Al Qaida in particular and in the international terrorist infrastructure in general.

Whereas the belief until now was that Al Qaida was a purely hierarchical organization and that killing off its leader would put an end to its activity, the new reality required the agency to change its assumptions.

Currently, the CIA's main concern is small, scattered terrorist groups which, although influenced by Al Qaida, operate entirely independently and don't receive their instructions directly from bin Laden.

Senior CIA members emphasized that catching bin Laden is still a priority, and that closing the unit does not signify the total neglect of that goal.

"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."

If people believe that only the amount of money and staffing thrown at a problem matters, from the President to the voter standing in line at the polling station, who are the Democrats to correct them?

That's not excusing them, incidentally, and I hope Ned Lamont wins.

As it is with all warring nations, the very first order of business for them is to demonize the enemy, dehumanize him so that whatever excesses we may get caught doing we can rationalize and justify them.

The misnamed "war on terror" is no different. We are told that the terrorists are "global jihadists". They are murderous, evil creatures with a bloodlust. We are told just as we were with communists that they think and act differently than us. That they are patient in their evildoings and take a "long view" of history.

We are told all of these things because by contrast, it makes us look heroic, noble and concerned only with the well being of the rest of the world. We are the liberators, the saviours, the noble warriors who are out for nothing less than the establishment of God's own justice on earth.

The problem is that the view I have described above is held by our enemies as well. They are convinced that what they are doing has God's blessing. They see us in the same dehumanized terms that we see them.

It never seems to occur to us that these people may simply want to have a world where it is no longer accdeptable to have foreign troops and permanent military bases on whath they see as Islamic soil. It never seems to occur to us that we might be seen as on a religious Crusade. It never seems to occur to us that these people may have some legitimate grievances that drive them to behave in such angry, malevolent ways.

And, it never seems to occur to us that every single Bomb dropped, every innocent civilian that becomes "collateral damage", and every single incident of our own tendency toward inhuman brutality validates all of the worst things they have been taught to believe about us.

That is why I reject all of the overheated bombast that always turns the enemy into inhuman monsters. The truth is that they--and we--are all too human. Notwithstanding George W. Bush's comic conviction that Providence has placed him in office.

My dear Archimedes, for one who reveres the art of reason you seem to exhibit precious little of it. You seem to have swalled the camel of George W. Bush's silly, oversimplified logic which goes syllogistically like this:

(A) We were attacked on 9-11, 2001.

(B) We have not been attacked since, ergo:

(C) My foreign policy is working.

Look. This nation was attacked in 1993 at the very same site. Yet, 8 years passed before we were attacked in this country again. Can Bill Clinton not make the same easy, idle boast that he kept us safe from an attack for the rest of his term?

There is an inherent silliness in the argument and as it always is with Bush, it is made with the deceptive, fallacious grounding that: (1) allows him to take credit for keeping us safe if we are not attacked and, (2) conversely and perversely allows him to say "I told you so!" if we are attacked.

Do you doubt that for one instant that Bush and his allies would tolerate any criticism of him and his policies if we are attacked again? Do you doubt that his lovesick sycophants on the talk radio circuit would be spinning their hineys off talking about how right he has been all along just as at this moment they are spinnning his humiliation before the Supreme Court last week as some sort of bizarre victory.

Archimedes, if we were being led by a strong, confident leader with an abundance of sound, reasonable thoughtfulness as his banner, we would not be having more deaths from terrorism every year. We would not be bogged down in a brutal civil insurgency in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9-11-2001.

But more to the point, your notion that this is all about a global jihadist threat is addled. To be sure, there are terrorists out there of all stripe who can ensure that we live in interesting time. But the notion that this rag tag band of religious fanatics have the wherewithal to dominate the world--let alone the inclination--is comically ludicrous.

I continue to be astonished that the media allows Bush and his romantically inclined neocon allies to peddle this nonsense. It is the one thing that is keeping us from looking at this problem in the clear light of reason.

but you need to understand something.

