-----------------------
Peeling The GWOT, One Layer At A Time
The formerly so-called Global War On Terror is so bogus that you can think of it as an onion, each layer representing not just one lie but a whole pack of them. And now that Bill Moyers has exposed the deliberate fraud of the War on Iraq, I find myself wondering whether he has what it takes to do the same for the fraudulent War on Afghanistan, the proxy War on Somalia, and the secret War on Iran.
Then maybe we could have a serious look at the 2004 presidential "election", the 2000 presidential "election", and even (or especially!) the 2004 Democratic "primary".
After that we would still need at least one show about 9/11, one on the London bombings, one on the Madrid bombings, two about the Bali bombings, and one about the fake Liquid Bombers plot.
We're really looking at three miniseries here: one on bogus Wars, one on bogus Elections, and one on bogus Terror.
Then perhaps a fourth miniseries could cover our government illegally spying on us, foreigners spying on our government, the suppression of whistleblowers, and the institutionalization of torture.
All these different angles; all these different shows. In the end, they'd all be about bogus "News".
And that's just the GWOT.
Wait till Moyers starts making shows about domestic policy!"
perfect.
22 comments:
my preference would be for moyers to produce and release his next documentary AFTER the resignation of george and dick which, again, my preference, will take place before the end of this year...
When all thes crimes are listed like this, it makes the process sort of ridiculus. If he'd have to go through the process of exposing all these crimes and mayhem, all I could imagine is... he'd have absolutely no audience. If a couple of these programs really exposed anything, wouldn't you expect others to get into looking at the nest of worms themselves?
We have the idea that there are all these crimes. But, isn't it the overwhelming number of these things that makes our accusations incredible?
People who are...let's say "turned to the dark side"...don't understand that they are murdering those people because they don't want people stealing from them. To those on the "dark side" the oil, land, water, countries overseas, etc., belong to them.
Because the crimes are so pervasive and people who do them are so oblivious to their evil, I think one has to explain what the basic problem is with these people. Is there some common pathology, or assumption about themselves or the world that explains how they commit these crimes so obliviously?
Winter Patriot, I love this post!!!
Let's start choppoing that onion and see who cries.
I call Busholini's policy, both Foreign and Domestic, Surge n Purge with Darth Cheney as Top Chef in cooking of intelligence.
I'm with you WP on even getting behind the Dem primary. Before Teddy took over John Kerry's campaign, they were tanking in the polls. Since Joe Trippi was originally a Teddy man, I'd say they packed the Iowa caucus with regular Dem pols and stole the show. Golaith is a two headed monster... RNC/DNC.
I think it is unbridled avarice combined with complete lack of scruples, with a sizeable amount of America-centric hubris/entitlement thrown in.
Kax- You are absolutely correct about the RNC/DNC being a 2-headed monster. I am reposting below something I posted yesterday on Moxie Grrrl's blog regarding that very issue.
Anonymous (GB) said: "the so called Liberals have succumbed to the right wing fear mongering machine".
You are absolutely correct. It is a sickening thing to watch, the Democrats being basically "Republican-lite". A central problem of theirs is their propensity to let the other side of the aisle dictate the terms of their arguments. If they keep buying into or pretending to buy into the Republican myths about the "war on terrorism" actually being about terrorism and not resource domination then they will constantly be playing a game where the Rethugs are the ones making the rules. I'd love to see at least one of them have guts enough to stand up and say "Your 'war on terror' is an artificial construct; it's phony, and is not about fighting "terrorism", but about oil and natural gas exploration, extraction and transport to market. Look at the theatres in the so-called 'war on terrorism' and you will see how each is connected to the larger effort at resource domination. So fuck you and fuck your phony 'war on terror'". But they won't say it. They are all mainstream puppets. That's the problem with American politics, it is nothing more than a power struggle between two slightly-different factions of the elite, the bourgeoisie. Neither gives a damn about the average worker. They are limousine conservatives and limousine liberals, every last one. Even Kucinich is a sellout. Neither wants to really change much about the status quo. The Republicans are neo-fascists and the Democrats are spineless enablers for the neo-fascists. American politics needs an enema.
