Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Election That Might Not Happen
It's springtime in American politics. It's only early March, but there's a giddy, hopeful feeling to this election season, a sense that new leadership is blossoming. We could have a Democrat in the White House next year. But winter isn't over yet and we need to balance our hope with a little fear. In 2000 Bush and Cheney stole the election in Florida. In 2004 they played dirty tricks in Ohio. In 2008 could they go one step further -- and suspend the election altogether?
The necessary architecture may already be in place. On May 4 last year, the White House issued the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, key parts of which remain classified and hence shrouded from public view. The directive outlines procedures to respond to a "catastrophic emergency," defined broadly as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." Of course previous administrations also had emergency plans. But the Bush directive transfers power from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the White House, where the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism is assigned the job of "National Continuity Coordinator".
The unclassified part of the directive reveals little about who would have the authority to invoke emergency powers during a catastrophe. Nor does it refer to existing laws, such as the National Emergencies Act, that establish congressional checks on the executive's power to impose martial law or other extraordinary measures. Its wording is ambiguous - the directive shall be implemented "consistent with applicable law," without making clear which laws are "applicable". "The Bush legal team has pushed a controversial theory that the Constitution gives the president an unwritten power to disobey laws at his own discretion to protect national security," writes Charlie Savage in the Boston Globe. He quotes legal specialists who describe the vagueness of the new directive as "troubling".
Also troubling is the Department of Homeland Security's $385 million contract awarded to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root in January 2006 to build temporary detention facilities. According to a Halliburton press release, the contract provides for augmenting existing immigration detention facilities in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." It also includes the development of a plan "to react to a national emergency, such as a national disaster." Construction would commence only after an "emergency" is declared. While immigrants appear to be the main target, one cannot rule out the possibility that the detention centers could be used as holding pens for dissidents during a proclaimed emergency. Recent crackdowns on illegal immigrants have included military-style night raids on homes and factories. Are we getting softened up for the expansion of police state tactics?
But perhaps the most important card the Bush administration holds in its deck is a stacked conservative majority on the Supreme Court. In 2000 the Court turned a blind eye to the theft of Al Gore's electoral victory in Florida. Should we expect better today? Just last month the Court refused to review the ACLU's legal challenge to the Bush administration's warrantless electronic surveillance program. Can we depend on the Court to challenge emergency rule and a suspension of elections?
Even with this architecture in place, the Bush administration would need a trigger to declare a state of emergency. One can imagine several possible scenarios:
War with Iran - unfortunately, not so far-fetched. The National Intelligence Estimate released in December concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003. But when have Bush and Cheney ever based their foreign policy decisions on evidence? Moreover, the most important reason they want to attack Iran is to control the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf, nukes or no nukes.
The assassination of a presidential candidate. Obama evokes memories of JFK and Martin Luther King. The bullet could come from a lone racist, a terrorist, or an agent of a state. The threat is real. The Secret Service knows it and so should we.
A terrorist strike, on the scale of 9/11 or worse. Again, not so far-fetched. Bush and Cheney have been Osama bin Laden's greatest recruiters, making the U.S. appear to be the enemy of millions across the world. Al Qaeda may consider that regime change in the U.S. is not in their interest.
With the right spin, any of these events might be construed as a "catastrophic emergency."
These worst-case scenarios probably will not come to pass. We'll probably all be able to sleep peacefully in our beds in the early hours of November 5, after watching the election results on TV. The value of worst-case scenarios lies not in their accurate prediction of events, but rather in what they tell us about the risks we face. We shouldn't let hope make us naíve. We need to be alert, our vision razor-sharp. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. It could be the price of elections, too. Let's not count our spring flowers before they bloom.
Betsy Hartmann's latest book is the political thriller Deadly Election. A longstanding activist in the international women's health movement, she lives in Amherst, MA where she teaches and directs the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College. Her other books include Reproductive Rights and Wrongs and the novel The Truth About Fire about neo-Nazis in the American heartland. See www.BetsyHartmann.com.
199 Comments so far
Show AllOrganize. That is a way to a solution, we outnumber "them" by thousands to one. Perhaps as conditions continue to deteriorate people will figure out that they have to band together and start using their weight, one of our fuew advantages. The prospect of the $700 bailout had congressional phones ringing constantly. Every now and then labor unions show some muscle, as when the Longshoreman's Union honored an anti-war protest with a strike a few years back. That was refreshing to see, and thanks to any who participated in that.
Tanstaafl.
re: A war with Iran, Check this thought out.
Israel feels threatened by Iran's verbal threads. Israel will attack Iran to defend its integrity. The U.S.A. will feel obliged to help out. The war is on, the election is not happening........
Any thoughts on that scenario??
dustinchicago said that this was Thomas Jefferson:
"When the last Prince is hung from the entrails of the last Priest, we will have Freedom."
I don't think he ever said that, but if he did he was only repeating (with slight revision) an image coined by Diderot.
RichM nailed it. Democracy is what the elites in the U.S. know how to use. In some countries and under certain circumstances, they'll use fascism to retain their power over profits, and I don't doubt that they'd do the same thing here if they had to. But they don't. Democracy clearly works for them. They have a system of just 2 electable parties, each of which is a giant step to the right of the general public's interest. The idea of moving towards a classless society is laughably far from being on the agenda of either party. Is it any surprise that the business class is happy with their little charade of a competition? A simple change in the economic mode of production seems much more unthinkable than the end of this country itself. What is there for the business class not to love about this system?
As for the article - war with Iran would be a trigger? The assassination of Senator Obama would? Does Ms. Hartman think that these would be among the most dramatic events to happen here since 1789? Because that's how long elections have been going unbroken.
Sorry, this article and most of the comments are silly, and RichM has, in my opinion, nailed the underlying reason for why they are.
Who needs catastrophes when we've got Diebold?
The biggest question seems to be...would America want to know the truth, if the government lied about 9/11?
It has been shown, without speculation, that the government was warned for months and did nothing...
This from a President who wants to protect the citizens...I think not.
jakenewton,
Engineers and architects...specialists in these things...have stated and shown proof that the Commission report was inaccurate...
An independent investigation...out of government control....should be done. Would that not be the answer to all these questions?
Conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
Theory: a set of circumstances or principles that is hypothetical,an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
The governments versions is as much a Conspiracy Theory as any one elses...
Why was so much left out of the 9/11 Commission report...testimony, facts, etc? Why did some on the Commission admit that they did not have access or had not been given correct info? Even they admit it was not complete...or necessarily accurate.
If you want the 9/11 government version debunked...read Griffin's book.... 9/11 Mysteries: Debunking 9/11 Debunking. The proof is there...imperically so.
Dismiss the guesswork and move on to scientific and straightforward evidence....
