Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Friday, 8 September 2006 at 21h 7m 27s|
A rhetorical question
Answer the following question (don't cheat)
Now for the question : disregarding all of the minor military engagements in
between, which one of the above is not like the others ?
|Sunday, 3 September 2006 at 17h 53m 0s|
About the plane that hit the Pentagon
I also put together a paper about the plane
analyzed the energy it would take to vaporize the aluminum plane that was said
to have occured.
Go here if you want to read it.
Now mind you the Aluminum did not just melt, it boiled. Aluminum vaporizes at
2519°C (4566.2°F.) At less than
half this temperature all living flesh and carbon-based items would vaporize
without a trace -- because at those temperatures there is enough heat to cause
the carbon in our organic body cells to unite with free oxygen. Yet the
government insists it gathered DNA identification of
96 of the passengers on the plane that hit the Pentagon. I even heard a
spokesperson for the debunker911 folks reiterate this meme.
How could they have gotten DNA if the DNA would have been completely destroyed
when the Aluminum of the plane supposedly vaporized in the one hole of the
This is unbelievable for even a friend of mine who vehemently disagrees
with 98 percent of my thinking on these matters. If the wings folded up along
with the two 9 ton engines and if the entire plane then vaporized in that one
hole of the Pentagon, then how on Earth could they have gotten DNA samples?
The DNA, all organic matter, AND all materials with a specific heat less than
Aluminum would have all chemically burned into combustion gases and water
vapor. There would have been no cell structures or DNA intact.
|Saturday, 2 September 2006 at 22h 9m 0s|
Debunking the debunkers
not truth at all. Let me brieftly explain why.
The Physics from the Physics blogger Dr Frank Greenings (here
) analyzed the amount of energy that would be
created from the Towers falling at free fall speeds. This energy however was
due to the collapse, and cannot at all have been the energy which presumably
the steel in the towers. The steel could not have been weakened from an energy
that was created after the fall of the towers, since the energy that weakened
steel would have had to be present before the falling of the towers.
But more importantly, Dr. Greenings also assumed that the 110 stories all came
down because all 44 central steel cores suddenly failed at the same time and at
all places up and down the building. He does some basic time of gravitational
fall calculations. Dr. Greenings then elaborates on what he calls the
MOMENTUM TRANSFER THEORY OF THE WTC COLLAPSE or his version of the
Pancake Theory, in which
the stacks fall on top of lower stacks and gradually accumulate energy on the
down (you can read his PDF file here.)
But how this transfer theory could have had the energy to immediately pulverize
spew dense fine particles outward in Pyroclastic flows cannot be
explained. The paper says it "sufficiently explains" the pulverization
but neglects to mention that all of the kinetic energy calculations and
momentum series regression cannot provide energy to the top of the collapse.
And how can 44 steel columns suddenly collapse equally all up and down the 417
meters of height, so that the end result was remarkably equal length sections
of sliced steel columns in a pile at the footprint of the collapse. Natural or
accidental collapses would have been irregular rather than staight-down, and
would involve much twisting and warping of the columns due to the weight
instead of clean breaks at an extreme angle to the beam. And if the steel did
indeed collapse due to weight, how come the collapse began at the very top and
traveled symmetrically downward rather then somewhere more near the center of
gravity of the building? Or how come the top of tower didn't just slump and
fall off? But instead for the first-time in the history of engineering, not
one, but three buildings were said to have collapsed when the steel failed due
to kerosine fuel based fires.