Well Kucinich said it and even Dodd said it on the MoveOn Town Meeting conference call on Iraq.
I;'ve been begging Dems to stop being reactive and get proactive. Rhey constantly let Repugnicans define them by jumping into whichever psyco-corner Rove plays them into, with his masterful Pavlovian manipulations. It's why I say we are a Pavlocracy.
Enlghtenment, I like your list of ingredients. Not a receipe for humble pie, huh?
Dems simply do not know how to use the English language to their advantage, for starters and god knows what other sleeeeze bucket stuff is the closet, intra party rivalries so one faction can retain power within the party, etc.
Thanks to everyone for these good comments.
Thanks especially to Luke for posting this here; it's an honor to see my humble onion on your most excellent blog.
Thanks also to Kax for the very kind words.
As to where the discussion here has been going, if I may be so bold as to throw another wrench into the works ... a really big part of the problem is virtually overlooked but it's crucial IMVHO and that's Elephants disguised as Donkeys. In other words every time a neocon pretending to be a democrat gets a nomination that's another election the republicans don't have to fix, and another "elected" "representative" who doesn't even have to be bribed or blackmailed or anything. He just goes along with the program because that's what he's all about!
Crazy? Well ... I know for sure that it has happened in some places. And I'd say it's been happening all over the country, from the look of it.
... is it too much of a stretch to suggest that the pseudo-donkeys have taken over the democratic party?
Thanks again. This is a really good thread. And PS the same post on my blog drew zero comments! LOL!!
Winter Patriot,
It's not s stretch at all. I'm from CT and have had Lieberman in place for years. Unfortuantely the Lamont campaign was so poorly run, they lost the opportunity to change that.
In addition to elephants dressed as donkeys, there is the inrtra party politics between factions of the Dem party, sabotaging each other to maintain control of the party by default if necessary. Ever wonder why Teddy can only support losers from MA? He can't run for President himself since Chappaquiddick, so he and his staff always divide and conquer the liberals, so he remains the darling. It's a long story with lots of very fine print.
Well, they may make comments inferring the war in Iraq is about oil, but I have yet to hear any of them state that the entire war on terror is fake and all about resource domination; they seem to fall back on the tired old myth about "Iraq is taking us away from fighting our REEEEEAL enemy-- "Al Qaeda"". American politics is a sick joke. And as the days go by I am more and more convinced the 2006 Congressional elections were tampered with; consider: the Rethugs knew that with poll after poll showing the country by a large margin supporting the Dems and wanting them to end the war in Iraq, they knew if they rigged it so that they retain control of both houses it would look to obvious. Instead, I think they probably just rigged it in the districts necessary to give the Dems only a paper-thin majority in both houses, not enough to override a veto, and meaning they would have to cooperate and kiss Republican ass in order to get anything done. Case in point being the war in Iraq issue. With a one-seat majority in the Senate and about a 15- or 20-seat majority in the House, they can just barely scrape together enough votes to pass a bill (not even defunding but) attaching a withdrawl date to the supplemental spending request. Of course Bush will veto it, and then where does that leave the Dems? They don't have enough votes to override the veto. See what I mean? Now the Repubs as perverse as it sounds after losing the '06 elections, appear to almost be in the catbird seat: They don't have the responsibility of being in the majority, they can still stonewall and effectively block the Dems from doing anything of substance, and can then blame the Dems for not getting anything done! Also consider, just before the '06 elections, Rove went out of his way to insist that the Repubs would retain both houses. To me, that seems like he was trying to "lower expectations", as most people were at that time taking it as almost a foregone conclusion that the Dems would win a majority in both houses, and just contemplating how LARGE a majority it would turn out to be. With Rove's little announcement he threw cold water on this elation and speculation, and moved the goal posts if you will from "how big a majority for the Dems?" to "will we WIN a majority at all?". Lowered expectations considerably, then when the Dems DID win a paper-thin majority in both houses everyone was so relieved that the Dems had a majority AT ALL that nobody stopped to think about it being far too small a majority to actually represent the will of the people. ;)
Brad Blog has tirelessly investigated the 2004 and 2000 presidential "elections". Here's hoping they also start poking around into this latest one too; I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the Rethugs tampered with it to keep the Dems from getting a large enough majority in both houses to be able to, you know, actually ACCOMPLISH something.