The Popular Mechanics article that supposedly had it all put together...was written a Chertoff...a cousin to the homeland security Chertoff..as well, there was an editor change...to a woman who was the wife of a CIA dude. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of the security company that was in charge of the twin towers, among other things...in that region...connected to the "terrorist attack". The American Airliner in Penn, which supposedly, several people got calls from...from the seat phones....had no phones on those seats. The plane that hit the Pentagon...well....the entry into the building wasn't large enough to fit an airliner through...no broken parts of plane anywhere...and with all the surveilance on that building...only a few pics were made available...the plane didn't just liquify. Plus the manuevers that it would have taken to hit the Pentagon would have near impossible for a single engine pilot who, at best, was deemed a terrible pilot.
The so-called scientific people who say the fuel and fires brought down the twin towers...well..spare me....the temperatures were not high enough to melt steel and collapse a building...that is scientific fact. Plus, the jet fuel would have burned up in 15 minutes...
There were also evidence of demolition explosives in the area.
The evidence was sent to China immediately...all that metal, etc...it was sent to a holding area at a salvage...and the owner told not to let anyone examine it...and it went away. The biggest crime in the US history on our soil...and the evidence was sent away...fast.
It goes on and on....
Engineers, architects, pilots, etc...have spoken out...
Don't be sheep and discount the evidence...try some serious research and examination...
It won't surprise me if Bush tries to haul the election...false flags...an assasination....whatever...they still have work to do destroying the Constitution and Bill of Rights...and take over of our beloved country...if they can't finish it, McCain will.
gde: The point I was making is that the September 11 conspiracy theories are on the fringes. However, it is ridiculous for this author to describe a possible future scenario that is based on nothing. It is pretty obvious that the election is going forward, with all the usual corruption.
I would like to see a retraction from all of these people next year when the election is over. (Another possible future scenario that is not going to happen.)
When none of this idiocy happens, are you all still going to be frothing at the mouth?
This conspiracy theory is not on the fringe, although a case may be made that it is relatively low probability. I hope it won't happen in the US, but it has in other countries.
An event which has a 1% probability of happening, but drastic consequences if it does, is worth guarding against. Think of this as the seat belt principle as applied to an individual.
"How far exactly do you think your imagination can stretch?"
Enough to "connect dots" that couldn't otherwise be connected?
How far exactly do you think your imagination can stretch?
Wow. Not believing that September 11 was staged does not make one a mole. This conspiracy theory is really on the fringes, and requires huge stretches of imagination.
Since this was a far-fetched article, based on conjecture and fear mongering, I guess it has stirred everyone up.
I think that his article hits the real likelihood of what will happen. These wildly optimistic liberal democrats like Ray Talioferro of KGO Talk Radio and the rest of the "take impeachment off the table" democrats refused to consider anything other than that the democrats are "a shoo-in" for the Presidency and a sweep of Congress this November.
Hence the lay low, don't rock the boat, forestall impeachment, act symbolically, but not substantively on anything to really end the Iraq War positions taken by the Democrats.
Meanwhile, all it will take is for Bin Laden and his cohorts to do, especially given the Hilary swing against Obama stressing war and the "qualified to be Commander-In-Chief" fearmongering, will be a pre-election hit. As in 2004, Bin Laden chose to come out largely in the media attacking Bush in order to subvet the Democrats.
These weak featherheads by not vigorously pursuing impeachment, as Conyers publically promised to do prior to the 2008 mid-term elections, have given Bush/Cheney just what they need to overturn the public hope of change once again.
Folks-
If you agree with the logic that superdelegates should not overrule the will of the voters, you should think about taking a few minutes to send a letter like the sample one below. It has the potential to be a very powerful act of mass nonviolent resistance.
***
You may contact your Democratic senators and representatives at:
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov
Dear Senator XXX,
I am a registered Democrat and I've voted in every election since 1988. Should Senator Obama lead in pledged delegates and popular vote at the time of the convention and the superdelegates do not follow, I will stay home in November. No Democrat in any race will get my vote, and I will strongly urge other Democrats to stay home as well.
Please share this with your fellow superdelegates.
Thank you,
XXX
"Don't you think that if we could Definitively prove that 9/11 was an inside job, that there'd be a whole lotta people in a whole lotta trouble?"
Of course.
"There's point after point after point that raises more questions than answers."
Questions for some people. If someone doesn't like an answer that doesn't prove anything about their own theories of intentional implosion. Those assertions have been answered, debunked that is, and the assertions just keep getting repeated without acknowleging the debunking argument.
"you're sitting here all smug baiting people to prove their beliefs that 9/11 was an inside job. That's asking for an impossibility."
You should be able to support your beleifs with evidence. People have in fact tried and as best I can tell all such attempts have been debunked. It's not baiting people to ask them to support the assertions they make.
You would think that after a while people might rethink their beleifs about intentional implosion, but I guess we can't expect that.
"You're asking people to do something that I've NEVER seen you do here yourself. "
As long as I am not asserting anything to be true, I don't have anything to have to back up. I have however poste some links that poke holes in the verious theories people have, quite effectively IMO.
jakenewton also said: '"posting something of value"
Like backing up assertions with facts and reasoning.'
You're asking people to do something that I've NEVER seen you do here yourself. All you do is stir the shit because it's easy and fun. But I have a hard time taking you seriously.
jakenewton: Don't you think that if we could Definitively prove that 9/11 was an inside job, that there'd be a whole lotta people in a whole lotta trouble? There's a lot of speculation as to what really happened. Many theories don't hold water... including the "official" story. What is an undeniable truth is that there's more to the story than is publicly known. 9/11 Commission stonewalled at every turn... problems with the physics of the official story... The fact that the evidence was removed so quickly. Really, the fact remains, that something smells. There's point after point after point that raises more questions than answers.
Also, you're sitting here all smug baiting people to prove their beliefs that 9/11 was an inside job. That's asking for an impossibility. If we could do that, we could go after the real purporters. You also say you're not advancing any theory as to what happened... no, but what you are doing are confusing the issue more, and just being a jerk to people. Hell, I bet you even buy the "Magic Bullet" theory of the JFK murder.
Namaste, still waiting for the first detail about alleged bribes, investigation funding, and radar breakdowns. That might be "of value". I think you just made that stuff up.
"posting something of value"
Like backing up assertions with facts and reasoning.
Starve the friggin abuse illogical gremlin troll, until he actually considers posting something of value
cosmobilly, who you think I am has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, now does it?
jakenewton - monomania ad nauseam - you're either a pseudo-intellectual too impressed with yourself or you're a mole wasting space and time. If you're not working for someone with an agenda, you should seriously get a life. If you are, consider a new job...