Pyroclastic flows are heavier-than-air gas-particle emulsions that travel
across the ground at velocities ranging from 10 m/sec to 300 m/sec. They can
attain temperatures of over 1000 C. They range from high density flows that
move down valleys and can move beneath water, to dilute flows that extend over
mountains and can move across water.[SOURCE]
Pyroclastic flows like what occurred in the aftermath of the towers collapse do
not occur because buildings fall down, they occur as the result of tremendous
explosive energy. They are quite different than smoke and dust clouds in
general by their velocity and density of material. In nature, a pyroclastic
flow occurs when a volcano
How could concrete and office furniture become completely pulverized into fine
particles and then horizontally projected outward in dense rapidly moving
clouds that traversed 10 plus city blocks and hovered out over the Hudson River
for nearly an hour? Had the towers simply fell down, there would have been
much larger chunks of office furniture and concrete, and therefore not enough
fine material for a pyroclastic flow to occur because most of the energy of the
fall would have gone into the motion of these larger sedimentia. And recall
that the expelled dense clouds of fine material began to occur at the very top
of the towers fall, before the weight of the building could have had an impact.
If it were this easy to crush concrete into fine dust (after falling 3 to 10
seconds in mid-air), a lot of companies have been wasting their money.
Hold a brick up above your head and drop it. Does it get pulverized into fine
dust particles when it hits the ground? Drop it from a 20 story building -- or
a 100 story building -- and it still doesn't pulverize the brick into fine dust
particles, but many various stone-sized broken pieces. The density of small
particles is not possible when most of the weight is in the form of broken
pieces. And since most of the weight is contained in larger pieces, so too
is most of the energy dissipated from the scattering of these larger pieces.
Nevertheless, the pulverization occurred in mid-air, not underneath the weight
of the building.
I don't presume to know what happened because I don't know. But I do know
the laws of Physics. If the heat inside the towers was so great that it would
weakened the steel, the windows (which have a melting point close to that of
steel : 1420 °C versus 1353 °C)
would have all exploded outward from the massive pressure minutes before the
began their collapse. But that didn't happen. A firefighter was able to radio
a call from the 82nd floor, but he would have evaporated into flames if there
have been enough contained heat to weaken the steel.
Airplane fuel burns between 1400 and 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. The core of the
was also specifically designed to seal off the potential of a chimney effect.
how could steel weaken that was specified to last 6 hours at 2300 degrees
without loss of strength?Go here
to see an easy to read table of temperature. Accordingly, Plate Glass slumps
at 1500 °F and Aluminum (of the plane) melts at 1218 °F . Dr. Greenings
mentions that even at temperatures of 500 °C (1000°F), the steel could
have suffered a 20% weakness, but the breaking into sections all along the
length of the steel can be even less explained at this lower temperature, given
that the steel was heavily reinforced at each floor with horizontal cross-beams
which would have dissipated this energy. This would have prevented the
accumlation of high temperatures and stess at any one location.
of the towers is like a 110 story of vertical AND horizontal interconnected
bars into small grids. The entire building was also wrapped in a blanket of
steel. There were something on the order of 10,000 joints of this meshed steel
in the buildings. A few slices in maybe 6 floors, the added weight of a
passenger plane, and the burning of jet fuel cannot explain the collapse of the
towers because at least 50% of the steel would have had to been the exact
temperature of fires that could have at most burned at 1800 in maybe 3 to 4
floors using the most generous assumptions. There is no way the rest of the
steel could have been even close to this temperature, so why didn't the top
just slump over and fall off? The weight of the building is not enough
to "pancake" and cause the steel in the 70 floors below and the basement to
fail. If the section of 5 to 10 floors in the middle did indeed fail, the
failure of those stress points alone releases the energy of the weight which
engendered their failure.
There are other papers which push this notion of bracket creep. The added
weight of the airplanes is not different in stress load than a day of high 30
mile per hour winds, which does occur in New York City. The heat could not
have raised the temperature of all that steel to anything remotely close to 500
degrees Fahrenheit. This idea of "bracket creep" makes one think that the grid
of steel in the towers didn't exist, or that all linkages involved up or down
stress release points, when in fact, the stress release points were in all
directions, even diagonal. But never you mind, there is an integral equation
which says that one of the joints would fail, so therefore all of the 9,999
others must also fail as well. After looking at the mathematical paper which
floated this idea I came away with a surprised understanding that you can use
to model any preconceived assumption you like. Your peers can even agree about
the math being correct. But as for the original assumptions, here is where all
of the best models fail.