Winter Patriot-- You and Kax are right about the Repubs in Dems' clothing. Liebermann is probably just the most obvious, there are likely more out there like him. Unrelated question: Brad Blog is a superb site, and I was just wondering, you guys aren't still letting that stooge Joe Cannon guest blog there are you? If so, why? He's obvious disinfo, as transparent as a windowpane.
Correction to my above post:
"it would look TOO obvious" not "to obvious"; I know the difference, but I think my O key stuck. :P
Well Dodd said we had to become energy independant so we would not be fighting wars for oil.
I'd have to re-watch the "debate' but I believe Kucinich said it was a war for oil. Now with the oil legislation getting stuck in the Iraq Parliament, I guess they'll have to oust Maliki, pronto, and grease some wheels and palms to get it and Chalabi down everyone's throats.
good comments everyone.
E - yep, i think they just decided that they couldnt afford to steal 2006.
Yep - Brad does great work. I'm not sure what you mean by 'us' letting Cannon post over 'there'. We don't control Bradblog, if that's what you mean? (although I have guest-posted over there). I like Cannon - i go there at least once a day. He could guestpost here if he wants. I'd be honored.
Lukery, that part of my comment was addressed to Winter Patriot, note:
"Winter Patriot-- You and Kax are right about the Repubs in Dems' clothing. Liebermann is probably just the most obvious, there are likely more out there like him. Unrelated question: Brad Blog is a superb site, and I was just wondering, you guys aren't still letting that stooge Joe Cannon guest blog there are you? If so, why? He's obvious disinfo, as transparent as a windowpane."
Since I know Winter Patriot is a prominent contributor to Brad Blog that's why I was asking him about that Cannon stooge, since I have seen him guest-blogging there before. (Of course I know your blog doesn't control Brad Blog or vice versa, I wasn't inferring that).
As for Joe Cannon, have you ever read his take on 9/11? If not, you should soon before you think he's anything special. He goes out of his way to be a shill for the "official" myth, which definitely brings his credibility into question regarding his opinion on literally everything else (as in, are these his real opinions? If he is being paid to whore out the "official" bullshit regarding 9/11, the most important event of the current era, the event that a proper understanding of it can unlock the truth about the phony "war on terror", then I don't give a damn if he's John Kennedy reincarnated. He's a stooge and I wouldn't cross the street to take a piss on him).
E - if i'm not mistaken, Cannon's beef is only with the Controlled Demolition folks.
enlightenment,
Have you come across any official explanation for why NORAD did not activate on 9/11? I'm curious to know how they explained that one away. In a comment over at Raw someone said that Dopey gave command of NORAD to Darth Cheney. Hmmm.