IF you do not hold people responsible for their actions,

like arresting and executing them,

nothing changes...that is what the French Revolution was about and that is why our Statue of Liberty came from France...

they have already been through what we are experiencing....a heartless aristocracy that would use and abuse it's people up to and including stealing from the poor...

we have spent a lot more time being victims of aristocracy than not...that is simple history....

what is so hard about calling a spade a spade...

how do you think congress would feel if the president was arrested and properties confiscated?

or his old man, who happens to work for Halliburton and have deep connections with the Saudis?

and who flew the planes "if they existed" into the world trade center 15 Saudis and a couple of other people...

who trained al Qrapda? CIA, special forces

where did the pilots learn to fly? USA

just keep looking, be brave, it'll come to you.

you can't argue a "more thoughtful approach," with someone that is only using terrorism as a cover story for plundering another nation as well as the one he is acting from...

so suggesting alternative actions can be dismissed by saying, "I have inside information that _this_ is the course we should take,"

your argument for a saner approach to terrorism _falls on the ground_

_that_ is not what is at issue....

you want to stop the war on terror?

arrest and execute george w. bush, cheyney, rumsfeld and rice...

apologize and _nomralize relations_ after those actions...

I agree, that having financial operations in a single place is foolish, even from a natural disaster standpoint...

most businesses have fallback sites that they have the necessary subset of activities that they can work with, it's called _disaster planning_ any any big financial op has a copy of it's transactions and database of "what's going on" being replicated to another site...

I write _to_the_point_ not because I'm stupid, but because I'm not.

for example, Einstein said "If you understand something and you really do understand it, you should be able to explain it to a ten year old."

my language is very plain.

be afraid...where are the terrorists, identify them.

you talk to _their_ framing?

unless you're supporting their story?

let's get to the point mr. p.j. casey

ideas,

but where do you have proof of terrorists?

because the president fed you that proof?

remember, there is no Iraq connection to 9/11...

where are the terrorists? what are your proofs?

Lets get this partisan trash out of the way before we begin serious discussion. The modern versions of the Republican and Democratic party are brainless when it comes to national security or foreign policy. When it comes to foreign policy and national defense in modern times, the only Republican President who had a clue, leaving out Iran and Guatamala, was Eisenhower. The Democrats were more fortunate with Wilson and FDR guiding foreign policy. As to domestic programs, Republicans are out to lunch. Democrats have FDR and Lyndon Johnson on the domestic side. Other presidents have their moments, but these people were consistant winners.
In the real world, the prevention of terrorism and other conflicts on an international scale rests on a sound foreign policy and good intelligence. Domestic tranquility depends on having an inclusive society that takes care of its people.
As with any form of conflict, one can harden a target, or reduce casualties throuh dispersion. For example, Nuclear power plants or chemical plants can cause widespread damage when successfully attacked. You should beef up security and strengthen every building that would be subject to attack. While this comes under the heading of dispersion, isolating these plants from dense population areas would also be helpful.
As an example of dispersion, The World Trade Center, as an office building, was one of the dumbest ideas in the history of architecture. Terrorism aside, putting that many people, in that tall a building, with limited exits is a disaster waiting to happen. Rebuilding that disaster is compounding that stupidity. New York has more office space than it can rent, and spreading these people out in many buildings would reduce any future casualities. While businesses would certainly want branches in New York City, Their home offices should be scattered in small cities throughout the Country.This would reduce casualites and property losses. However because of their size and population, larger cities are more likely targets and should get federal support because they can produce the most casualties.

A Better & Cheaper Alternative: Make Peace

There have been other delegations, from the U.S.A,. that have travelled abroad, who have brought back to America with a completely different story than Dr. Rice has, with respect to the attitudes of the people in both Palestine and the Middle-East; the majority of these people are not and never were America's enemies.

I have attended numerous meetings with the latter, and listened intently to what they had to say about the Palestinian and Iraqi citizen's attitudes toward Americans. The majority of citizens in Palestine and Iraq, admire and desire peace with the Americans. The majority of Koreans and Iranians feel the same way. What do they want?