All of this puffery put on the website is actually quite dishonest, because as
I just point out, the debunkers are
proving by assumptions based on a false primary argument. There
are too many times when the ripostes and criticism offered is hardly credible,
really only based on opinion -- which is excusable but still not a substitute
for genuine substance and factual description.
such example (go here ) is when the site presumes to "debunk" Mr. Jones
video of the squibs
by showing a picture from SouthWest of building Number 7 AT A DIFFERENT TIME OF
DAY! You can tell by the incidence of the sun with the building that the sun
was higher in the sky. Look at the nearly 45 degree angle of the sun in the
picture on the building to the right (near the center of the pic.)
This is the pic our impenetrable debunker used. That angle of the sun is
between 2 and 3 pm in New York City at that time of
year. Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:30pm EST. That's a 2 to 3 hour
difference in time folks. Interestingly enough, it was also the time at which
that fire raged the most and then started to cool off. By the time WTC7 fell,
the fires were smaller and the smoke was less dense, which is typical of our
historical experience with fires in high-rise steel buildings.
Oh and here's the best. The Jones pic the site provided was actually one
frame from a video (watch it here and slo-mo zoom here )
which showed a sequence of puffs just before the building plummeted. And it's
the visual motion of that sequence in time that is the whole point of the
evidence. They choose one frame to criticize an entire video, how lame is
that? The debunker site makes much ado about the smoke coming
out of the side, even derisively castigating the researchers for their
to show this photo. (But look, see, there it is above, 3 hours before the
building falls in less than 10 seconds.)
A motion gif
The pic the debunker site uses
So how exactly does the photo with all the smoke
refute the video's
sequence of squibs
alongside the WTC7 building just before it fell? That building didn't sag on
the weakened corner, as you would expect, but fell completely symmetrical all
the way down. There is no way this is possible because the steel in the
farthest corner from the weakened corner would not have collapsed at the same
time since it was exposed to much less heat. One side would give maybe. All
at the same time? That is the Physics you find from leftover newspaper scraps
used by homeless cretins in place of blankets.
But alas, critical thinking comes cheap these days. Selecting one frame
from evidence that is meant to be a video, and then trying to tie that frame to
an event that occurred 3 hours earlier is apparently what the debunkers tried
to do. Notice how this frame is zoomed in so that the distortions of the
pixels could indeed seem to arise from smoke on the edge of the building. It's
hard to believe someone who would pick one frame from a video then zoom it to
distortion before linking it with a time 3 hours earlier.
Oh, and I love this bit
Puffs of smoke or simply damaged panels hanging on for dear life coming away
from the building during a violent collapse?
What would the purpose be in setting off charges in that corner of the building
anyway? A question not answered in this conspiracy story. The only purpose this
has is to create evidence around another fuzzy anomaly.
Sounds like it wants to make sense, except two things. Those fires in building
7 could never have been hot enough to cause the steel to fail. The notion that
an entire building could just suddenly shake (watch the video, that's what
happens) and then plummet symmetrically to the ground in less than 10 seconds
is not "simply damaged panels hanging on for dear life." Never once has a
building ever fallen like WTC7 because of fire, despite their being plenty of
fires that were much worse and on older buildings.
And is this trickster really asking that second question? Uh, like, surprise,
surprise -- you can't bring a steel building down any other way! Okay. How
about that. If there were other ways, then why do building owners hired
controlled demolition experts to bring down steel buildings? And then this punk
follows by stating his question is not answered and says the only purpose
is "to create evidence around another fuzzy anomaly" ?
Gosh golly me, did I read that correctly. Creating evidence? Is that a
freudian slip, or why would anyone credible even put those two words together?
The sentence makes no sense at all. If an "anomaly" has been clarified
as "fuzzy" then why does evidence need to be "created" ? "Fuzzy" implies that
one doubts the veracity of whether somethings exists (namely, the truth.)