Lukery-- The fact that the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 were controlled demolitions is so painfully obvious that anyone who claims to have looked into it and goes out of his way to argue AGAINST controlled demolition is disinfo, plain and simple. The evidence supporting controlled demolition is overwhelming. So either Cannon has shit for brains which I know isn't true, or he is being paid to be a "leftist" who disagrees with the truth about 9/11. And apparantly he is unable to argue his "case", as he has shut down the comment feature on his blog after what he says were comments made by what he inexplicably calls "trannies" (his pet name for people who realize the Twin Towers and # 7 were controlled demolitions) who must have been making points he couldn't counter; otherwise, if all they were doing was making asses out of themselves then surely he would have left the comment feature on. In short, he clings to the "official" myth regarding the impossible "collapses" of the Twin Towers and # 7 in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary that anyone with any sense whatsoever would be able to see proves controlled demolition. He is obvious disinfo. The phony "truther" website OilEmpire.com is the same exact way, claiming to be about getting at the truth of 9/11 but spending most of its time trying to discredit the controlled demolition matter, even going out of its way to downplay the importance of it "one way or the other". Anyone who watches any of the footage of the "collapse" of WTC # 7, with its obvious squibs of smoke/dust marching in 2 parallel rows up the face of the building JUST before the elegant "collapse" of it, yet STILL refuses to admit it was a controlled demolition, either 1.is so retarded as to not be able to tie their own shoes; or 2.is a disinfo agent being paid to argue against the inarguable. Since Cannon appears to be of at the very least average intelligence, that precludes # 1, meaning he can be nothing other than a paid disinformation specialist. He isn't alone, there are plenty of other ones out there. But he is definitely one of them.
Kax-- That's a very interesting question. The farcical "9/11 Commission" devoted only one day to this very important matter of N.O.R.A.D., which is further proof the Commission was a whitewash, as if any further proof was needed. From what I understand, N.O.R.A.D. didn't offer any concrete explanation for its impotence that morning, and in fact changed its own "timeline" of events not once but twice. The ORIGINAL timeline was so damning as to trigger a closed-door session of Congress on 14 September 2001, not opening the doors again for several hours until they got their stories straight and probably threatened anyone who might spill the beans with the political graveyard (or the actual graveyard for that matter). No matter which timeline one looks at however, it is readily apparant N.O.R.A.D. didn't do what it was supposed to do, but as far as I know they never offered any concrete explanation as to WHY. From Gen. Myers' testimony (he was head of the Air Force at the time), he said that the numerous exercises being held on that morning did not impair N.O.R.A.D.'s response time or readiness, which could have some truth to it as a military force is, aside from wartime, never at a higher state of readiness than during military exercises. Though undoubtedly some of the exercises caused some fighters to be sent far out of the area beforehand and were unavailable that morning, there were others that WERE still present in the northeast, including two F-15s in the air off Long Island (!) but "didn't get there in time". It was not explained (or asked) why the fighters that were finally scrambled were ordered to fly at about 25% speed, or why some were sent out over the Atlantic. The exercises also involved false radar injects, which could have had an impact on tracking the "hijacked airliners", and some claim that fighters were sent out over the midwest chasing false blips because of that. Regardless, the very existence of several different exercises pre-scheduled for the morning of 9/11, including several Air Force exercises, an N.R.O. exercise involving the premise of "a plane crashing into a building", and the Tripod II exercise for F.E.M.A. in Manhattan that resulted in them having a functioning medical triage center up and ready to go the day before, all ready for 9/11 casualties, all of that pretty well shows that 9/11 was an inside job anyway, as the odds of all those exercises taking place simultaneously with the "terrorist attacks" strains credulity to the breaking point whether or not the exercises themselves impaired the response of N.O.R.A.D.