These people are not jealous of American freedoms or America's wealth, as we have been told. Remember Bremmer's report on Iraq, that was quickly discarded by this Administration? The fact is that the majority of citizens in all of these countries are confused about America's attitudes and behaviors towards them. Many foreign citizens would appeal directly to American citizens, rather than to our Government, if they could.

I could go into more detail, but think about it yourselves. How much misinformation have we received in just the last 6 years alone from our Federal Government and its diplomats?

If we want peace with the world, in addition to putting our resources to better use, listen to our Government officials first, then go off and do some research on your own and compare your findings.

The Truth is out there just waiting for you. Failure to do some may result in our grandchildren fighting the same battles in the year 2027 or 2050.

And remember how many times has the Bush Administration has lied, dissembled and misdirected informaiton to the American public.

I am convinced that there can be peace in Palestine, as well as in Iraq, in addition to Korea and Iran.

I would also determine if Negroponte and Goss commited crimes against the United States by incapacitating the agencies that could be used to investigate and prosecute them...

CIA/FBI/NSA/DIA

pierce the veil
..

wanna talk about it, mr former cover-up agent in chief?

.

hi there mr goss, you turd.

.

_are_ any terrorists?

point at them.

if there are terrorists, how come we have 12 to 20 MILLION _illegal_ aliens camped in our midsts...

if there is _ANY_ protection from terrorists?

any one mexican/salvadoran/guatemalen/honduran/argentinian of spanish descent looks arabic

the name moor, come from north africans of arabic origin, they conquered parts of spain/italy/greece/portugal...any one having bloodlines from those regions looks _arabic_ which would be all of mexico and south america.

.

"second largest OIL RESERVES IN THE WORLD,"

don't you understand WOW?

Hi Bill and all-

You write" The complex argument, though, never developed in the report, is that the very strategy of offense -- of the war against terrorism -- is wrong, that the United States should return to a pre-9/11 "defensive" stance. In a full-fledged debate, I imagine most Americans would disagree with this formulation. A majority might agree that the war in Iraq has been a mistake, but that does not mean that what they want in its place is fortress America holding its breath."

I would like to point our two things:

1. There is a long, and patriotic, history of not having the USA meddle in others affairs. Altho it went by the unfortunate moniker of Isolationism, it has to be said that much of the reason that we had 9/11 was that we were seen as meddling in others affairs. There is a reason 9/11 didnt happen to say Norway and that because they havent been funding warlords, installing despots or overthrowing elected governments. I dont know if there is a voice of Neo-Isolationists out there, but I can tell you that this Iraq mess really demonstrates the point. We need not, and it diminishes us by trying, be the world's judge, jury and executioner.

2. I dont know if we had a vote on whether to invade Iraq how it would have panned out, especially if all the claims and counter claims were really on the table. I think many more Americans are concerned with Uncle Sam as a policeman than you apparently do.

I have no doubt that we would be much safer (and much more liked in the world) if we would stay out of others business and mind our own, if we spent more of our tremendous wealth in foreign aid (and maybe even up to our treaty obligation), and if we would follow our own rules and constitution. Heck maybe we could do onto others....a shocking idea, huh?

There is a reason we have failed our constitution and not declared war on Iraq. What is that reason, Bill? Why didnt we have a "full fledged debate"? Tell us your view.

everything that I've said to do, is really the only solution for quick rectification of the "crisis,"

ongoing rape.

.

that's right.

it's simple, if you can be brave little boys and girls.

.

I would also determine if Negroponte and Goss commited crimes against the United States by incapacitating the agencies that could be used to investigate and prosecute them...

CIA/FBI/NSA/DIA

pierce the veil
..

solution:

arrest cheyney, bush, rumsfeld, rice...

and put them up for war crimes.

investigate a complicit congress, and arrest, prosecute, execute, jail complicit members....get rich on DOD, and oil mentalities.

apologize to the world,

from _that_ perspective normalize Iraq.

it's a lot easier to impress people with an honest intention when you display one.

.