"the bribery aspect of the volunteer 911 "authorities" is not "proof""
Namaste, you are doing it again. *What* bribery aspect? Give me something specific, who bribed who, and what evidence is there for it?
"So sorry you don't have the time to respond to each statement"
The statement is not enough, you have to supply the details about what you allege. You have done this how many times now?
Hey Namaste, there are martians in Chicago. Real ones from Mars. How do you respond?
So Fig-less -- the bribery aspect of the volunteer 911 "authorities" is not "proof" enough for you (to ignore)? Your selectivity is showing.
So sorry you don't have the time to respond to each statement logically, as there as so many.
Namaste
"building #7 collapsed at the speed of gravity directly, precisely into its basements, impossible without explosives."
Actually it wasn't at all nice and neat. The debris caused heavy damage to 30 West Broadway which had to be demolished as a result, as well as to the nearby Verizon building. Debris alo covered Barclay street. These locations are not the basement of WTC7 as you say, so you are just repeating charges that have been debunked, like the fool you are. A familiar pattern.
Here's another article about WTC7 that shows photos of what I described above:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction
"Forgive my ignorance on the topic, but how do the 4 hijacked airplanes fit into the demolition by implosion theory?"
Not very neatly if you were to ask me. They two events needlessly complicate each other and greatly enhance the possibility of failure. And you have to ask, if you wired up buildings with explosives, which involves a good bit of precision and equipment for timing, would you then fly planes into them and drop another building on them, causing fires? Wouldn't this just maybe cause the wired esplosives not to work? Hmm...
"I find the timing of September 11 curious "
You night ask yourself what timing would be free of curiousity.
Forgive my ignorance on the topic, but how do the 4 hijacked airplanes fit into the demolition by implosion theory?
I find the timing of September 11 curious (months after Bush took office.) I find it curious that on Sept. 11 Bush was far away from all of the tragedy, reading to school kids in Florida, But that is not enough to go on. Also, Bush is not a good actor. He could not have conjured up that confused look as his aides told him about the twin towers.
"Only a self-hypotized fool could deny that it was professionally demolished. "
Name calling without providing argument. Nice.
"Then please show evidence that Bin Ladin was responsible, or even connected, with 9/11."
Where did I ever assert that he was? You need to pay attention, I am not specifically championing any theories here, I am merely asking those who in fact *have* asserted specifically about intentional demolition to back up their claims. In requesting that, I am under no obligation to prove any specific theory myself.
Your question is dumb on it's face, though, as though the 911 commision report doesn't cover that already and as though Bin Laden never admitted it like he does here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16990-2004Nov1.html
"Please just explain why building #7 collapsed "
Here is one of many articles available that explain. You post your request as though you never saw it:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
And BTW, just because *you* can't explain why it collapsed, or someone else can't doesn't explain it to your satisfaction, does not prove that it was caused by explosives.
"but blowing off my arguments is a huge logical fallacy"
You didn't make any. You instead made flaky claims completely *devoid* of argument, regarding investigation expenditures and radar failure.
"Actually the conspiracy theories have far more substance than the govt's explanation, and significantly higher quality of credentialed investigators. "
You are entitled to that opinion, it would be nice to see you explain it rather than just state it.
"And as far a debunking, when you acknowledged that I made 2 new points you never heard of before, your response was a lame that (something like 'I must have gotten them from some errant place'. Well I didn't, you failed to respond, so I win. Perhaps I haven't yet been debunked, because what I said is true?"
You provided absolutely no evidence regarding expenditures on investigations. You provided absolutely no evidence that there was no radar system funcxtioning. And you still haven't. Therefore, there is nothing for me to respond to.
Please just explain why building #7 collapsed at the speed of gravity directly, precisely into its basements, impossible without explosives. Only a self-hypotized fool could deny that it was professionally demolished. This one, obvious, undenialble, in your face fact eliminates all benign explanations of 9-ll. Use your eyes.
jakenewton wrote: Critical Thinking 101: The burden of proof is on those who assert something to be true.
Then please show evidence that Bin Ladin was responsible, or even connected, with 9/11.
Jake
Actually the conspiracy theories have far more substance than the govt's explanation, and significantly higher quality of credentialed investigators.
Many of the volunteers on the (sloppy, brief, and error filled) govt investigation directly profited from govt contracts, so were essentially paid to write their conclusions.
And as far a debunking, when you acknowledged that I made 2 new points you never heard of before, your response was a lame that (something like 'I must have gotten them from some errant place'. Well I didn't, you failed to respond, so I win. Perhaps I haven't yet been debunked, because what I said is true?
I'll give you a chance to respond, but blowing off my arguments is a huge logical fallacy = avoiding loosing an argument.
Namaste
"In your response to an assertion, " 9-11 was a planned demolition, there is no doubt about that."
"You unequivocally asserted, "Thoroughly debunked."
"Really? Prove it. "
For your clarification: Every single major point brought up by the conspiracy nutbags has been countered.
"If your claim is true than you should have no problem proving it."
Pick one of the common points made, and I will be glad to help you find the debunking argument, but you should be able to do that your self. Pick any point you like.
"And while your assertion may be true for *you*, you still reluctantly admit… "I agree there aren't answers for everything coming from the official accounts, but that is far from proof…"
That's right. Given theory A and B. It is shown that there are problems with theory A. It does not follow then that this proves theory B to be true, there may be theory C that turns out to be most correct. Get it?
" so what makes you certain your claim is 100% correct?"
Are you quite sure of what you think I am claiming? Be careful here.
"You are jumping on some particular bandwagon, because it resonates with you."
LOL! Don't you think I could say the exact same thing about the conspiracy nutbags? LOL! Best perhaps we don't go there.
"Your request to make others prove their assertions are exactly what you yourself point out as "attempting to shift the burden of proof…." You think you are thinking critically, but nothing could be less true. "
Total BS. Critical Thinking 101: The burden of proof is on those who assert something to be true. This is how it has been for centuries. What world do you live in where this is not the case?
"So jakenewton, what are you arguing exactly?"
That when someone makes an ill-informed reckless charge such as " 9-11 was a planned demolition, there is no doubt about that." they goddam better be ready to support it with facts and reasoning.
That is all.
"When considering its full reach and effect, the government is ultimately spending trillions (financed with debt to our children) to fight an alleged war on terror, based on alleged truths, at a great expense to the balance and well-being of our nation and the whole world."
There is nothing wrong with your feeling as you say here, but that is quite different from asserting that the government imploded the towers by controlled demolition isn't it?
" So, unless you are the most advanced and resourceful human on earth, how do you absolutely know that it simply couldn't be done."
I don't. But I also have no reason to think that it did happen without good facts and argument to support that it did.