What you or the commenter on Raw were referring to regarding Cheney and command of N.O.R.A.D., I am thinking the Raw commenter got that confused with Cheney being given the authority in June or July 2001 to order airliners to be shot down if they had to be shot down to prevent them from crashing into something else, which was (up until then) something that had to be checked with the president himself. N.O.R.A.D. was still under the command of Gen. Eberhart (who, after 9/11, just like Gen. Myers, was promoted). Cheney has since on t.v. tried to conflate the terms "shoot-down" and "intercept/scramble". They are most certainly NOT the same meaning, and his obfuscation is deliberate. While the actual "shooting down" of an airliner did have to be decided upon at the [since summer 2001] vice presidential level, the SCRAMBLING of fighters did NOT, and was something undertaken without having to consult anyone outside of the Air Force. Meaning as soon as any airliner deviates from its flight plan, F.A.A. calls N.O.R.A.D. who are watching the same thing on their own radar scopes, and says what N.O.R.A.D. already knows, that there's a deviant airliner that might be a hijacking. N.O.R.A.D. then calls the nearest airbase with fighters on standby and orders them to scramble for an intercept, which they do and within a few minutes they intercept the airliner, appearing off its wing and attempting to make contact with it. This process takes a very short amount of time to go from "oh shit, this airliner is veering off course" to the the fighters being off their wing. When Paine Stewart's smaller plane veered off course there were fighters right next to it about 10 or 15 minutes after it was noticed deviating on radar. So it doesn't take long. And it is all a standard procedure, which occurred sixty-seven times in the year before 9/11, all of them thankfully not hijackings. Also consider that unlike any real hijacking, the "airliners" on 9/11 were supposedly "hijacked" not soon after takeoff but a while later, which makes no sense if the "official" story were true, as they would have every reason to hijack them as soon as they took off, as every additional mile they put between them and their target is another mile they will have to fly AFTER turning the plane around, meaning more and more time for N.O.R.A.D. to intercept and ruin their plans. Also, it means less and less jet fuel being put on the target when and if they DO finally get there. It makes no sense for them to have waited so long to "hijack" each "airliner", but it is apparant there WERE NO actual hijackings that morning anyway. Getting back to the N.O.R.A.D. question, the procedure would be for the fighters to have intercepted the deviant airliner and be ready to shoot it down as soon as the vice president decides that must be done, and N.O.R.A.D. would be in contact with the v.p. the whole time the fighters are closing with the airliner and they would be keeping the v.p. abreast of the situation as it develops so that there would be a very short response time between him saying "OK, take her down" to them putting AIM-7 Sparrow missiles into the airliner's engines. That morning there was plenty of time for the well-practised procedure to be carried out completely, otherwise they wouldn't have ordered the fighters to fly 25% speed (so as to ensure they don't get there in time), and wouldn't have ordered any out over the Atlantic. They had plenty of time, but didn't use it. They waited forever to even order any fighters to scramble, then when they did they ordered them to fly so slow they wouldn't get there in time, and had others fly over the Atlantic like I said. Basically, their standard operating procedure was "short-circuited" by at the very least Gen. Eberhart and most likely some others farther down the chain of command as well. Another blatant lie I have heard used as an excuse is that because the transponders on the airliners were supposedly turned off, they couldn't track them on radar. That is bullshit also, as turning off the transponder does not make an aircraft radar-invisible (!), it only means it isn't any longer sending altitude etc. data back to the control tower. It's still on radar because the two aren't in any way related, the blip on the radar scope will still be there as long as the radar beam is still hitting the aircraft and returning to sender. That's common sense, yet I have heard some people try to explain away N.O.R.A.D.'s inaction using that "argument".
Another classic is the old saw of "our air defenses didn't point inward but outward so they weren't able to respond". That is wacky childish bullshit, as the most high-tech air defense network in the world is not a belly button that can be only an "outtie" or an "innie". No, the truth is, since its inception many many years ago, N.O.R.A.D. has been vigilantly watching on radar
all domestic civilian air traffic. It sees what the F.A.A. sees.
Anyway, in short, no, I have never heard any concrete explanation from N.O.R.A.D. as to their inaction, just overgeneralized arguments like "mistakes were made". But another way common sense tells someone that 9/11 had to have been an inside job is the simple fact that in the planning of the attack, the planners would HAVE TO ASSUME that N.O.R.A.D. would respond like it always has. Meaning there would be an infinitesimally small chance that any of the "airliners" would make it anywhere near the targets. In order for the attacks to suceed they would have to be counting on total inaction from N.O.R.A.D., which is something that "Al Qaeda" could never count on of course. So why on earth would any "Islamic terrorists" even ATTEMPT such an attack whose prerequisite is total, otherwise inexplicable inaction from the targeted country's air defense network?? Such an attack wouldn't get past the planning stages and the idea would be discarded as soon as anyone realized that in order to succeed it would require the most sophisticated air defense network to sit on their hands.