An "anomaly" by definition is something out of the ordinary. So follow me now,
if something doesn't exist that isn't out of the ordinary, your purpose is to
create evidence? Surely this is either just fuzzy reasoning surrounded by
pugnacious obscurity, or the mad hatter laughing hysterically.
This rank sidestepping amateurism doesn't debunk anything, however, much less
does it come close to ruining Mr. Jones's credibility.
Furthermore, on the same web-page, our fearless debunker has this to say about
the odd squibs:
They say this anomaly is an explosive charge going off and a sure sign of
Controlled Demolition. It's often followed by more video of charges going off
in real Controlled Demolitions. But if we examine the anomaly closely we see
these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to
spurt out then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. It's
strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn't increase it's
explosive strength with time.
So explosives don't increase it's explosive strength with time? But what if
all the explosives didn't go off at once, and were timed in a computerized
sequence -- which is what actually happens during a Controlled Demolition?
That's what the word "Controlled" means. It
is true that squibs could occur from the rush of the building going down,
but why is the concrete instantly becoming pulverized and tossed powerfully
outward as the building falls down? And it still doesn't explain the entire
collapse of the steel, which is the true anamoly (that's misuse of a word
number two.) You can reverse this backwards and
forwards as many times as necessary, but it's the same ole dead armadillo. The
explosive strength began immediately and continued all the way down.
I also don't follow the criticism of the picture which is used to indicate
the use of Thermite explosives [
here.] That picture was taken by someone who remembered when he
the picture. Your article however makes much ado about some apparent ambiguity
of when the picture was taken, when the timing of the photo is not ambiguous.
was taken during the two weeks of rescue operations. You even cede this point,
to make another ridiculous point that the picture of a wielder and a sliced
beam refutes the angle cut in the original picture.
But it's not even the same angle. The angle from Thermite is greater than 45
degrees, whereas the slice provided in your picture looks more like 30
degrees.Go to the [
debunker site here] and see for yourself.
Here is how you estimate the angle. The cut makes a right triangle, with 2
legs that meet at a right angle. If the cut is such that the two legs are
equal length, the angle of the cut is 45 degrees. Notice that the line of the
cut is pointed to a place much lower than the top of the square, indicating an
angle less than 30 degrees -- to me it looks like 2/3 rds. The pic with the
fire-fighters however appear to have a ratio of height to base 1.5 to 1 (or at
least 1.25 to 1) which indicates an angle larger than 45 degrees. In fact the
angle can be determined by using the arctangent function on the ratio. Hence,
Arctan(1.5)= 56.3 degrees
Arctan(1.25)= 51.34 degrees
Arctan(0.66)= 33.69 degrees
Why is this signifigant? If a human being slices steel, it would take longer
to make the 45plus degree cut -- because the length is longer -- in addition to
being a lot more difficult. This
is precisely why the steepness of the angle in the original picture is the mark
of a Thermite cut because the steep cut allows the steel to slide downward!
There would be no need for a human to make this difficult type of cut in order
to break apart the steel beam. It is also a waste of material. Shamefully, your
refutation misses this point,
because it is
precisely this point that makes the entire argument of Thermite explosives
And yet once again, while admiting those steep cuts were of thermite origin,
the debunkers don't realize the most damning point that the very steepness of
the cuts makes the entire argument of Thermite explosives quite plausible.
(Don't know what A Thermite reaction is? Educate yourself. Do a google
on "Thermite". You'll find an australian scientific experiment video and
plenty of info.)
How pompous and self-righteous do you have to be? A hotmail account is the
contact ? There is no address or anything linking you to anyone. Not even a
name. The only
done at this pitiful site is the debunking of its own myths that it
actually does quite
doing through its sloppy, self-flatulent articles. Notice how I provide links
to the articles that I am criticizing. Isn't it odd how the debunker site
can't seem to do the same.