Zathras says:

"A sensible view of terrorism begins with our recognizing which cultures are most likely to produce terrorists, and keeping as much distance between them and us as possible."

a sensible view of terrorism is to understand that it is a fabrication...are you helping that fabrication, by talking as_if it exists?

want to talk about it? and get your behind kicked? that would be lovely, I've got a few minutes to kill....wanto dance?

.

" ... I for one have a hard time taking these task forces too seriously because the argument and the recommendations are not only often straw men and stalking horses for other agendas"

Too many American citizens do not know/realize this, through no fault of their own. Sadly, talking head 'experts' are featured on major news programs on a regular basis and have replaced more thorough and detailed investigative reports.

" ... The complex argument, though, never developed in the report, is that the very strategy of offense -- of the war against terrorism -- is wrong, that the United States should return to a pre-9/11 "defensive" stance. In a full-fledged debate, I imagine most Americans would disagree with this formulation. A majority might agree that the war in Iraq has been a mistake, but that does not mean that what they want in its place is fortress America holding its breath."

1. There can be no "return to a pre-911 defensive stance."

2. The Republican party has manipulated the American public's 'fear' to a larger degree versus the Democrats, since 9/11.

3. Americans will indeed be asking that America become somewhat of a fortress when AQ hits on US soil again, at least for a period of time after said event(s). They will also ask why the attack was not prevented, will become aware that the government could not prevent the attack, and realize that the government can not provide for their needs in the aftermath of the attack. AQ will have accomplished another one of its' stated goals: causing US citizens to become distrustful of the US government's ability to protect them.

" ... A far more consequential and appealing Democratic Party argument would be: America does not need more national security spending at home"

I view AQ as an active and actual threat to the overall security of the nation and hence, I believe that "national security spending" is necessary. Whether the dollar amounts for said programs need to be increased represents an on-going argument, as does the manner in which said funds are currently being appropriated.

IMHO, it should be noted that local PDs, hospitals, and emergency services, specifically, will be the first to attempt to identify, mitigate, and respond to a given threat/action (if they are able to) and yet are still desperately in need of funding to provide training/equipment for their employees and services to the public. This fact speaks volumes about how funds have already been appropriated and also highlights the current administration's priorities with regard to the 'defense and protection' of average American citizens.

" ... it doesn't need to create a lock-down in its cities."

No "lock-down" in advance of an attack but some monitoring is necessary. Additionally, I would not be at all surprised to see any given city "locked-down" due to the investigation of a possible threat or after an actual attack.

" ... What it needs is a more sensible and less fearful view of the terrorist threat."

A "less fearful view of the terrorist threat" would indeed be a good idea in that it is not possible/healthy for individuals to sustain an increased state of anxiety for an extended period of time, without consequences. However, it would not be wise to discount the deaths and physical damage that could occur due to a 'successful' hit (or series thereof) by AQ, either. IMHO, we need to remain alert and prepared for the inevitable - while continuing to live our lives to the fullest degree possible. Not an easy task, but a necessary one, nonetheless.

And, Mr. Arkin, what is a "more sensible and less fearful view of the terrorist threat?" Since you seem to imply that the task force's solution is misdirected and then imply that you, on the other hand, have a viable solution, and then drop it like a hot potato, we might doubt that you actually have one.

not at all...

rape is rape...and someone needs to be arrested....

someone that is manifesting the rape of our nation.

your tax dollars are being spent on their friends business ventures...

as _your_ country goes bankrupt,

_they_ become richer and you have less possibility of affecting your own future, because you're too busy trying to make ends meet...

hello serfdom.

terrorist attacks have increased every year since George W. Bush came into office is two fold...

he's creating terrorists,

and he are the terrorists...

you want validity, you need attacks, shills are people in the audience that validate your powers of mesmerization...

a shill can be an attack force that appears to be enemy soldiers attacking...I'd look a little deeper at the "Madrid Incident" if I were you....I had friends in Special Forces....propaganda is sometimes more important than force.

.

to milk the people with fairy tales.

that's the political point.

Any one watching what is going on knows that spending is what this occupation is all about...