"But, as an expert in logic, you surely know that making the improbable and impossible semantically equivalent is, of course, what is that now, oh yes, a logical fallacy. "
Nonsense, this is a question of whether something happened or not, not whether it was plausible. And actually the plausibility must also be considered for this thread, given that lizard asked earlier why everyone else doesn't also believe in the conspiracy, but that's a different matter.
"Truth - you can't prove the government (or some contingent working within the government) was not complicit -as that would be quite like proving a negative."
Agreed.[
"But we do know at some level "they" were complicit, at a minimum in ignoring clear and ominous warnings."
I agree that you can make arguments around whether they could see this coming or not, yes.
"And, we know as a fact that PNAC neocons (a.k.a. "the" key executives in power) had the motive."
Oh really? You aren't confusing "fact" and "opinion" here are you? Show me if you say it's true.
"And we know, as a fact (and of your own admission) that the official investigation has lacked in completeness."
So what? What investigations are ever "complete" to everyone's standard? None that I ever heard of.
"And we know as a fact that the wages of this war have served individual private interests well beyond the common interest for the general welfare."
It's been that way for centuries, hasn't it? It's not much of a point then.
"So jakenewton, are you really on board here to help synthesize the progressive vision, the "common dreams" for government integrity and accountability to we the people?"
The "progressive" cause is ill served when it takes up valuable resources tilting at conspiracy theories that have no substance. Regarding 911 conspiracies, check out what Noam Chomsky says about it.
jakenewton, what's your agenda? 16 posts, count them. And you twist and turn logic as if a snake, not the formal construct and tool as it is intended:
In your response to an assertion, " 9-11 was a planned demolition, there is no doubt about that."
You unequivocally asserted, "Thoroughly debunked."
Really? Prove it. If your claim is true than you should have no problem proving it. It is of course expected and fair to ask for proof when folks make claims, so what makes you so different that you shouldn't have to prove your claim? Just because it's you?
Facts are a lot of experts have made assertions and drawn conclusions about 9-11, and very little has been established or dismissed entirely with unequivocal certainty, or by a significant consensus. To the contrary, as someone pointed out, there exists a substantial amount of doubt regarding the official version and unanswered, unresolved questions.
And while your assertion may be true for *you*, you still reluctantly admit… "I agree there aren't answers for everything coming from the official accounts, but that is far from proof…"
Exactly right, so what makes you certain your claim is 100% correct? You are jumping on some particular bandwagon, because it resonates with you. That particular viewpoint says a lot about you actually, but it does not necessarily make your view any more valid or well-considered than others. It is what you want to believe, pure and simple.
Your request to make others prove their assertions are exactly what you yourself point out as "attempting to shift the burden of proof…." You think you are thinking critically, but nothing could be less true.
Replying to, "It is time for the uninformed like yourself to prove the official 911 conspiracy theory, not the other way around." with the statement, "Total BS. Those who claim that the towers were imploded by controlled demolition are bound to provide the evidence." …is simply wrong-minded, illogical and irresponsible, aside from being virtually impossible given the government's intervention and control in the matter – which you certainly know.
So jakenewton, what are you arguing exactly?
When considering its full reach and effect, the government is ultimately spending trillions (financed with debt to our children) to fight an alleged war on terror, based on alleged truths, at a great expense to the balance and well-being of our nation and the whole world. Healthy, harmonious and honorable social priorities have become subservient to the neocons corporate and military-minded imperious ambition of dominance over the globe. If there is any chance that there are important relevant aspects of 9-11 not being fully and properly investigated, then the government and fine Americans such as yourself are indeed obligated and responsible to pursue the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is core to the principles upon which this nation was founded. Arguing against it is as un-American as it gets.
And as a genuine patriotic citizen of the United States, you must know how the government is intended to be of, by and for the people. Healthy skepticism and requiring authority to be openly and fully accountable is both our right and responsibility.
So while it may be convenient for you to demand proof from others, your posturing does nothing to prove your assertion, to restore confidence to doubters, or to promote the general welfare and future well-being of our nation.
Occam's razor, as the basis for your claim, is merely a rule of thumb and far from being proof that the complexity of a pre-planned 9-11 demolition should make it impossible. And as surely you know, the complexity of an endeavor is relative to the knowledge, skill, motivation and experience of those involved. So, unless you are the most advanced and resourceful human on earth, how do you absolutely know that it simply couldn't be done. Truth is you don't. That is mere conjecture on your part, based on a supposition that the improbable is impossible. But, as an expert in logic, you surely know that making the improbable and impossible semantically equivalent is, of course, what is that now, oh yes, a logical fallacy.
Truth - you can't prove the government (or some contingent working within the government) was not complicit -as that would be quite like proving a negative. But we do know at some level "they" were complicit, at a minimum in ignoring clear and ominous warnings. And, we know as a fact that PNAC neocons (a.k.a. "the" key executives in power) had the motive. And we know, as a fact (and of your own admission) that the official investigation has lacked in completeness. And we know as a fact that the wages of this war have served individual private interests well beyond the common interest for the general welfare.
So jakenewton, are you really on board here to help synthesize the progressive vision, the "common dreams" for government integrity and accountability to we the people?
Just what are you doing here jakenewton? (rhetorical question)
jstevens: Agreed.
Making cannabis possession illegal is symptomatic of the police state.
WTF: I see many signs that we are heading toward a police state--expansion of wiretapping, Guantanomo Bay atrocities, no-fly lists. I leave arrests for illegal drug use out of it, though, because it is avoidable. I understand that you are only drawing parallels between the Holocaust and drug arrests, not claiming that they are equal. However, in the US, unlike Nazi germany, it is possible to avoid going to jail/ The Jews had no control over their situation.
This is an overstated fear. Yes, there are a good percentage of police that would take these orders, but there are also many, prob a majority that would not, especially because it would be open-ended. its one thing to break up a university or a protest and collect overtime, its another to occupy a city indefinitely, let alone the countryside, and everywhere would begin fomenting. Not only that, it would crash all the investment markets.
I suppose if first we had a massive attack that somehow resulted in a draft, then you might be able to raise the forces, but once they were turned on the homeland, forget it.
I can believe Bush and Cheney think enough of their own power to attempt such a manoever, but I think they would find themseves at the losing end of a velvet revolution that saw them in jail for sedition, and they're both far too big pussies to take that risk. Maybe a coup could secure Washington, but the machinations would get complex very quickly, with different groups vying for control of armed forces, and at that point, the Supreme Court becomes supremely irrelevant.
However, a good economic disaster, like we have unfolding now, coupled with some sort of foreign blowup, might grind this nation down over time so
we give anotehr war a go, but the enmey has to be more substantial, and noone abroad is gonna play Adolf and become an easy target for US heroics.
We dont have a threatening enough enemy, and we have a public already tired and cynical about war as an answer, so while we may get a depression, this is not a replay of WWII, but then we're only in 1929.