Here is a good
place to go to read the articles the debunker was implicitly criticizing. This
site is a repository for a growing lot of physicists and engineers who leave
their real names and their sources from peer-sourced reviews (as opposed to one
anonymous email link.) In my opinion, there is more substance and detailed
analysis -- minus the boisting tone of the mysterious debunker site and
the smug authority of its Physics blogger assistant, Dr Frank Greenings.
Yea, I believe in the JFK single bullet theory too. And the Liberty League did
attempt to get General Smedley Butler to head
military coup against Roosevelt in 1933 either (so did that Congressional
trial where General Butler told all to a shocked American public really
occur? ) Henry Ford never funded the Nazi Party in Germany, and Prescott Bush
did not use a New York Bank to finance Germany until 1942. Nor did the Chiefs
of Staff all sign operation
in 1962 before it was presented to and rejected by President Kennedy. And
the arms for hostages deals with the Iranians, that did not happen
There is nothing theoretical about any of these matters. They are not myths.
I don't care to speculate about the implications, but I cannot in good
conscience deny what I know to be true. It is a matter of irrefutable
historical record that Men will do and have done despicable deeds in order to
achieve grand designs of power.
|Saturday, 2 September 2006 at 17h 38m 15s|
Not IF . . . When
From the BBC
"We are experiencing dangerous human disruption of the global climate and we're
going to experience more," Professor John Holdren [president of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science] said.
He emphasised the seriousness of the melting Greenland ice cap, saying that
without drastic action the world would experience more heatwaves, wild fires
He added that if the current pace of change continued, a catastrophic sea level
rise of 4m (13ft) this century was within the realm of possibility; much higher
than previous forecasts.
To put this in perspective, Professor Holdren pointed out that the melting of
the Greenland ice cap, alone, could increase world-wide sea levels by 7m
(23ft), swamping many cities.
John Holdren, in addition to his presidency of the AAAS, is director of the
Woods Hole Research Center, and the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of
Environmental Policy at Harvard University.
|Thursday, 31 August 2006 at 18h 58m 38s|
There is no threat
Except maybe from the White House.
Nuclear materials need large conglomerations of nuclear material to make
nuclear weapons. This isn't just a few garbage bags full of stuff. We are
talking material on the order of 500 tons, or about 30 train-loads full.
In addition to the bulk, nuclear materials can (and are) easily viewable from
satellites using all kinds of spectral analysis. There is no place on Earth
that is secretly doing anything without the foreknowledge of the United States.
They just want to scare you into thinking we need to invade and bomb Iran.
And if nuclear materials getting in the wrong hands was truly the concern of
the administration how come they abrogated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty
and stopped working with Russia to monitor the proliferation of nuclear
materials? How come Bush withdrew from the Salt Treaties and The International
Criminal Court? How come they destroyed a covert operation by exposing the
company Brewster-Jennings when they outed Valerie Plame if the purpose of the
operation was meant to track nuclear materials? Does that make sense to you?
Now if they were so worried about Iraq and Iran that they fumed about them
regularly in print and speech since 1997 (Cheney & Rumsfeld's signatures were
on the original PNAC document) ... then why did they ignore all of
the abundant warnings about September 11th? Why did the administration order
the FBI to stop its investigation into the Flight Schools and the charitys of
the bin Laden's? Why was Dick Cheney looking at oil field maps of Iraq at
Task Force meetings in April 2001? Why were the names of oil-conglomerate firms
written on those maps? Here's the source for these maps.
If nuclear weapons are the main concern, you'd think getting rid of all of them
would be priority number one. You'd think they would be pushing the
investigations and covert operations, not destroying and hindering their
progress every inch of the way.
You can't really stack shit this high, can you?
|Monday, 28 August 2006 at 18h 41m 42s|
Cartoons de Jour
Both of these cartoons were viewed at Bartcop.
|Monday, 28 August 2006 at 18h 54m 59s|
The Heartland speaks
Editors, Gatekeepers, and Lapdogs,
I'm so old i can remember the days when the press would have had a field day
exposing blatent criminal behavior in high offices instead of enabling it.