I go along with Enlightenment. I was slow to accept any theory at all. The evidence of controlled demolition is indisputable. That's from someone with a lifetime of experience with the construction of large public conveyances. It just goes to show the ever-widening abyss between the official story and the truth. Enlightenment, what have you thought about the almost-daily public shootings since Virginia Tech? I don't think they're all copycat crimes. I'm also pleased to see talk about new gun control measures isn't getting traction. It's a bogus issue, and the majority understands.
Enlightenment, Thanxxx.
David Griffen says in order for NORAD to have not scrambled and intercepted the planes that day, they would have to have been ordered to stand down.
It's simply tooo co-incidental that the attacks happened that day when all these exercises were taking place, making it arguably excusable that NORAD didn't activate.
I doubted the demolition theory for a while until I read that Marvin Bush had the security contract for the WTC and United Airlines. That made it all possible in my book.
Also, I remember around New Years Eve that year, when asked how was his year , Busholini said "GREAT". Santa brought him a bunch of War Powers to play with.
Uranus-- Thanks, and I too have noticed the bizarre phenomenon of almost daily public shootings since the VT massacre. I feel there is a strong possibility that the Johnson Space Center shooting was connected, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the others may be as well. I'm still unsure what the overall purpose of the VT shooting itself was, however if the Johnson Space Center shooting was in fact connected to it, then it would make me tend to lean in the direction of it being something involving Liviu Librescu's death at VT and some project he may have been working on, since Librescu did a lot of work for D.A.R.P.A. and N.A.S.A. Hopefully in the weeks and months to come more details will emerge that will help us piece together the motive(s). Also as I've said before it could very well be several motives at the same time, as the C.I.A. likes to "scratch more than one itch at the same time" if possible.
Kax-- Most welcome. And yes, David Griffen is correct, a stand-down of N.O.R.A.D. would have been necessary to prevent their standard operating procedure which would have been scrambling fighters to intercept deviant airliners. And no "Al Qaeda" planner could reasonably count on this occurring, thus we can be sure that "Al Qaeda" didn't plan it at all. They would have shitcanned the "planes as missiles" idea VERY quickly instead of something that DOESN'T involve a N.O.R.A.D. stand-down, like multiple simultaneous bombings using tractor-trailers whose trailers are filled with tons of explosives, or multiple suicide bombers with explosive vests setting themselves off in a dozen malls around the country or something. Just about anything else would have been a less-involved, more feasible, more realistic alternative to the "planes as missiles" nonsense. Something else to consider in addition to Marvin Bush's company providing electronic security there is the fact that on the weekend before 9/11, there was a 36-hour "power down" in the Twin Towers (google WTC+power+down), during which the security camaras were shut off and a lot of "engineers" were entering and leaving...
P.S.-- Regarding the stand-down, N.O.R.A.D. also tried to pawn the blame off on the F.A.A. for "taking so long to call" to tell them there were "hijackings", as if they weren't watching the same events unfold on their own radar scopes. The audacity of the bastards is amazing.
E - I too am amazed that the hijackers/planners somehow assumed that they wouldn't get blown outta the sky and could just fly around higgledypiggledy for hours...
funny that.
Lukery-- Yes, it's another thing that proves it wasn't some guy in a cave planning 9/11 but the U.S. government. Even Russia's air force chief said that in Russia something like that wouldn't be possible. Which leaves us with 2 possibilities: Either "Al Qaeda" is in charge of N.O.R.A.D., or 9/11 was an inside job. Only the latter of these possibilities is viable.
And "higgledypiggledy" is a wonderful expression, I always liked that.
Post a Comment