Maybe 10 years from now, we'll have a war, but things move far faster now, and so many things are so different for that analogy.
More likely is that we have economic and/or natural disasters that result in such displacements that the govt gets desperate, but what can they do? But a global economic collapse should in time result in the rise of extremists that we can fight a bigger war with, meaning nukes, meaning complete game over for this country and big parts of the world. We're in a different paradigm, like managed starvation.
That results in unrest, because the police will be fed, and sections of the country will break off.
I guess that's the real end.
"David Ray Griffin"
Google the following to find a PDF that spanks Griffin pretty hard:
"Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin's Latest Criticism"
Should be the second hit. In short, he engages in the old logical fallacy of shifting the Burden of Proof, among other problems. Sample:
Before we consider the chapter's contents, it bears pointing out that the first problem occurs with the chapter's title: "Has NIST Debunked the Theory of Controlled Demolition?" In choosing these words, Dr. Griffin is already attempting to shift the burden of proof. To begin, Dr. Griffin has not identified any coherent theory of "controlled demolition," here or in any previous text. In his book he cites the work of Dr. Steven Jones [8], but also numerous other, incompatible theories, without selecting any particular candidate. As he states in his Note 16 to this chapter:
'I am using the term "explosives" very broadly to refer not only to explosives in the technical sense, such as RDX, but also to incendiary mixtures, such as thermite and thermate, and any other substances or devices that can be used to produce explosions. '
With such poor specificity, Dr. Griffin is not advancing any theory, but rather speculating about an entire multidimensional space of possible theories. Furthermore, while Dr. Steven Jones hypothesizes incendiaries, namely thermite and its variants, he does not require production of "explosions" thereby, and so Dr. Griffin's space of theories is so large that it requires redefinition of the term "explosives." The only common element to these theories is that buildings were damaged deliberately by "substances or devices," understood to be destructive devices placed in the WTC buildings prior to aircraft impact. What Dr. Griffin demands is proof of a negative, and this is a logical fallacy.
"There are now more people in both the US and worldwide who believe that 911 was an inside job."
"More people" compared to what? Appeal to Popularity rejected.
"It is time for the uninformed like yourself to prove the official 911 conspiracy theory, not the other way around."
Total BS. Those who claim that the towers were imploded by controlled demolition are bound to provide the evidence.
jstevens:
From the FBI:
In 2006, the FBI estimated that 14,380,370 arrests occurred nationwide for all offenses (except traffic violations), of which 611,523 were for violent crimes, and 1,540,297 were for property crimes. Law enforcement made more arrests for drug abuse violations in 2006 (an estimated 1.9 million arrests, or 13.1 percent of the total number of arrests) than for any other offense.
- http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/arrests/index.html
Incarceration times for violent crimes are longer than simple possession. It is reasonable to assume that the revolving door of people in-and-out of jail for possession will be more in any given year than those incarcerated for longer terms for violent crime. Ergo sum, the number of "person-days" served for possession may be greater than the number of "person-days" served for violent crime. I've not found any data for this, but I will keep looking.
I merely stated that there are parallels between incarceration of 6M German Jews with incarceration of 13M ordinary Americans who have committed no grand crime. In both cases, no enduring crime was committed. The fact that the Jews suffered more is irrelevant.
FANTASTIC DISCUSSION!!!
GottaGetOffTheGrid March 6th, 2008 3:28 pm
"From a historical standpoint Democrats are twice as likely to die in air crashes as Republicans."
See, there IS a difference between Democrats and Republicans (or WAS anyway).
softspoken March 7th, 2008 1:23 pm
I hear many people saying if this were to happen, Americans would take to the streets, revolution would occur, etc. I am not so sure it would.
Softspoken, excellent, well thought-out comment!
jakenewton -- I have been following this 9/11 conspiracy theory (that the official version is a lie) almost since it happened. I applaud your critical stance! Please, 9/11 truthers, convince this man! I want to see you do it! You always think that if something like this happened, there would be a smoking gun, something that undeniably happened that PROVES your case. But is there anything like that!? When I read the dissenters of the official theory, I am so convinced! But it is so easy to get convinced by something you secretly might want to believe (due to psychological proclivities). We all must listen to the dissenters of our pet theories/ideas. Some things I have heard: A writer for such publications as Scientific American (named A. K. Dewdney) went up in airplanes and made tests as to the difficulty in making cell phone calls from different altitudes. Project Achilles Here is a great book I have been reading: Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin
-jakenewton
Sorry, the tide has turned. There are now more people in both the US and worldwide who believe that 911 was an inside job. It is time for the uninformed like yourself to prove the official 911 conspiracy theory, not the other way around.
I will no longer take any 911 holocaust denier seriously unless they can prove their lunatic theories about Islamic terrorists trained at US military bases and protected from investigation by the FBI, and still supposedly unconnected to ANYONE on the inside.
Prove it.
WTF: According to the Bureau of Justice, about 50% of state inmates are serving for violent crimes, not marij.
There are many parallels between our current leaders and Nazi Germany, but to compare the plight of the millions of completely innocent Jews, including infants, to that of the typical incarcerated American is way off base.
jstevens wrote: Jews, homosexuals and gypsies going to concentration camps is a world away from criminals in the United States going to prison.
To the Germans, they were criminals. The Germans were told that Jews were responsible for all the economic woes of pre-war Germany. Homosexuals were a blight on their moral fabric. Gypsies too.
Fast-forward to todays US. Most people are in jail for minor possession of cannabis. This is no more a crime than being a Jew/homosexual/gypsy in pre-war Germany, but a few people have made it so. There are parallels here.
jake newton wrote: Demonstrably false. I have instead demanded proof of those who assert that the US government caused or let 911 happen. I haven't positively asserted a thing.
I believe that the onus is on the US Govt to debunk the 911 theories, of which they have totally failed to be convincing, and instead rely on private citizens (e.g. www.debunking911.com) to do it for them.
The US Govt has failed miserably to demonstrate conclusively that its interpretation of the events of 911 are true. The 911 Commission addressed only those interpretations that had already been sold to the public by the media (who in turn were told what to say without any invetigative qualities).
Lets start with the initial premise: That OBL was behind the attacks. This argument is specious. The only evidence connecting OBL with 911 is a grainy video. There is no money trail, no witnesses, no fingerprints (i.e., hard evidence) that OBL was connected. No charges have been filed. If ever OBL is captured alive, no court will ever find him associated with 911. This is the reason why there is no serious effort being made to apprehend OBL for 911.
From the Govt's assertion that OBL was responsible for 911, the US invaded 2 sovereign countries, initiated the GWOT which annually removes hundreds of billion of dollars from the nation's coffers.
Until the Govt can prove their original premise, every other assertion the Govt makes is held suspicious. It is up to the Govt to prove conclusively their assertions. This they have failed to do. Until that happens, everything debunking 911 is BS.
Oh, and to answer your question to prove that US Govt had prior knowledge of 911, Google Russian, Indian, Mossad, British, Argentinian, Jordanian, Egyptian, Italian and German intelligence warnings 2 months before the attacks, FBI and CIA briefings in the White House (e.g, Aug 6 2001 PDB), Tenet briefed Bush on Saudi support for terrorist operations against the US. This is public information.
It's all about marketing terror. What else do we have left to market other than another novel. And the writer isn't coming up with some new idea that hasn't been around for years. Oh Yeah, in case there is another terror attack, be careful heading for cover in any industry as you might meet up with a member of InFra guard. Now there's another idea for another book for authors. A money making scheme is to mass produce books about terror and Bush and calamities of the next presidential election. Too bad the majority can't do something about our perils rather than read about the destruction of our America while some author smiles with glee all the way to the bank (if there are any left).
greenerthanthou:
Jews, homosexuals and gypsies going to concentration camps is a world away from criminals in the United States going to prison. One person claimed to not know where the Jews were going; that hardly speaks for the whole of Europe. Pretending to not know is a convenient excuse for not trying to intervene.
Rich M nailed it, as usual, as to why there will be our usual sham elections.
As to martial law and the concentration camps - look to Nazi Germany. They were selective in their imprisonment.
I recommend that everyone read "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer. He interviewed 10 working class Nazis after the war.
Life was better for many Germans under Hitler. That's why they supported him. Some Germans did resist Hilter. There were pitched street battles between the Communists and the Fascists before the Fascists won.
Hitler put Communists, Socialists, Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and "useless eaters" in the concentration camps, not the majority of Germans. And there was great hatred for those groups stirred up beforehand.
But they did it so as not to make people rebel. When Milton Mayer asked one of them where he thought the Jews were going, he said that he didn't really notice. They had separate housing, schools and worship places, so it wasn't like there was a big hole in the town that non-Jews would notice. When they did notice, they thought that they had emigrated out of the country.
Think about it. Would you notice if immigrants or African Americans started disappearing? Think you would? Well, the prison population in America has already quadrupled in the last 30 years, and most of that is African Americans. Does that put a hole in your life?
Where are the people of New Orleans? Do you know? We know that New Orleans is now whiter and richer, and we think we know that the rest are in trailer parks, but all of them? How many died? How many children were separated from their parents? Do we know?
"Explain why not one govt official paid any price"
You are asking me to prove a negative which is a fallacy of logic.
"why the solar system's most accurate radar system failed "
It is first for *you* to prove that this happened, then I will respond.
"Or why the funds spent "investigating" were dozens of times less than TWA 800, "
Again, I will need for *you* to demonstrate that this is true before I could possibly respond.
I've never heard of either of the two allegations above and have read quite a bit about this subject. At best, I think you are passing on false information that you failed to check out.
OTOH I've asked for proof that the towers collapsed due to controlled demolition, a positive assertion that has been made. I'm still waiting for that.
The principal difference between myself and most of you on this board, is that I give credit to the authors I've read while you folks just pretend that you've arrived at all this insight through sheer individual genius.
Explain why not one govt official paid any price for egregious prolonged incompetence during (before & after) the attacks, or why the solar system's most accurate radar system failed when it was needed most around the most critical areas of the most prosperous country? The God damn radar can image your zipper at 300 miles above the Earth, and 3 jumbo jets disappeared for hours?
Or why the funds spent "investigating" were dozens of times less than TWA 800, which was hardly even 1/millionth as important.
"You have chosen a particular position and asserted it as if a provable and accepted fact, without any supporting suppositions or references. "
Demonstrably false. I have instead demanded proof of those who assert that the US government caused or let 911 happen. I haven't positively asserted a thing. There is a difference.
"As for 9/11, there are a lot more questions than answers…"
It may be true for *you*, and I agree there aren't answers for everything coming from the official accounts, but that is far from proof that the US government cuased or allowed 911. There is a difference.
I hear many people saying if this were to happen, Americans would take to the streets, revolution would occur, etc. I am not so sure it would. It hasn't so far. I think the average American, while afraid, hasn't been pushed even close to that brink. We believe that revolution is something that happened in history, not something that could be going on now. We learn about revolution in a drowsy history classroom with the comforting perspective of knowing how it ended. Contemplating a revolution now, without the benefit of knowing how it all turns out, is an entirely different matter. I think there are plenty of people who would join the back of the mob, but there aren't nearly enough people with nothing left to lose willing to take up the positions in the front. Most people still have a crappy job and an overwhelming pile of debt to cling to. People are still afraid of losing their stuff, so they don't realize that they have already lost the freedoms that should be far more precious. The cows in the back of the line to the slaughterhouse look up to the front, see the lead cows getting zapped and shudder, saying, "thank goodness that wasn't ME", and then take another step forward in line.
I think often of Cindy Sheehan (and this is not meant in a negative way - I admire and am amazed by her). What would have happened if Casey had lived? I feel like I am her then...my son is 8 - if he grew up to join the military only to be murdered for some fascist regime's oil addiction, I would probably set myself on fire on the white house lawn. But what am I doing right now, to prevent that future? While he is still quite safely sleeping under my mortgaged but mostly secure roof each night? Again, I don't mean anything negative towards Cindy Sheehan, I am desperately sorry it was her family (and too many others) that had to bear the burden of our collective wake up call. My point is that most of us have not yet reached that point of no return - when OUR child is lost or Blackwater is kicking in OUR doors. And of course, when that happens it will be way too late.
I agree with both sides of the argument - on the one hand, the election is an excellent illusion that will keep everyone docile, with the idea that they are making a difference, and are still free. On the other, why would you put all those triggers into place if you didn't have some plan to pull them?
I dread finding out which way it has been planned to go.
The election already appears dead. We've already basically got martial law -- warrantless wiretapping, a camera coming to a city corner near YOU, torture, Abu Ghraib, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, not much in the way of genuine freedom of assembly, etc. Also, it appears that military courts trump civilian courts on issues of civil liberties. Thus, when push comes to shove, we're already most of the way toward martial law. (Don't worry about that.)
But none of this is why the election is dead. It's dead because most Americans still prefer to vote for corporate neo-cons heavy on platitudes and weak on substance -- and don't recognize what they'll likely be getting if they continue to vote for Republicrats.
jakenewton,
so you think you are demonstrating critical thinking? You have chosen a particular position and asserted it as if a provable and accepted fact, without any supporting suppositions or references. And then you attempt to rebuke others not with the presentation of actual facts or logical arguments but merely with simple questions that you yourself won't submit to answering.