By any and every concievable measure we are currently living in the times of
Worst President Ever and the reason he's still in the oval office is because of
Bush is the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal
He has appointed more convicted criminals to his administration than any
President in U.S. history.
He has broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history
and has withdrawn
the US from the UN Human Rights Commission, the World Court of Law, and the
He has lied us into wars, failed us on security, embarrassed us with fratboy
behavior on the world stage,
bankrupted our national surplus, enriched contributors and henchmen, rewarded
criminality, shredded constitutional rights, and...oh I could go on and on, but
it just makes me sick.
Even sicker yet, he still gets all of you to laugh and fawn at your inane press
You have monolithicly failed us. Why have you done this?
Farmington Hills, MI
Many thanx to
Bartcop for posting this
letter to the editor that recently made the circuit of the the Mid-Western
|Wednesday, 16 August 2006 at 20h 25m 31s|
Of course its about politics
Craig Murray was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002
Published on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 by Craig Murray.
UK Terror plot: What's Really Going On?
I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and
analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called
bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media
analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security
clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence
analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.
So this, I believe, is the true story.
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket.
Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport
Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it
could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that
individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff
they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a
year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me.
Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to
blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a
year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator
have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in
Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is
it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a
desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.
The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for
questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to
cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other
than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also
being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact
too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal,
there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.
We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the
possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain.
Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11".
The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could
sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have
We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary,
making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and
complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our
traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda
machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be
no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the
best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at
2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.
For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist
with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he
was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran
Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a
business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those
who deviated from the Party line.
We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a
bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you
would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and
young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would have
been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting
them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would have done
with the IRA.
In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is
deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand
British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent
are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an
appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few -
just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of
anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon
while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.
Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.
Craig Murray was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to
|Wednesday, 28 June 2006 at 16h 18m 52s|
A preordained truth
I wrote this 3 years ago. It amazes me how much of what we know today was so
damn obvious from the beginning.
The original link is here
March 29, 2003.
According to Andrew Sullivan and other rabid patriots of the Bush regime
"[the anti-war critics]are walking into a political trap of their own making. I
believe they are about to make utter fools of themselves one more time."
You must be talking about yourself.
Did you miss the story where the Shia head mullah in Southern Iraq called on
the entire arab world to resist the American invaders ? Weren't these people
supposed to rise up and hail the Americans as liberators?
What about the apparent "securing" of Basra that turned out to be not so secure
at all? And why are the supply lines from Kuwait constantly harassed by
guerrillas of civilian teenagers? Certainly these people must know that the
Americans are going to get rid of Saddam, why on Earth would they be harrassing
our soldiers ? I saw that picture in the San Francisco Chronicle of a good boy
GI lighting an Iraqi soldiers cigarette.
I also saw a picture of an Iraqi family posing in front of an American tank
with looks that mingled with exasperation and scorn.
Op-ed extraordinaire Jeff Jacoby of the slanderous Boston Globe proclaims this
is a just war. He claims that even a human shield Daniel Pepper said "There are
lots of people coming out, lots of children and they are applauding. The
people . . . shake the hands of American forces who are seen as liberating the
city of Basra."
Uhm, well, is that so. How come the UK Guardian reporter Robert Fisk and others
in the European and Canadian and United States press disagree with this
assessment ? How come there are photos and video of defiant Iraqi citizens that
completely refute what Mr. Jacoby seems to think is a fact?
Who was so stupid to think the Iraqi people would trust an American Army
invasion when the entire Arab world hates the Americans? Are we going to have
to kill the Iraqi people so that they will accept the "democracy" the
administration wants to give them in the form of administration friendly
contracts? Will the Iraqi People think highly of the American Liberators when
their economy is "privatized" to multi-national corporations that are on the
Bush administration's friends list ?