_they_ wanted a reason to spend money, and a profit to result from that expenditure,

the faster they can get things settled "over there," the quicker they can begin pumping oil...

I was watching Farenheit 9/11 last night, at an AFCEA conference (weapons sales) just after 9/11 the DOD people were ecstatic about the money that was going to be made....and were not shy about talking about it...

watch Farenheit 9/11, it's a factual view that lays out the details of _what_is_going_on_

which is basically using serfs to fight battles for the Kings of the world to control the OIL MARKET

there's nothing patriotic about it...

WHAT DO THEY NEED HOMELAND SECURITY FOR????

_they_ know there are no terrorists....they fabricated them, any one saying otherwise is a liar, complicit or too stupid to understand that they are being conned.

that's the point fred.

.

William

I think you miss the political point. It is as boring to pore money into Homeland Security as it is into social security. There'll be few extra votes.

Iraq serves some important constituences in America: the mobile military, traditional defense industries and the need to secure America's oil future in the Middle East (see http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2006/06/oil-unspeakable-foreign-policy-factor.html).

These are conventional, politically appealing and perhaps legitimate, reasons for remaining in Iraq.

Homeland security, like a charity, is less appealing until people need it.

Pete

I think I know what I mean by a "more sensible, less fearful" view of the terrorist threat. I wonder what Mr. Arkin means.

I mean a view that recognizes suicide bombings and war on civilians not as means to address political grievances but as authentic expressions of culture. This view understands 9/11, insurgent massacres of civilians in Iraq and the Arab genocide in Darfur to be not aberrations but rather predictable outcomes of combining backward, violence-prone tribal cultures with modern means of destruction. The appropriate response to it does not involve armor-plating American cities and ports, or increasing surveillance of Chinese students and Indian guest workers in the United States. It most certainly does not involve faith in building democracy in the Arab world as an answer to terrorism.

I don't really think this view is all that far removed from what most Americans believe now. Terrorism by itself does not threaten civilization; we shouldn't act as if it does. The cultures productive of terrorism have lots of things wrong with them that can't be fixed by offering them more sympathy and respect, or even by changing their political systems; it's absurd for us to focus our foreign policy around either of these. A sensible view of terrorism begins with our recognizing which cultures are most likely to produce terrorists, and keeping as much distance between them and us as possible.

As I say, this is my view, or at least the foundation of it. I'm not sure what Mr. Arkin's view is, of whether he'd be comfortable returning to the combination of feckless complacency and ineffectual hand-wringing that characterized Clinton administration policy in this area or something else. He'll have to speak for himself on this point.

Wait a minute, this report was written by Richard Clarke. The same Richard Clarke on whose watch every major Al Qaeda attack against the US occured. Perhaps he is "intimately familiar with government failure." I still don't understand why someone with his horrible track record is still thought of as an expert. Seems that anyone who is anti-Bush these days is automatically credible and that is very sad. I find it ironic though that Arkin seems to point that out while at the same time taking Clarke's very viewpoint that the terrorism threat is overblown and our response to 9/11 is disproportionate. Perhaps they should both re-read OBL's declaration of jihad issued in 1997. Then they should go back through Lexus-Nexus and look at the documentation of the multiple attacks against this country carried out by Islamist radicals. The evidence is very clear that these religious fanatics are not simply blowing smoke but are quite serious when they say they are launching a global jihad against America, Israel, and the greater West. The idea that they can simply be made to go away or that we inflamed them is so intellectually dishonest and factually incorrect that it's laughable. Their religious doctrine has been around for the better part of two centuries and is rooted in returning the Ummah to the way it was at the time of Mohammed. The assumption is that doing so will restore the Muslim nations to their past glory and power. Terrorism is simply the tactic du jour for these people and ignoring the threat they pose to us or naievely downplaying it is both arrogant and stupid. The very fact that our fear of terror attack has decreased in the last five years is a testament to the success of our current counter-terrorism policies, as is the fact that in five years we have suffered not one domestic terror attack and Al-Qaeda, as reported in these pages, is essentially non-functioning as an organizational entity. The Iraq War can be debated until people are blue in the face, regardless we should applaud this government for not failing, as previous governments have, to properly recognize the threat we face and to respond to it in a manner which yields real, tangible results which benefit all of us.

Trust always in Reason

Archimedes

The Late King George of England, or the current King George of America, take your pick?

Fact: King George Bush did not protect protect New Yorkers on 911.

Fact: King George Bush did not protect Washington D.C. on 911.

Fact: King George Bush did not protect citizens aboard airliners on 911.

Fact; King George Bush and Mr. Rumsfool, did could not protect its own headquarters on 911.

Fact: Since King George Bush could not protect America and Americans on 911, what course of action did he take? He created a diversion, by moving the war away from American soil. The war he waged was to kill innocent victims, citizens of countries who had not done anything to the U.S.A., like Iraq.

American has always believed that wars were to be fought on soil, other than America's soil, in places like 'Old Europe'. But the Europeans woke up a couple of decades ago and said, no more!.

Therefore, since the Administration could not draw his perceived enemies into the European theater, the Administration created a battlefield in Iraq, subsequently dispatching of its government, imprisoning its leader, and locking up many of its citizens, and mind you, these people had not done anything to the U.S.A.

But naive Americans, who need to get on with their lives, are pleased that America is fighting someone. Naive Americans do not understand that America is simply creating more terrorist/freedom-fighters, who will defend their freedoms just as American insurgents are doing.

All of the money spent in this American-made conflict, has been wasted. It is sad that there is never any money available, to meet the needs of the citizens of America!

In fact, America does not have to have as many enemies as it has created. But there are some people in America, some are part of the current Administration, who want America to have enemies! It is an old, but distasteful strategy.

THE real enemy of America, is America's narrowly drawn conclusion, that only America, ultimately, has the right to exist and to tell everyone else, and every other nation on the planet how and what they must do, or how they must conduct themselves, in order to satisfy America, which is their pass to survival!

I'm a pragmatist Bill. I am informed that terrorist incidences throughout the world have increased every single year since George W. Bush launched a "War on Terror". That tells me that a war on terror is a no more fruitful effort than a war on poverty or a war on crime or a war on drugs, all past "wars" that were declared and subsequently disappeared into the fog of political lexicon.

George W. Bush himself has said that terrorism is a political act and demands a political response. War--at least war in the classic, traditional definition of that term--is an act of survival. Bush and his allies are forever telling us that we are involved in a war like no other, yet they want to be seen as waging it in the classic, traditional manner replete with all of the patriotic accoutrements and vicissitudes that have accompanied such past wars (I and II). This yields great political benefit for the administration because it allows their political operation to paint George W. Bush as your classic, traditional wartime President even though he is not waging a classic, traditional war.

It also allows Bush and Rove and Cheney and Rumsfeld to get away with all manner of extra-Constitutional power grabs and subseqently paint critics as being disloyal and unpatriotic when they call into question such power grabs. What makes this sort of un-classical, un-traditional war dangerous to the Republic is that it can be a virtually endless war, thus allowing Presidents to hold on to such extraordinary power indefinitely.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely as we have all been reminded of by poets and by experience. The present hoohah over the Supreme Courts's decision last week rebuking the Bush administration is the latest test of whether this Republic can long endure when you have an executive that uses fear and word play to justify the use of absolute power.

The Court merely filled a vacuum left by a Congress that seems not just a rubber stamp for this President but, even more dangerous, a Congress more than willing to give up its own prerogatives. They seem content with having but one Article in the Constitution. Thank God, we have a Supreme Court that checks that sort of Imperial power.

TRUTH WILL PREVAIL!!!!!

911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77

A short animation with video and photos illustrating the final moments of Flight 77 on September 11, 2001.

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/swf/pentagon_en.swf

For uncensored news please go to:
WWW.WSWS.ORG
WWW.ONLINEJOURNAL.COM
WWW.TAKINGAIM.INFO
OTHERSIDE123.BLOGSPOT.COM