And then you laughably explain your posturing as critical thinking. NOT.
As for 9/11, there are a lot more questions than answers...
" there is a slight spark of interest every so often, AS IF you care."
*blush*
I'm trying to help by pointing out the lack of critical thinking wherever exists. Everyone does it sometimes, people on all sides of an issue. The inability to think critically, or perhaps more important the suspension of that ability when it comes to certain issues will lead to the downfall of us all if left unchecked. Don't you ageree?
As long as Bush knows that he won't be tried on any criminal charges, he won't usurp the election process, in the outlandish scenario described by the author. The architecture described here is just more government bloat as the Department of HS struggles to justify its existence.
NAMASTE,
The exchange of ideas and information may be 80% non-verbal, which is probably a fairly accurate figure, but it still comes down to individuals coming together in person, united in defending what is being taken away by the morally and ethically bankrupt duopoly of the false two-party system of "closet-cronies."
In the end, it is us, standing back to back, ready to fight the forward rush of the tyrants.
PAX
"The most important debunking sites are those that debunk the debunkers."
I am anxious to see your very best examples.
"burden of proof"
I'm glad you brought this up. It's the burden of proof for those who positively assert that something is true to provide proof.
Thank you TruePatriot!
http://www.gusmorino.com/pag3/greatdepression/
This essay made me think of "excessive industries" and their link to the age-old "financiers".
If you 'manufacture' productivity and need, it is on false or shaky ground, and will fall unless you continue to inflate it. the automobile certainly allows the common man to do many things, but the common man existed before the car, and does not have the wealth in him to create a car on his own, so would have to borrow wealth, thus becoming a slave to debt. Nor can a man (in a large population) eat meat every day- it is simply outside of scale of wealth he can produce with his own hands.
Manufacturing meat can deliver that meat to the man, but he must still 'borrow' from his fellow man (through government and corporations) so that he and everyone like him can eat meat everyday. Or put another, the land of the United States could not support 300 million citizen farmers raising enough meat to eat every day, and the total citizenry of the United States could not eat meat everyday if it were not manufactured.
I am wondering what the industries and products we 'enjoy' today would look like if they were scaled down to a balanced, sustainable, local/individual sized wealth/productivity....
What would the credit industry look like if you only were able to borrow against the accumulated disposable/investable income of the people of your neighborhood or a local credit union?
What would eating habits be if you could only eat from growers only sustained by the wealth of your neighborhood? 'Non-farmers' would grow small amounts themselves, and trade for the rest with 'farmers'. (I would imagine with the size of population, we wouldn't eat much meat.)
What would your house look like if you could only procure materials locally, if you could only 'manufacture' things yourself and with your neighbors (or without 'borrowing').
If the US economy is unstable, if it is built upon 'manufactured' need and productivity, based on 'borrowing', what happens when there is nothing left to 'borrow', when you cannot 'borrow' anything to get a manufactured desire- or basic needs that have been mechanized for that matter. (I'm still not sure I've expressed this point well- if something is mechanized, it will break down eventually and will always need support, whereas something more 'natural' has longer staying power.)
There is no need for the government to suspend elections. The two party system already precludes significant change. Predictions like this not only serve to polarize us into our conditioned useful yin and yang positions, but when they don't come to pass the relief resulting from comparisons between disaster scenarios and more subtle reality keep us from recognizing just how widespread and advancing the methods by which we are controlled are.
At least that's one way of looking at it.
RichM, thank you for your preception! I totally agree that we need to look closer to the 'powers behind the throne' and more long term, because they do. I have a feeling that that these same group of finaciers/families have been around for at least several hundred years, or at least are the 'natural' consolidation and continuation of wealth since wealth was first created.
"they" will keep you conspiracy-minded people on the edge of your seat forever. I want to look in a long-term view, of the slow, unrellenting economic slavery impossed by the ultrarich and preached by the slightlyultrarich and their duped commoners.
A President will not deliver us from evil. Only if we recognize and honor our own worth and power, if we honor our short and long term needs and not those of the financiers, only if the Individual frees himself, and in great numbers, will the masses break the spell of the financiers, will the masses realize the 'wealth' is created from their own productivity.
Thomas Jefferson (paraphrase): "When the last Prince is hung from the entrails of the last Priest, we will have Freedom."
And I would like to repost what PeaceCoup wrote: "Don't fall into the "framing" of fear. Everytime the Republicans try to scare the wallets out of us, just acknowledge their fears, put them in perspective, then talk about a peaceful strategy for victory."
The speculations by spartucus (12:17) bring to light the relative ease by which a small group of right or left-wing home grown terrorists could stop a national election. I suspect it will happen someday, but I'm hopeful we would recover after a bit of chaos and panic. A somewhat larger group of right-wing terrorists with 'inside' connections to political power could come up with additional chaos that might create a relatively more horrible situation.
Jakenewton -- The most important debunking sites are those that debunk the debunkers.
But all you do is assert repetitively the same old superficial excuses for reason and evidence, which makes you an annoying gnat that keeps buzzing around who never bothers to be non-disingenuous when given the real facts.
Your mind is very selectively sharp, and appearances overall indicate a passive aggressive streak of profound self-deception and self-doubt - for thinking for yourself. Who the hell are you attempting to impress, none of us get it. You ask and ask, deny and deny -- and never anything about who you are or why you care, or if you even do. I've suspected for along time that you're either pretending to be a 20-something duffess, or a troll -- but there is a slight spark of interest every so often, AS IF you care.
Make us know that you care, and perhaps we might care about you. Lizard was generous and you superficially blow off what he says and demand him to fill the "burden of proof" for your points. How lame you are Sir, why do you even bother?
Namaste
Maybe a better tone of the article could have been: our military, security and survellance industries are growing out of control, and we may have already seen how desires for profits can manufacture needs and fears. As we build more prisons, buy more guns and cameras, employee more gaurds, cops and soldiers, will we create new laws and priorities that land more people in jail? We've already seen the affects of the "War on Drugs". What else can we create? Can we imagine just how far they will go?
I believe less in conspiracies, and more in natural tendancies of real life humans put in impossible situations or surrounded by greed, fear, hate, despair and false gods.
"How was it debunked? I have seen nothing of the sort. "
There is all kinds of debunking information easily available on various websites. You are either ignorant or disengenuous.
If you vote for a Dem or a Rep you are just voting for more of the same pseudo democracy run by the rich. The false hope of Obama and the blatant pandering of Clinton is clear for all to see. While learning to live on crumbs we might as well send a message of discontent by voting Green. It will aid the formation of a grass roots movement toward a new way of living consistent with local community and environmental needs. Voting Green will separate the people of America from the misguided leadership of America in the minds of people everywhere. We know the routine, unplug from the system to the extent that you can, stop consuming unnecessarily, stop using credit, buy used, wear older and worn clothes, eat healthy, grow some if your own food if you can, use the barter system when you can, just simplify your life and learn to live in concert with the environment. This is the peaceful road to change. This is also the road to more independence and immunity from the ravages of the deranged rich.
aren't we forgetting all about the NAU, amero and the (lack of) hoopla surrounding all of that?
When that goes into motion, all of what ya'll are saying is a moot point, since there won't be a Constitution.
Suspended elections?
We're fucking Americans, we always have some fight left in us.
I'm going to get some breakfast and read "America" by Allen Ginsberg
So help me God-if bush and his cronies pull this crap, this country will be in full revolt! There won't be enough detention facilites. People really will take this right out into the streets.
"You need to catch up. There is ample evidence of disruptions. Cleaners were dismissed. Workers were seen in the buildungs for night after night. Traces of explosives were found even thoguh they carted everything away immediately. There are winesses to the fact that building 7 had been rigged for demolition."
Prove it, especially the last one please.
Well, if the attack does occur, would one expect that a target might be the White House itself? And, with the President in it? The ruthlessness of the National Security Conservatives pre-empts NOT expending the President himself. The man may go, but the office and structure won't.
Think about it, and the ideal consequences...
An attack of this nature, to me, is not out of the question by any means, and far easier than an attack on Iran...
Whether we believe this article or not, we should be ready.
http://www.ryanhartman.wordpress.com
The market has lost nearly 2000 points since the beginning of the year. OIl is over $100 per barrel with the peak driving and hurricane season yet to come, and the Euro is valued at $1.50 with no reason to expect that direction to reverse.
What we have here is the 21st. century version of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover getting ready to usher us into the next great depression with no FDR or fillibuster proof congress to act on behalf of all the people and not just elites.
Not only do I agree with Kelmer that neither Bush nor Cheney are that ambitious, I don't think anybody really wants the job of presiding over the economic and cultural decline aes wesll aes t.hes forced impoverishment of the American civilization.
Two words:
Reichstag fire.
My bet is an attack on the Capitol building or a "terrorist" attack on NYC around Halloween in order to intorduce martial law. Bye bye elections.
Jakenewton: tHOROUGHLY DEBUNKED? How was it debunked? I have seen nothing of the sort. Debunk it for me. I don't want to believe this was treason by the government, I would rather believe it was terrorists. Help me believe what you believe, it would make me feel better. What I believe really bothers me. I would rather not believe it.
Jakenewton: You need to catch up. There is ample evidence of disruptions. Cleaners were dismissed. Workers were seen in the buildungs for night after night. Traces of explosives were found even thoguh they carted everything away immediately. There are winesses to the fact that building 7 had been rigged for demolition. It is a matter of record that someone said they had demolished the building under orders. It is indeed complex. The bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed. They are counting on you to see it as impossible. I agree entirely that it looks crazy. I didn't believe it either. However, a building can only come down this way by demolition, never mind three! Yes, it seems impossibly complex, that's the way its supposed to look. Focus on the fact that the buildings didn't bend, buckle and crumble, they came straight down. That doesn't seem impossible, it IS impossible. The demolition is very difficult to do, but not impossible. Mossad specializes in the complex. There is very strong evidence of Mossad involvement.
Spartacus: There is noone from outside to do it. Bin Laden didn't do 9-11. If another attack materializes it will again be an inside job. There are no terrorists waiting in the wings, its an illusion. They've had plenty of opportunity to do something and there has been absolutely nothing. It is just an illusion perpetuated by the government.
riverman:
> TRAITORS are worse than the enemy so the clintons will go down as the most corrupt politicians in american history!!!
You know, all this breathless 'what if he suspends the election?!?' paranoia is not at all new. The wingnut websites and commentators were speculating along _exactly_ the same lines back in 1999-2000.
I was watching the Daily Show with my daughter and the guest was Tom Daschle, a "superdelegate". Jon Stuart was trying to understand what, exactly, a superdelegate was.
After about 5 minutes my daughter looked at me and said "I don't understand, don't we, the people, elect the president?" I laughed, but she didn't understand what was so funny; actually neither do I.
PEACEMAN -- Thank you for summarizing the highlights, I agree wholeheartedly.
It is a pleasure and a honor to converse vicariously, and although distant, we still muster the ability to communicate clearly.
Considering that semantically more than 80% of normal communication is non-verbal, one has to wonder if writing works better because we're not being hit with so much contradictory non-verbal messages.
Perhaps the newest generation of text (messaging) happy ones will break some new ground?
Namaste
Ms. Betsy Hartmann,
Thank you for your article it raises some good questions. However I must add, let's not be DISTRACTED. We have to mobilize the people of America to VOTE and VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE. How many more needless deaths will we allow in the name of the American Flag? How many more countries must we bomb for our own interests? Is oil that important? I went for a bike ride the other day and had a beautiful evening. So what I must say to you Ms. Hartman is let's go one step at a time. Let's focus on the chance we have in this election to make a difference. Even if it is just wishing and praying at night. These are the small things that go a long way. Mother Teresa said she believed in the small miracles. And perhaps a general election is not a small thing. But it is just as important. And what is important is that this country collectively believes. Just like the New York Giants could believe they would win the Super Bowl. As one other commenter mentioned they just want us afraid! And they want us to feel powerless. We are not powerless! We have the power to vote!
We have all heard about Presidential Directive #51... and frankly, if Bush &/or Cheney has the balls to pull that one, I think we will see 20 million people marching on Washington with pitchforks and torches like the villagers in an old Frankenstien movie.
I'll be near the front of the pack.
This is the excuse that allows Dubya, Cheney, & Co. to violate the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution. Considering the sheer mass of law breaking that has occurred under the aegis of this criminal gang, it is not surprising. If they do try to stay in power after January 21, 2009, nothing short of an armed insurrection will get them out.
RichM, You hit the jackpot this time. I salute you!
BeForKids, The Dems also supported Scalia and Thomas with their "friends" on the other side of the isle. Great comments, Kathyodat.
Truthseeker58, I agree with Siouxrose on your thoughts on the matter. Well said.
TonyVodvarka, How about a nation of willfully ignorant Manchurian Candidates for the asking. I know what you mean Tony.
Atruepatriot, Thanks for the link.
I remember listening to Kris Welch interviewing Michael Parenti a few years ago on Pacific radio station about elections and such, and the wise man told Kris, "I don't do crystal ball gazing." We all have our beliefs in what may or may not happen, but the evidence is clear enough that the infrastructure is deteriorating which is part of the master plan. The question is: Will the breaking point actually occur, and if so, will the people take to the streets, or will they continue in docile servitude to the ruling elite?