According to Brian Whitaker at the UK Guardian newspaper ( SOURCE:
"Britain's chief military officer in the Gulf, Air Marshal Brian Burridge,
yesterday attacked American moves to hand over the running of Iraq's largest
port to a company which has a history of bad industrial relations and has faced
accusations of union-busting. The firm, Stevedoring Services of American, has
been awarded a £3m contract to manage Umm Qasr by the Bush administration.
Britain argues that the port should be run by Iraqis once it has been made
secure. Another contract in Umm Qasr - for construction work - has gone to a
subsidiary of Halliburton, Vice-President Dick Cheney's old firm."
Another misconception offered by the ilk of the mindless patriots for the war
concerns the banter of George W. Bush the "selfless" politician with a cause.
"Any politician's career is hardly an important thing compared to the outcome
of a war. Bush knows this. He does not care that he is risking all on this. His
ultimate goal is life is not political, that is secondary. He has a deeper
aspect to him that Clinton -a more "intelligent" president- never had. For
Clinton, political victory is the epicenter of the universe. For Bush in this
particular, protecting the country is. " (www.andrewsullivan.com)
Oh so Mr. Bush is not using this "war" to distract the public from the rampant
corruption of his own administration that appoints political hacks to all posts
in the government ... ex-Enron executives, ties with multiple-linking Energy
consortiums, lawyers for multi-national and financial industry lobbyist
organizations, ex-Military contractor consultants. In 2001, this administration
protested that the California Energy crisis was not at all being caused by
market manipulation while Dick Cheney sneared a mouthful about Energy
conservation. Meanwhile, California efforts at conserving energy helped
ameliorate the crisis, and then in 2003 the manipulation of the market by
energy companies friendly to the administration was proved.
The first act passed after 9-11 was the "Economic Stimulus Act" which gave tax
rebates to all of the oil, energy, and chemical industry friends of the Bush-
Cheney administration so slavishly, that taxes from previous years were even
returned by the legislation.
Can you say CORRUPTION ? At least now the president is not getting blow jobs in
the White House.
Oh and Bush protected the country when his recent budget offers no assistance
to the states and the ports and the airports to effectively counter possible
terrorism. That's right ... nothing. The Bush budget spends less on Homeland
Security. The Bush budget reduces the spending for veteran's health care by 11
Ah, but hell we need to give millionaires $92,000 a piece so they can "grow"
the economy, even though the last tax cut (and the Reagan tax cut) went into
the piggy bank called investment portfolio, which only gains interest and
collects dividends but provides little if any "investment." In case you didn't
know, companies don't fund their "growth" from investment portfolios. They get
loans from banks and use the factories or stores or warehouses constructed as
the collateral. The tax cut is only growing the pocketbooks of the people whose
pocketbooks are already big and fine, and our legislators know this.
The Clinton administration (for all of its faults) hunted down Al Quada and
told the Bush Adminstration of the dangers. But Bush sat on his hands and did
nothing, meanwhile plotting for ways to use the events for his own corporate
friends advantage. Go visit CharleyReese (a conservative who despised Clinton a
slicky political hypocrite) if you think this is just another liberal whine.
Is the Clinton punching bag all you got ? Find another toy to beat up on, that
one is getting damn old.
Ashcroft reduced the amount of Justice Department staff working on Terrorist
networks despite being so knowledgable about what was coming that HE STOPPED
FLYING IN PLANES BEGINNING IN AUGUST 2001. That's a fucking fact you don't get
from the so-called liberal media.
Bush halted the FBI investigation into the Bin-Laden family organizations in
the USA. Another fact you don't get from the so-called liberal media.
Where's the Anthrax mailer who forced the evacuation of the Congress with
scrawled notes from "Iraq" ? Basic forensic chemical analysis indicates the
strains of anthrax in those letters had to come from someone inside the US
military. They could have only been produced by 4 persons who had access and
know-how to produce the amount of anthrax sent in those letters. But the FBI is
so inept that it cannot figure this out until an independent researcher Barbara
Hatch Rosenberg at the Federation of American Scientists pointed this out so
much that she was asked to "shut up" ?
I'm so glad that the liberal media is still all over that story. I mean the
fucking Congress had to be evacuated for Christ's sake. And wasn't that all the
media talked about from October to January 2001-2002 ?
What about the commission that was supposed to investigate the 9-11
ineptitude ? And why was Henry Kissinger appointed(Henry Kissinger of all
people) , only to resign because uhm, well he is a highly paid oil oligarchy
consultant for "legal services" ?
And how come the liberal media is not screaming about the funding to the 9-11
commission being CUT to the Bone? A fact that the organization of 9-11 victims
is very angry about?
The NY Firefighters are angry too because Bush the liar promised financial aid
in front of the microphone, but offered nothing when the fine print was put on
Remember Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf ? The general of the Last Gulf War is
against this stupid, imbecile war.
The documents used to support the war turn out to be "faked" but the
administration sees this as no consequence? The administration knew of the
CIA's doubts but cared to ignored them for what reasons ? There are many
analysts in the diplomatic corps and the intelligence corps who are angered by
the administrations insistance that they provide "justifiable" documents.
The cheerleading can stop. The game is over. It's not about democracy, it's a
Afghanistan is now so democratic, that the US forces there are still mopping up
those lone resistance groups who apparently don't believe the "appointed" ex-
oil executive Hamid Karzai is their President.
How much do they pay these guys to put out these lies ? You can't really be
Oh well, there are those who eat shit and think it is filet mignon. And that's
fine but we are talking about young American soldiers and Iraqi civilians who
are going to die because of this war that is more about colonialism than it is
I support the troops. I just don't support this war because it is based on
lies. I think Saddam is a brutal man, but the Sanctions imposed on Iraq and the
constant bombing raids over the last 10 years were not less brutal to the same
people who live in Iraq. When didn't starve Saddam, but we did starve the
people. Likewise, we aren't bombing and shooting at Saddam. We are killing and
maiming the innocent Iraqi people, and carving up the loot to the
administrations corporate friends.
Am I un-patriotic if I find this to be sickening and despicable?
|Wednesday, 28 June 2006 at 16h 4m 49s|
Making Bad Decisions
So, we are in iraq fighting the terrorists to protect our freedom from their
evil designs. Despite the adversity of the cowards who criticize the
ineptitude and the corruption, we will move valiantly onward, because to do
anything else would be treasonous, and contemptuously unpatriotic. Inevitably
we will win and good will prevail because we are a great nation that is proud
of our democratic freedom and the world counts on us to keep the flame of
No I am not on mind altering drugs, don't worry. I am just projecting the
thesis of the war movement in order to come to a larger theme. All blind
thrusts into indecisiveness will justify the paradigm upon which the decisions
were based. Not less for the policy decisions of a corrupt political
administration over the affairs of a modern political state. But there is a
grave difference between individual decisions and those that determined by a
group of ubermensch in the name of the nation.
Here is the difference. When you make a bad decision as an individual, you can
escape the results of the bad decision, but your delusion does not
automatically affect the lives of anyone else. If you want to go on talking
about your vain stupidity like nothing happened, no one else has to agree with
you, and that's that. But when a group of 15 officials decide to do something
stupid, the refusal to admit to the stupidity -- or change the direction of
that stupidity -- involves every citizen of the nation.
What if these officials are also not above fabrication of the truth? The
neverending rationalization of ineptitude becomes more than just the making of
a bad decision. When an individual makes a decision to do something, that
individual is engrossed in the total effort of arriving at the assumed results
that engendered the decision. ( How can this be otherwise? ) But when a group
of well-connected citizens decide upon a course of action, what do we call all
of the latent efforts manufactured to achieve the fruits of that decision?
Y'all take care.
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS