Arlen Specter changed the political map. The Republican party blacklisted three Republicans, and Specter responded by becoming a Democrat. Specter, is still trying to mediate (even between Republicans and Democrats), be a healer, and promote civil liberties as he did before. Specter also urges caution and soberness in the pro-Israeli lobby. I, for one, think shrill politics is bad news.
But for those with long memories, something doesn’t fit. Specter, is the author of the Single-Bullet Theory that rushed to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald had no accomplices when he killed President Kennedy.
Specter, currently is pushing Congress to urge the Supreme Court to directly hear ACLU civil liberties appeals (bypassing lower courts), like it once did flag-burning issues. Similarly, he much earlier, grilled Attorney General Gonzales over the firing of six prosecutors and politicalizing the courts. Locally, President Obama is emailing Obama’s former campaign donors to support Specter.
Philadelphia and its suburbs knew Specter for a long time. Many in Bucks and Delaware County leaned toward being Republican or Democrat depending partly on what they thought of Specter.
But events long-ago scramble this picture. After President Kennedy was assassinated, some quickly screamed that Oswald once renounced his citizenship and emigrated to Russia. Suddenly there were pictures of him handing out“Fair Play for Cuba” leaflets. Conservative Cubans claimed that Fidel Castro did it to get even, because the CIA tried to kill Castro, something the American people back then knew nothing about. The Cuban air force was under high alert for a US attack. Specter came up with the idea that three bullets from Osward's gun could have been responsible for all of Kennedy's and Governor Connelly’s wounds, even though two bullets clearly missed. And weirdly in the Twilight Zone that the world was back then. Chief Justice Warren of the Warren Commission went along with it (Earl Warren, the last person one would expect to help cover anything up).
We have to assume that Specter and Earl Warren are the people they dedicated almost their entire lives at being. So something is terribly wrong with US history. Some like Vice President Dick Cheney at first see wrongdoing, such as torture, as a desperate necessary, but it becomes routine and eventually something Cheney brags about advocating. Perhaps Specter’s life is just the opposite. If Specter was somehow involved with wrong, he then spent the rest of his life trying to make sure similar wrongs weren’t repeated. Today, Specter acts like he is trying to save the country without explaining why.
Wrong doing didn’t start with Cheney. Some think it started with the Cold War, but I want to go back to the desperate days of World War II, where horrible precedents got set. During World War II the allies were top-secretly eavesdropping on the Nazi and Japanese secret codes, creating the habit of most people in the government not knowing what was going on. Some wonder if President Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time, and Winston Churchill likewise possibly knew that the Nazi’s were planning to level Coventry, but worried about the Nazis guessing that the west was listening.
Ominously the Mafia was also part of the war effort. They exposed Hitler’s agents pretending to be Italian-Americans slipping in at the docks. This was very important. In Europe the anti-fascist underground dropped leaflets off of school stairwells, but when Churchill sent in agents they began to sabotage instead. Nazis in the US could have been taught to slash tires since there was a phony gas shortage to make people conserve tire rubber. Jimmy Hoffa and the Mafia were allowed to seize the Internationalist Teamsters Union to prevent a wartime strike.
Then during the Cold War without any thought of long-term consequences the Mafia flooded the entertainment industry to chase the radicals out, then Joe McCarthyism finished the job.
During World War II radicals were given much coverage in the media. Woody Guthrie once sang former antiwar songs the words changed to fight Hitler songs on all there networks at once. Communists opposed the war during the Hitler-Stalin Pack days, then became the most gung ho. Communists gave the image of now everyone is against Hitler no matter what they thought before.
Anyway with the last CIA declassifications we now know that Oswald had amazingly frequent contacts with the US, Russia, Leftists and extreme Rightist. Only those who were pro-Castro openly didn’t trust him, and attempted to avoid him.
The British declassify documents after 30 years with a lot of fan fair. US secrets dribble out, sometimes a parent or grand parent having no idea that historic events can be depicted differently until someone they get involved with their childrens’ homework, though history now is much less taught.
I contend America is suffering from something a little like a cross between cancer and Alzheimer's. I believe Senator Specter can do something to change this simply by coming clean about all the tension back then, and why he rushed to proclaim, there was a lone assassin. Specter bringing up JFK history will be more likely if us locals urge his to do this, especially those who support most of the things he does.
http://richardkanepa.blogspot.com/
By Richard Kane
Helpful links
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morley.6htm
If the above link sticks, Google, (“What Jane said” “page 6") Jane Roman was a CIA official who knew Oswald before Kennedy died. Jefferson Morley, the above link author was with the Washington Post.
The Mafia and World War II,
http://www.drugtext.org/library/books/McCoy/book/08.htm
Some think E, Howard Hunt’s deathbed claims that Lyndon Johnson was involved explains everything but he played too many games in his life, to trust what he said, thus the main thing he accomplished is to stop people from looking further.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt/7
Links my material elsewhere,
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2009/05/lingering-coup-from-kennedy.html
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/2419
http://ramblingsfromthehornets.blogspot.com
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/17849
http://ramblingsfromthehornets.blogspot.com
http://richardkanepa.blogspot.com/
+ Read more
June 12, 2009
Senator Specter, a Statesman Promoting Compromise, but Haunted by his long-ago Kennedy Assassination Theory
May 23, 2009
Obama-Cheney debate revisited, with a conclusion that may surprise both sides
Did Bush’s war on terror policy stop a second terror attack? Is Obama right that US policy tended to help al Qaeda grow? Is Cheney an ogre? Is Obama a naive fool?
Maybe the right answers don’t fit neatly into place. Maybe US policy back under Bush both tended to empower al Qaeda, by making Muslims more militant, and discourage an attack on the US at the same time. Perhaps, bin Laden's success at making the Muslim World more militant, made him in no hurry to attack the US a second time. However, was giving al Qaeda space to grow something really worth cheering about?
Yes, I agree with those who claim Bush made the world a mess, but in 2003 he withdrew US troops from Saudi Arabia. Troops there, was the main reason bin Laden vowed to attack the US a second time. Bush starting to withdraw some troops from Afghanistan, to fight in Iraq, pleased bin Laden in two ways. Bin Laden was far more interested in US troops leaving Afghanistan, where he spent many years then in mostly Shiite Iraq, and he was happy to see a secularist, Saddam Hussein, out of power. The first time President Bush might have really upset bin Laden was perhaps when he started sending a few drone aircraft into Pakistan, which might have not been enough for bin Laden to renew his desire to follow up 9/11 with a bigger attack just because of the drones.
When George Bush first became President, he wanted to look tough while avoiding war with Russia and China. Thus he came out with his “Axis of Evil” rhetoric. After 9/11 US troops in Afghanistan also made Bush look tough but it also whittled away Afghans being fed up with the Taliban. After 2003 Bush withdrew US troops from Saudi Arabia. US troops there was the main reason bin Laden stated for the 9/11 attack and why he vowed to attack again.
One of Bin Laden's basic goals is to make moderate Muslims militant, craving a world of the 8th century where Muslims were quick to attack. Not that anyone in the 8th century would have used their child or helpless old mother as a combatant. Or attack where noncombatant Muslims could get hurt such as at two US Embassies in Africa at rush hour. Or get Muslims to fight with each other like al Qaeda is doing between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, or get drunk before a battle assignment like 9/11, or tax Opium.
When, then Majority Leader, Bill Frist was about to call for bipartisan prison detention reform after reviewing the secret additional Abu Ghraib photos, al Qaeda derailed it by posting Nick Berg's beheading when Frist's press conference was about to start, which derailed the reform efforts, meaning the torture of suspects is what bin Laden wanted the US to do so he could use it as a recruiting tool,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-11-iraq-beheading_x.htm
The day after the January 22, when Obama announced the decision to close Guantanamo, al Qaeda announced that a former terror detainee was to be second in command in the Arabian Peninsula (it turned out only nominally),
http://wcbstv.com/national/guantanamo.bay.detainee.2.916216.html
Again it seems to suggest bin Laden wanted US torture facilities to stay open for it’s propaganda purposes.
I personally think it is a mistake for the peace movement to assume that the al Qaeda threat is over, and that thus Cheney doesn’t know what he is talking about when he claims there will be another terror attack where Cheney can claim “I told you so”.
I got some more sober assessments. More likely then not, a real possibility of peace in the Middle East or a quick agreement with moderates, or semi-moderates and a US withdrawal from Iran and Afghanistan would make al Qaeda desperate to attack instead of waiting for the US to bankrupt itself.
We need to deal with the possibility that as soon as bin Laden's dreams seem hopeless is when he will be the most desperate. Why should bin Laden just smash his own brains out when he loses like the al Qaeda member did in England when he bashed his truck into a strong steel gate at a military base where he had not much hope of killing anyone but himself, when other al Qaeda members can al least attack take a few vacationing Americans, on perhaps cruise ships in the Caribbean, with them. As al Qaeda diehards commit suicide in defeat, they will want to take as many of the enemy with them as the go.
Anyway, Bush policy of getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia shows that appeasement works even if done by someone who pretends to be tough all the time.
http://capitolhillblue.com/blog/2419
http://ramblingsfromthehornetsnest.blogspot.com
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5423
RichardKanePA
+ Read more
Maybe the right answers don’t fit neatly into place. Maybe US policy back under Bush both tended to empower al Qaeda, by making Muslims more militant, and discourage an attack on the US at the same time. Perhaps, bin Laden's success at making the Muslim World more militant, made him in no hurry to attack the US a second time. However, was giving al Qaeda space to grow something really worth cheering about?
Yes, I agree with those who claim Bush made the world a mess, but in 2003 he withdrew US troops from Saudi Arabia. Troops there, was the main reason bin Laden vowed to attack the US a second time. Bush starting to withdraw some troops from Afghanistan, to fight in Iraq, pleased bin Laden in two ways. Bin Laden was far more interested in US troops leaving Afghanistan, where he spent many years then in mostly Shiite Iraq, and he was happy to see a secularist, Saddam Hussein, out of power. The first time President Bush might have really upset bin Laden was perhaps when he started sending a few drone aircraft into Pakistan, which might have not been enough for bin Laden to renew his desire to follow up 9/11 with a bigger attack just because of the drones.
When George Bush first became President, he wanted to look tough while avoiding war with Russia and China. Thus he came out with his “Axis of Evil” rhetoric. After 9/11 US troops in Afghanistan also made Bush look tough but it also whittled away Afghans being fed up with the Taliban. After 2003 Bush withdrew US troops from Saudi Arabia. US troops there was the main reason bin Laden stated for the 9/11 attack and why he vowed to attack again.
One of Bin Laden's basic goals is to make moderate Muslims militant, craving a world of the 8th century where Muslims were quick to attack. Not that anyone in the 8th century would have used their child or helpless old mother as a combatant. Or attack where noncombatant Muslims could get hurt such as at two US Embassies in Africa at rush hour. Or get Muslims to fight with each other like al Qaeda is doing between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, or get drunk before a battle assignment like 9/11, or tax Opium.
When, then Majority Leader, Bill Frist was about to call for bipartisan prison detention reform after reviewing the secret additional Abu Ghraib photos, al Qaeda derailed it by posting Nick Berg's beheading when Frist's press conference was about to start, which derailed the reform efforts, meaning the torture of suspects is what bin Laden wanted the US to do so he could use it as a recruiting tool,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-11-iraq-beheading_x.htm
The day after the January 22, when Obama announced the decision to close Guantanamo, al Qaeda announced that a former terror detainee was to be second in command in the Arabian Peninsula (it turned out only nominally),
http://wcbstv.com/national/guantanamo.bay.detainee.2.916216.html
Again it seems to suggest bin Laden wanted US torture facilities to stay open for it’s propaganda purposes.
I personally think it is a mistake for the peace movement to assume that the al Qaeda threat is over, and that thus Cheney doesn’t know what he is talking about when he claims there will be another terror attack where Cheney can claim “I told you so”.
I got some more sober assessments. More likely then not, a real possibility of peace in the Middle East or a quick agreement with moderates, or semi-moderates and a US withdrawal from Iran and Afghanistan would make al Qaeda desperate to attack instead of waiting for the US to bankrupt itself.
We need to deal with the possibility that as soon as bin Laden's dreams seem hopeless is when he will be the most desperate. Why should bin Laden just smash his own brains out when he loses like the al Qaeda member did in England when he bashed his truck into a strong steel gate at a military base where he had not much hope of killing anyone but himself, when other al Qaeda members can al least attack take a few vacationing Americans, on perhaps cruise ships in the Caribbean, with them. As al Qaeda diehards commit suicide in defeat, they will want to take as many of the enemy with them as the go.
Anyway, Bush policy of getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia shows that appeasement works even if done by someone who pretends to be tough all the time.
http://capitolhillblue.com/blog/2419
http://ramblingsfromthehornetsnest.blogspot.com
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5423
RichardKanePA
+ Read more
May 12, 2009
Senator Specter - the key to our future
Specter has changed the political map by becoming a Democrat. It’s a new chapter in the political system and in the many twists and turns of his life. He has had so many roles that most of us in Philadelphia have at least one point in our life cheered him and at another point criticized him. Many appreciated him during the Gonzales hearings, but not so his Single Bullet Theory. Many more would appreciate Specter but for the albatross of the JFK assassination around his neck.
When then Attorney General Gonzales was being grilled about the firing of eight federal prosecutors, many Americans helped along by Specter’s evenhanded style joined in fear of our rights slipping away, like during the attempt to impeach Nixon. This, was very different then later impeachment efforts where both sides became shrill. In the last Congress, Chuck Hegel, and John Warner also played a bipartisan role. This, now replaced by ever more shill partisan argument. It may seem hopeless, but Specter somehow trying to hold on to bipartisanship is important.
However, many especially locally, whose minds are more on Specter than the rest of the country, are still upset with Specter’s Single Bullet Theory and it’s conclusion that Oswald acted alone in killing President Kennedy. People upset about this, often lash out on other issues and constantly say how sneaky Specter is, as if it was a plot to allow assassins to go free, which I think I can prove, originally at least, wasn’t true, but an attempt to delay publicizing a false trail leading to Cuba.
One of the things that mystifies many assassination buffs is why Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Warren Commission, and some of Kennedy’s friends wanted to believe that Oswald was the lone assassin. Specter’s heavy involvement with the Kennedy Assassination investigation may mean he has valuable tidbits, especially since President Bush declassified Lee Harvey Oswald’s very extensive back and forth dealings with the US Government, Russia, far rightists and far leftists. Somehow I never heard anyone publicly beg Specter to tell more, or ask him such things as, “Since President Bush declassified Oswald’s extensive dealings with both sides of the Cold War, does this effect your single bullet theory”. They just condemn Specter for allegedly wanting assassins not to be punished. Those in Philadelphia, or who are part of causes Specter participates in, have less problems reaching him or talking to people who might be able to, then those far away.
Today many Americans including, President Obama are renouncing secret government. Some think more would be accomplished if former Vice President Cheney were indicted for his torture memos, but Cheney’s lack of respect for democratic principles, has many historic precedents. Due process and most other rights were infringed upon under Nixon, Reagan, McCarthyism, and during both World Wars. If the JFK assassination came back into focus many more Americans would wake up to the dangers of secret government.
Specter’s role as healer between the Republican and Democratic Parties is now over, perhaps he could be encouraged to become America’s educator on history instead.
Specter’s Single Bullet Theory of the Kennedy assassination was suggested to delay the government having to publicly examine the false trail that led to the erroneous conclusion that Fidel Castro was involved to get even with the CIA for trying to assassinate him, as the Miami anti-Castro community was screaming. This back when the average American had no idea that the US government was involved in assassination attempts. President Johnson several times indicated in the JFK Assassination archives expressed fear that this blaming of Castro might lead to war with the Soviets.
Among other things the government hired the Mafia to kill Castro. Several Mafia leaders were disturbed that both JFK and his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy were making a concerted effort to put crime leaders in jail. They felt it was a betrayal of trust.
Using gangsters for political purposes dates back to World War II when after the Mafia was very helpful to the war effort by exposing the agents that Hitler had infiltrated on the docks in the guise of pretending to be Italian-Americans. The Mafia and Jimmy Hoffa were encouraged to take over the then internationalist antiwar Teamsters Union to stop a wartime strike. Then at the start of the Cold War, without contemplating the long-term consequences, the Mafia was encouraged to infiltrate the entertainment industry to chase radicals and communists out. Communists during World War II were the most gung-ho for the war after the Hitler-Stalin Pack ended, and it was part of the war effort to encourage haters of Hitler who had been slow to join the war effort to have prominent places in the media. Anyone who was once ideologically opposed to fighting Hitler, but who changed their mind was a media star. Former pacifist Woody Guthrie at one point sang on all three networks at once. Accusing Communists of infiltrating, or claiming Senator McCarthy had a big imagination is a past example of the blame game distorting understanding history, just as was later the blaming of Specter for everything that went wrong with the JFK assassination investigation. Much later during Contra-gate the US government sold drugs to gangsters to raise money to support the Contras in Nicaragua.
Today, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh claim that it keeps us safe that the government had been able to keep secrets and engage in what they claim is only supposedly illegal activities like warterboading Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to make him falsely claim that Saddam was involved with 9/1l. I hope I can squeeze in the possibility that after US troops withdrew from Saudi Arabia in 2003 bin Laden, quite possibly, had no intention of risking an adrenaline-charged, from another terror attack, US troops returning to sacred Muslim soil. If so the US falsely believing otherwise would have confused US intelligence gathering skill, even leading to more false conclusions through torture. I wonder if Dick Cheney is enticing bin Laden to want to attack to get Obama in trouble. My belief is that the Kennedy Assassination is partly responsible for much of what has gone wrong more recently.
Returning to the earlier point, the carefully concocted false trail to Castro, though ridiculous might have looked quite explosive when Specter was examining it, which may be why Chief Justice Earl Warren, and several close friends of Kennedy wanted to believe the possibility that Oswald acted alone. So I actually see something heroic in the original ruse. I just wish the truth came out before Carter lost. And I fear that Obama is being sabotaged the way Carter was.
President Bush declassified very pertinent documents and E. Howard Hunt, before he died named names of others involved including Lyndon Johnson. Johnson, however, did so much to carry on the Kennedy’s agenda, it’s like discovering your favorite uncle killed your older brother, or after being smashed in an accident discovering the benefactor helping you was the hit and run driver you were looking for. If we, or Specter, put this history in the country’s focus it would help many Americans know that Cheney and Limbaugh’s call to return to secret government endangers us all.
End Notes: Dealing with Specter’s saga can help us understand that history is important in understanding current events, can help Specter supporters get the albatross away from Specter’s neck, and people handing printed pieces of paper, though perhaps emails to people they know instead of just emailing strangers around the world can restore a sense of community in dealing with this troubled world of ours. Thank you Alan Specter for alerting the country, during the Gonzales hearings, of the danger of too many secrets. Please everyone urge Specter to continue to alert this country that it is in danger, like he did back during those hearings.
Tension with Cuba after Kennedy was shot,
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morley6.htm
The Mafia and World War II,
http://www.drugtext.org/library/books/McCoy/book/08.htm
E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed statement,
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt/7
Critical response follows article in next link,
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5113
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/17849
+ Read more
When then Attorney General Gonzales was being grilled about the firing of eight federal prosecutors, many Americans helped along by Specter’s evenhanded style joined in fear of our rights slipping away, like during the attempt to impeach Nixon. This, was very different then later impeachment efforts where both sides became shrill. In the last Congress, Chuck Hegel, and John Warner also played a bipartisan role. This, now replaced by ever more shill partisan argument. It may seem hopeless, but Specter somehow trying to hold on to bipartisanship is important.
However, many especially locally, whose minds are more on Specter than the rest of the country, are still upset with Specter’s Single Bullet Theory and it’s conclusion that Oswald acted alone in killing President Kennedy. People upset about this, often lash out on other issues and constantly say how sneaky Specter is, as if it was a plot to allow assassins to go free, which I think I can prove, originally at least, wasn’t true, but an attempt to delay publicizing a false trail leading to Cuba.
One of the things that mystifies many assassination buffs is why Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Warren Commission, and some of Kennedy’s friends wanted to believe that Oswald was the lone assassin. Specter’s heavy involvement with the Kennedy Assassination investigation may mean he has valuable tidbits, especially since President Bush declassified Lee Harvey Oswald’s very extensive back and forth dealings with the US Government, Russia, far rightists and far leftists. Somehow I never heard anyone publicly beg Specter to tell more, or ask him such things as, “Since President Bush declassified Oswald’s extensive dealings with both sides of the Cold War, does this effect your single bullet theory”. They just condemn Specter for allegedly wanting assassins not to be punished. Those in Philadelphia, or who are part of causes Specter participates in, have less problems reaching him or talking to people who might be able to, then those far away.
Today many Americans including, President Obama are renouncing secret government. Some think more would be accomplished if former Vice President Cheney were indicted for his torture memos, but Cheney’s lack of respect for democratic principles, has many historic precedents. Due process and most other rights were infringed upon under Nixon, Reagan, McCarthyism, and during both World Wars. If the JFK assassination came back into focus many more Americans would wake up to the dangers of secret government.
Specter’s role as healer between the Republican and Democratic Parties is now over, perhaps he could be encouraged to become America’s educator on history instead.
Specter’s Single Bullet Theory of the Kennedy assassination was suggested to delay the government having to publicly examine the false trail that led to the erroneous conclusion that Fidel Castro was involved to get even with the CIA for trying to assassinate him, as the Miami anti-Castro community was screaming. This back when the average American had no idea that the US government was involved in assassination attempts. President Johnson several times indicated in the JFK Assassination archives expressed fear that this blaming of Castro might lead to war with the Soviets.
Among other things the government hired the Mafia to kill Castro. Several Mafia leaders were disturbed that both JFK and his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy were making a concerted effort to put crime leaders in jail. They felt it was a betrayal of trust.
Using gangsters for political purposes dates back to World War II when after the Mafia was very helpful to the war effort by exposing the agents that Hitler had infiltrated on the docks in the guise of pretending to be Italian-Americans. The Mafia and Jimmy Hoffa were encouraged to take over the then internationalist antiwar Teamsters Union to stop a wartime strike. Then at the start of the Cold War, without contemplating the long-term consequences, the Mafia was encouraged to infiltrate the entertainment industry to chase radicals and communists out. Communists during World War II were the most gung-ho for the war after the Hitler-Stalin Pack ended, and it was part of the war effort to encourage haters of Hitler who had been slow to join the war effort to have prominent places in the media. Anyone who was once ideologically opposed to fighting Hitler, but who changed their mind was a media star. Former pacifist Woody Guthrie at one point sang on all three networks at once. Accusing Communists of infiltrating, or claiming Senator McCarthy had a big imagination is a past example of the blame game distorting understanding history, just as was later the blaming of Specter for everything that went wrong with the JFK assassination investigation. Much later during Contra-gate the US government sold drugs to gangsters to raise money to support the Contras in Nicaragua.
Today, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh claim that it keeps us safe that the government had been able to keep secrets and engage in what they claim is only supposedly illegal activities like warterboading Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to make him falsely claim that Saddam was involved with 9/1l. I hope I can squeeze in the possibility that after US troops withdrew from Saudi Arabia in 2003 bin Laden, quite possibly, had no intention of risking an adrenaline-charged, from another terror attack, US troops returning to sacred Muslim soil. If so the US falsely believing otherwise would have confused US intelligence gathering skill, even leading to more false conclusions through torture. I wonder if Dick Cheney is enticing bin Laden to want to attack to get Obama in trouble. My belief is that the Kennedy Assassination is partly responsible for much of what has gone wrong more recently.
Returning to the earlier point, the carefully concocted false trail to Castro, though ridiculous might have looked quite explosive when Specter was examining it, which may be why Chief Justice Earl Warren, and several close friends of Kennedy wanted to believe the possibility that Oswald acted alone. So I actually see something heroic in the original ruse. I just wish the truth came out before Carter lost. And I fear that Obama is being sabotaged the way Carter was.
President Bush declassified very pertinent documents and E. Howard Hunt, before he died named names of others involved including Lyndon Johnson. Johnson, however, did so much to carry on the Kennedy’s agenda, it’s like discovering your favorite uncle killed your older brother, or after being smashed in an accident discovering the benefactor helping you was the hit and run driver you were looking for. If we, or Specter, put this history in the country’s focus it would help many Americans know that Cheney and Limbaugh’s call to return to secret government endangers us all.
End Notes: Dealing with Specter’s saga can help us understand that history is important in understanding current events, can help Specter supporters get the albatross away from Specter’s neck, and people handing printed pieces of paper, though perhaps emails to people they know instead of just emailing strangers around the world can restore a sense of community in dealing with this troubled world of ours. Thank you Alan Specter for alerting the country, during the Gonzales hearings, of the danger of too many secrets. Please everyone urge Specter to continue to alert this country that it is in danger, like he did back during those hearings.
Tension with Cuba after Kennedy was shot,
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morley6.htm
The Mafia and World War II,
http://www.drugtext.org/library/books/McCoy/book/08.htm
E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed statement,
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt/7
Critical response follows article in next link,
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5113
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/17849
+ Read more
October 1, 2007
Cyber-Prison
Activists may face cyberprison rather than roundups like the Japanese during World War II. Selectively blocked calls, mail and email. Then in the dark, when bills are falsely marked unpaid. Little hassles to encourage people to block span and keep phone and address private, that will end up making it easier to block important communication.
Fight cyberprison. Crunching contact info discourages advertising junk mail and calls, but doesn’t hide from friends, or total enemies who will find you anyway.
+ Read more
Fight cyberprison. Crunching contact info discourages advertising junk mail and calls, but doesn’t hide from friends, or total enemies who will find you anyway.
+ Read more
September 16, 2007
Conspiracy against ordinary people
There are real scoundrels like Carl Rove, and Ron Gonzales, who complain of a vast conspiracy, and there are the good guys, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul, who complain that their perfect voting records, and uncompromising stanches keeps getting censored off the news. Unfortunately, there are some politicians, who are slightly above the herd, who have sudden decided to quit government, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, John Warner, and Chuck Hegel.
No one is urging John Ashcroft to be Attorney General again. Who is urging Hegel or Warner to change their mind about not seeking another term of office, or even to asking Hegel to run for President with Ron Paul as his running mate.
Carl Rove, and Gonzales, is pushing their oppressive agenda just as hard as if they never left. Who cares what Carl Rove's official title is, he keeps doing exactly the same thing as his official job changes. And how come Tony Snow is still the White House Press Secretary despite the fact he officially retired? And Condoleezza Rice the one cabinet member to keeps talking reason to the President, is suddenly off the White House news list?
I am different than all the rest of the conspiracy theorists, I think President Bush is not all bad. He changed policy on North Korea, is decent toward immigration, he and Colin Powell were helpful go-betweens when India and Pakistan were sliding toward war, and after 9/11 started out right by urging people not to deface Muslim businesses. I also admire (even though others disagree) the way he humbly apologized before the King of Jordan. Republican leader Bill Frist was going to follow up with calls for bipartisan detention reform while making a grim speech about the addition Abu Ghraib Photos Congress privately viewed. But before he could call for detention reform, he was cut off the air by a news bulletin of Nick Berg being beheading.
The scoundrels keep lobbying Bush to do a worse job, but the goods guys just condemn Bush, instead of praising him when he does right, and urging him to do better.
Please President Bush, I consider you one of the ordinary people who are trying to do your job. Please, Mr. President, listen to Ms. Rice and bring Powell and Ashcroft back. Please announce a total withdrawal now, conditioned only on Saudi Arabia and Iran announcing a joint proposal as to the logistics. Or al Sadr, and al Jeeanie in the same room together doing likewise. (They somehow got to get along with each other, more than they have to get along with us.) Otherwise I fear al Qaida will stage a show off event just as we are leaving.
I think this fear is behind the hemming and hawing that Hillary and Edwards keep making. Bin Laden wants a world without unrestricted sex, drugs, democracy or booze, and except for outlawing booze, victory seems to be within his reach.
I wrote "Don't impeach Bush" for a two sided debate on impeachment where the con side urges Bush to do a better job, and the pro side to I hope will lament that he isn’t still a football commissioner or wish that as Governor of Texas, he had lobbied for Hispanic rights without also becoming Mr. death penalty. Please someone, I’m not a ventriloquists, please write a gentle” Impeach Bush” proposal for a two sided debate.
+ Read more
No one is urging John Ashcroft to be Attorney General again. Who is urging Hegel or Warner to change their mind about not seeking another term of office, or even to asking Hegel to run for President with Ron Paul as his running mate.
Carl Rove, and Gonzales, is pushing their oppressive agenda just as hard as if they never left. Who cares what Carl Rove's official title is, he keeps doing exactly the same thing as his official job changes. And how come Tony Snow is still the White House Press Secretary despite the fact he officially retired? And Condoleezza Rice the one cabinet member to keeps talking reason to the President, is suddenly off the White House news list?
I am different than all the rest of the conspiracy theorists, I think President Bush is not all bad. He changed policy on North Korea, is decent toward immigration, he and Colin Powell were helpful go-betweens when India and Pakistan were sliding toward war, and after 9/11 started out right by urging people not to deface Muslim businesses. I also admire (even though others disagree) the way he humbly apologized before the King of Jordan. Republican leader Bill Frist was going to follow up with calls for bipartisan detention reform while making a grim speech about the addition Abu Ghraib Photos Congress privately viewed. But before he could call for detention reform, he was cut off the air by a news bulletin of Nick Berg being beheading.
The scoundrels keep lobbying Bush to do a worse job, but the goods guys just condemn Bush, instead of praising him when he does right, and urging him to do better.
Please President Bush, I consider you one of the ordinary people who are trying to do your job. Please, Mr. President, listen to Ms. Rice and bring Powell and Ashcroft back. Please announce a total withdrawal now, conditioned only on Saudi Arabia and Iran announcing a joint proposal as to the logistics. Or al Sadr, and al Jeeanie in the same room together doing likewise. (They somehow got to get along with each other, more than they have to get along with us.) Otherwise I fear al Qaida will stage a show off event just as we are leaving.
I think this fear is behind the hemming and hawing that Hillary and Edwards keep making. Bin Laden wants a world without unrestricted sex, drugs, democracy or booze, and except for outlawing booze, victory seems to be within his reach.
I wrote "Don't impeach Bush" for a two sided debate on impeachment where the con side urges Bush to do a better job, and the pro side to I hope will lament that he isn’t still a football commissioner or wish that as Governor of Texas, he had lobbied for Hispanic rights without also becoming Mr. death penalty. Please someone, I’m not a ventriloquists, please write a gentle” Impeach Bush” proposal for a two sided debate.
+ Read more
September 14, 2007
Don’t Impeach Bush, but Debate on all Issues is Part of Democracy
I agree with Obama that it’s not all Bush’s fault. I always opposed the war, but don’t remember ever early on thinking that the Iraqi Congress in exile was lying. How do we know Bush did?
In Fuluja (October 2004) an Iraqi go-between arranged for Fulujans to accept nominal Baghdad authority and US troops pulled back. Locals cheered but not the US peace movement. When Bush apologized for Abu Ghraib abuse in front of the King of Jordan, instead of the antiwar movement cheering this first step, a general said Bush looked small and joined the Kerry campaign to the cheers of the antiwar movement.
Uniting to Impeach Bush Isn’t the Panacea Many Think It Might Be
Much of the world resents the US and since Bush has become President, oversees and domestically more and more are deciding President Bush is the reason why. The US has been resented since becoming the only superpower, and the US putting its nose where its doesn’t belong or tripping over what it is trying to accomplish is an old story. But suddenly everything is supposedly wrong because of Bush. President Bush isn’t particularly assertive, and “hands on” the way Nixon was, but there is a misguided believe that the world would be fine, if he wasn’t messing it up. Not only Iraq, but messing up science as well. People who pay attention to what is going on overwhelmingly believe that he is messing up stem-cell research, but there is more than one side to every issue.
Stem-cells connects to other moral issues. Morality used to be simpler. Traditionally, the world believed that a baby born out of incest or rape was an utter horror and punishments were inflicted to try to prevent this from happening. Now, thanks to birth control and moral changes, we have vaguer and vaguer definitions voyeurism, sexual harassment, and child porn. Today, thanks to modern science, there are custody battles over the contents of sperm and egg banks; bitter court fights over whether a particular sperm sample should be discarded, much less implanted. Soon, despite President Bush’s position of stem-cell research, the world will have to decide if a scientist or researcher has committed a major crime by refusing, at a certain point, to kill a developing fetus. In my mind, being punished for not killing something, is almost like, evil being redefined, by circumstance, as good. Perhaps there could be a way to develop a compromise where only tissue which couldn’t possibly, on it’s own, become a baby, could be used for research. President Bush seemed to explore this compromise by allowing research on preexistent stem-cell lines.
Bush isn’t noted for believing in open government, but is the first President since Ford to declassify a major section of the national archives, but under the present circumstances, no one thinks he deserves any praise.
When George Bush at first aided the Northern Alliance, instead of sending ground troops, he was getting in the way of al Qiada’s efforts to bait the US into giving moderate Muslims good reason to become militants.
Bush began apologizing for Abu Ghraib abuse in front of the King of Jordan. Then Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist was going to call for bipartisan detention reform, while making grim Congressional Report of the additional Abu Ghraib photos Congress privately viewed. But al Qaida worried that change in US policy might lead to less influence over moderate Muslims. Nick Berg got beheaded, cutting Frist’s report off the air. Then, a general said how small Bush looked when groveling before the King of Jordan, and joined the Kerry Campaign to the cheers of the antiwar movement. So change in US prison detention policy didn’t occur.
Some critics claim that Bush is cleverly putting on a friendly face to disarm critic and make this a more conservative harsh world, but bombs went off in Turkey ruining the aura of Britain’s largest peace march. When bin Laden demanded that Iraq’s not vote, it got in the way of the peace claim that the war in Iraq had nothing to due with fighting terror. I contend that bin Laden not Bush is being clever and maniputive in pushing everyone toward war.
In Fuluja, October 2004, an Iraqi go-between arranged with commanders in the field for the insurgents to accept nominal Baghdad control. US troops pulled back to the cheers of the those in the street who thought the war was over. But a Kerry campaign ad complained of terrorists hiding in Fuluja, and Bush demanded Al Sadr’s arrest, and things degenerated.
After 9/11 Bush urged people not to deface Muslim businesses, humbly visited a mosque, made a particular point to include Muslims in the faith-based initiative. Remember his interdenominational New Year’s card some Christian Fundamentalists found insulting? How can we be sure that any Democrat would be better able to resist al Qaida’s attempts to encourage total war between the West and the Muslim world, and between Hindus and Muslims as well?
And In 2001, skirmishes broke out between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan following a bin Laden inspired attack on the Indian Parliament, which President Bush, then Secretary of State Colin Powell and others around the world successfully mediated. Now a major part of al Qaida’s agenda, war between India and Pakistan, has been prevented despite provocations far more emotional than 9/11, such as very crowded trains and funeral processions. In America, Europe and the Middle East, al Qaida’s efforts to permanently divide, is right on track for its thirty, or 300-year goal for the future, but as soon as it became clear that peace might actually become permanent between India and Pakistan, they starting initiating extreme provocations.
Bin Laden according to the Saudi Government picked mostly Saudi’s for the 9/11 attack, in order to create tension between the US and the Saudi government. Al Qaeda warned Britain that those who heal you will kill you back in April, but patiently didn’t attack until Britain got a new Prime Minister. Al Qaida also tried to use professional doctors for the attack rather than more competent explosive experts in order to stop the west from importing foreign talent and thus screw up our economy the way airport hassles are limiting US visitation by high spending tourists.
Obviously, if President Bush was to announce, that he was appointing John Murtha to be Secretary of State, to figure out the best way to leave Iraq in a hurry, without having al Qaida shooting at the withdrawing troops, many critics would then cheer the President. But let’s say Bush would announce something much smaller. Such as announce that in realization that some prison sentence are too harsh, and present very ill health, he was pardoning Leonard Peltier. Would some Democrats denounce this as a publicity stunt, pardoning a dying old man who could barely even realize he was no longer in prison? Then, a police chief join the Impeach Bush campaign to the cheers of many antiwar activities? Is there anything, besides appointing someone like Ron Paul or Murtha to be Secretary Defense, that Bush could do without being condemned from every direction?
We are supposed to have a nation of laws not men, Bush isn’t totally aware of this fact, but impeaching him just because we need a scapegoat for everything going wrong, would be another blow to the concept of an orderly system of justice.
Kerry supporters used to use positive thinking on John Kerry that he was really for peace, despite all his hedgey statements. If we use positive thinking on President Bush I believe we will have a better world.
Should Bush Be Impeached? No.
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5108
Will blaming, or to some extent, scapegoating Bush solve our problems?
Let’s all admit it, America isn’t what it should be, but will blaming everything on Bush make it better? We had slick Willie, who gave the poor personal respect, by playing the saxophone and wearing casual clothing. He loved cultural progressive causes like feminism and gay rights, while attacking the unions on bread and butter issues. Earlier the Ronald Reagan revolution managed to get many Catholics and Jews to be less progressive, the way Clinton managed to get Gays and feminists to be less active against poverty.
The President’s father, Bush Sr., had no respect for civil liberties, all the way back to World War II where the war was won by terrorizing Japanese-Americans in order to put fear in the hearts of German and Italian American Nazis that if they misbehaved their children would be rounded up also. Plus, the war was won by breaking the German and Japanese secret code, and keeping it secret from them by such things as allowing Pearl Harbor command not to be alerted that the Japanese Ambassador in Washington DC got a secret message that the Japanese were attacking Pearl Harbor instead of Guam like everyone feared. [Relatedly-in-the-British-archives–now-declassified-Britain-knew-but-didn’t-tell-the-US-about-Pearl-Harbor-to-make-sure-the-US-declared-war-on-Germany-and-not-just-Japan.]
Bush was a rich spoiled brat, who ruined his life with drugs, got helped by a mentoring experience, and along with Jimmy Carter before him, truly hoped, that having become a Christian, would make this a more tolerant and caring world. But back in college he called a professor a Communist for assigning the “Grapes of Wrath” as a reading requirement. So, I see a total inconsistency, which Cheney and Karl Rove, and Tony Snow had been managing to play upon, while others see evil, and keep condemning him which makes him worse.
The worst way out of Iraq is for US troops to be leaving as al Qaida is firing at and suicide bombing US troops as they leave. It would be better to ask Iran to restore order in exchange for agreeing to punish al Qaida to the fullest extent of their laws, even better for Bush to appoint John Murtha, or Ron Paul to be Secretory of Defense to orchestrate a speedy exit strategy, one speedy enough for moderate Shiites to get worried that a terror attack by al Qaida might get in the way of US withdrawal.
When it comes to Bush I am also disgusted that he let bin Laden get away before 9/11 for fear of destabilizing Pakistan. At some point the US may have to invade Pakistan to prevent al Qaida from owning Pakistani nukes. But it seems to me al Qaida is hair triggering an attack on the US to coincide with the US sending troops to Pakistan.
No mater what al Qaida does, most Americans are not going to wear turbans and berkas or consider bin Laden a spiritual leader, and if the dollar collapse like bin Laden is systematically encouraging it will affect the Muslim world far more than al Qaida realizes. The greatest possibility for victory from al Qaida’s point of view would be for the US totally surround itself by a high wall, both physically and where impossible, electronically, and kick both Jews and Muslims out of the country to fight their wars in their part of the world not ours. Let’s follow Cindy Sheehan’s original example and try to speak personally with Bush to change his policies.
MASSIVE CHANGE
Whether Impeachment in the US, or a Brand-New-Government in Cuba may end up Bad News
Bush came into office hot to trot for war or for creating massive changes in Iraq, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. However, very unhappy changes in Iraq have ended his bellicoseness quite a bit but not many are noticing.
Cuba has also been mellowing; The elder Castro wasn’t the firebrand that executed his enemies early in the revolution, and his brother Raul is now cutting back some of the sharp edges of his brother’s revolution. And Venezuela, has taken over the role of backing progressive change elsewhere in the world.
However, since right-wing Cubans unhappy with Republican anti-immigrant feelings have been part of the 2004 Democratic sweep, and have been a integral part of lobbing against a harsh immigration policy, no one has noticed that Cuba has been slowly but systematically mellowing, nor note how ridiculous it would be to continually play around with encouraging drastic, and what may end up being, very unhappy change in Cuba.
Circumstance, and refusing to believe the President, have gotten in the way of Bush changing his ways. In October 2004, in Fuluja, an Iraqi go-between arranged with commandeers in the field for insurgents to accept nominal Baghdad authority and the US troops pulled back, while the locals cheered what they thought was the end of the war. The US peace movement instead of joining them was hoping to cheer Bush being kicked out of office. A Kerry ad, complained of terrorists hiding in Fuluja. President Bush then demanded that Al Sadr be turned over for trial. Imagine today Shiite rebels refusing to turn in an Sunni insurgent in return for peace Fulujans then suffered far worse then if they had never agreed to a cease-fire. Later, the Shiites got sick and tired of, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the extremely harsh al Qaeda leader, turning his whereabouts over to the CIA. Bush responded with a peace proposal, but didn’t think to apologize for (or even note) Fuluja so the insurgents didn’t believe him.
Bush humbly apologized for Abu Ghraib Prison abuse in front of the King of Jordan, giving a harried moderate, temporarily much needed status in the Muslim world. Then one general announced “How small Bush looked” and joined the Kerry campaign to the cheers of the antiwar movement. Also Republican Leader Bill Frist was going to call for bipartisan prison detention reform while he was making a grim Congressional report on the additional Abu Ghraib photos Congress privately viewed. But he was cut off the air by a news bulletin of Nick Berg being beheaded. I think if it wasn’t for the two above incidents, the war might be over and Bush’s policy toward detention may have changed as much as his policy toward North Korea has.
Internal image is important, when nuclear armed India and Pakistan were sliding toward war following a bin Laden inspired attack on the India Parliament both the President, and then
Secretary of State Collin Powell, were helpful as a go-between. But even Powell didn’t brag about his role.
So today everyone is focused on the possibility of Impeachment or short of that many are fixated at making Bush as powerless as possible.
In the early 40's Harry Truman, who later became President, suggested if it looks like “Hitler is winning we should support Stalin, and if Stalin is winning we should back Hitler.” I think al Qaeda might have a similar attitude toward both sides in the short period when the US might have no government. Some of the 9/11 plane hijackers had previously studied engineering with the idea that if Islam could return to its llth century ways, it could defeat the West in a few generations, and reverse the present day power roles between Islam and the West. Meanwhile both Bush and the Doves are trying to plan for the next three years, not the next three decades. Massive change in either Cuba or the US could end up being sad news for both countries. When Bush is gone, if we are still fighting Muslims, people will be looking around trying to find someone to blame. Zacarias Moussaoui during his 9/ll trial condemned his Jewish lawyer and urged America to join him in blaming the Jews. Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal correspondent, was lured to Pakistan, than forced to confess to Jews being evil conspirators while being videotaped for the Internet, then beheaded. Perhaps al Qaeda is the only group that really knows what going on. I say “no” to massive change in either Cuba or the US. Let’s lobby Bush to change his ways like Cindy Sheehan did in the first weeks or month of her protest when she was really trying to change Bush’s mind.
I live in Philadelphia where there is minority representation on City Council, I don’t believe the hype about Castro being particularly cruel and oppressive, but no opposition in the Cuban Congress has to mean that those unhappy with the way things are in Cuba don’t express it politically. I wonder if the Cuban Constitution could be amended to include minority representation whether it will satisfy the Miami Cubans who could go home in style without tearing up the place and making young Cubans think they are foreign invaders. (Also, in the US big states like NY could similarly change their state Constitution to elect five of their House of Representative seats at large, with two seats reserved for a minority party.) Maybe also the US could agree to abolish Capital Punishment in exchange for Cuba doing likewise. The inspiration of Communism at least to a certain extent detracts from bin Laden’s appeal. Innus depicting Attorney General Gonzales with a broken Cuban accent, made it easier for him to get in trouble for insulting high school basketball stars. Ending tension between the US and Cuba will strengthen us against terror and make the world more secure.
If Al Qaeda chooses an impeachment crisis in the US to throw its wait around, bin Laden’s dream of removing unrestricted sex, drugs, booze, and democracy from the face of the earth may succeed. Though Al Qaida may not succeed that much in totally outlawing booze.
I urge “VOTE NO” on impeachment, and hope future discussions include both sides of the issue. I agree with those who support Impeachment on one point. Those who claim it is treasonous to discuss the issue don’t understand what our precious freedoms are all about.
Most of the time Impeach Bush presentation have been presented without rebuttal, the following three links are exceptions:
Virginia Town Hall Forum
http://www.peaceandaccountability.com/panel6_23_07.htm
The Nation Magazine Debate
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070212/holtzman
http://www.thenation.com/doc/ 20070212/levinson
+ Read more
In Fuluja (October 2004) an Iraqi go-between arranged for Fulujans to accept nominal Baghdad authority and US troops pulled back. Locals cheered but not the US peace movement. When Bush apologized for Abu Ghraib abuse in front of the King of Jordan, instead of the antiwar movement cheering this first step, a general said Bush looked small and joined the Kerry campaign to the cheers of the antiwar movement.
Uniting to Impeach Bush Isn’t the Panacea Many Think It Might Be
Much of the world resents the US and since Bush has become President, oversees and domestically more and more are deciding President Bush is the reason why. The US has been resented since becoming the only superpower, and the US putting its nose where its doesn’t belong or tripping over what it is trying to accomplish is an old story. But suddenly everything is supposedly wrong because of Bush. President Bush isn’t particularly assertive, and “hands on” the way Nixon was, but there is a misguided believe that the world would be fine, if he wasn’t messing it up. Not only Iraq, but messing up science as well. People who pay attention to what is going on overwhelmingly believe that he is messing up stem-cell research, but there is more than one side to every issue.
Stem-cells connects to other moral issues. Morality used to be simpler. Traditionally, the world believed that a baby born out of incest or rape was an utter horror and punishments were inflicted to try to prevent this from happening. Now, thanks to birth control and moral changes, we have vaguer and vaguer definitions voyeurism, sexual harassment, and child porn. Today, thanks to modern science, there are custody battles over the contents of sperm and egg banks; bitter court fights over whether a particular sperm sample should be discarded, much less implanted. Soon, despite President Bush’s position of stem-cell research, the world will have to decide if a scientist or researcher has committed a major crime by refusing, at a certain point, to kill a developing fetus. In my mind, being punished for not killing something, is almost like, evil being redefined, by circumstance, as good. Perhaps there could be a way to develop a compromise where only tissue which couldn’t possibly, on it’s own, become a baby, could be used for research. President Bush seemed to explore this compromise by allowing research on preexistent stem-cell lines.
Bush isn’t noted for believing in open government, but is the first President since Ford to declassify a major section of the national archives, but under the present circumstances, no one thinks he deserves any praise.
When George Bush at first aided the Northern Alliance, instead of sending ground troops, he was getting in the way of al Qiada’s efforts to bait the US into giving moderate Muslims good reason to become militants.
Bush began apologizing for Abu Ghraib abuse in front of the King of Jordan. Then Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist was going to call for bipartisan detention reform, while making grim Congressional Report of the additional Abu Ghraib photos Congress privately viewed. But al Qaida worried that change in US policy might lead to less influence over moderate Muslims. Nick Berg got beheaded, cutting Frist’s report off the air. Then, a general said how small Bush looked when groveling before the King of Jordan, and joined the Kerry Campaign to the cheers of the antiwar movement. So change in US prison detention policy didn’t occur.
Some critics claim that Bush is cleverly putting on a friendly face to disarm critic and make this a more conservative harsh world, but bombs went off in Turkey ruining the aura of Britain’s largest peace march. When bin Laden demanded that Iraq’s not vote, it got in the way of the peace claim that the war in Iraq had nothing to due with fighting terror. I contend that bin Laden not Bush is being clever and maniputive in pushing everyone toward war.
In Fuluja, October 2004, an Iraqi go-between arranged with commanders in the field for the insurgents to accept nominal Baghdad control. US troops pulled back to the cheers of the those in the street who thought the war was over. But a Kerry campaign ad complained of terrorists hiding in Fuluja, and Bush demanded Al Sadr’s arrest, and things degenerated.
After 9/11 Bush urged people not to deface Muslim businesses, humbly visited a mosque, made a particular point to include Muslims in the faith-based initiative. Remember his interdenominational New Year’s card some Christian Fundamentalists found insulting? How can we be sure that any Democrat would be better able to resist al Qaida’s attempts to encourage total war between the West and the Muslim world, and between Hindus and Muslims as well?
And In 2001, skirmishes broke out between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan following a bin Laden inspired attack on the Indian Parliament, which President Bush, then Secretary of State Colin Powell and others around the world successfully mediated. Now a major part of al Qaida’s agenda, war between India and Pakistan, has been prevented despite provocations far more emotional than 9/11, such as very crowded trains and funeral processions. In America, Europe and the Middle East, al Qaida’s efforts to permanently divide, is right on track for its thirty, or 300-year goal for the future, but as soon as it became clear that peace might actually become permanent between India and Pakistan, they starting initiating extreme provocations.
Bin Laden according to the Saudi Government picked mostly Saudi’s for the 9/11 attack, in order to create tension between the US and the Saudi government. Al Qaeda warned Britain that those who heal you will kill you back in April, but patiently didn’t attack until Britain got a new Prime Minister. Al Qaida also tried to use professional doctors for the attack rather than more competent explosive experts in order to stop the west from importing foreign talent and thus screw up our economy the way airport hassles are limiting US visitation by high spending tourists.
Obviously, if President Bush was to announce, that he was appointing John Murtha to be Secretary of State, to figure out the best way to leave Iraq in a hurry, without having al Qaida shooting at the withdrawing troops, many critics would then cheer the President. But let’s say Bush would announce something much smaller. Such as announce that in realization that some prison sentence are too harsh, and present very ill health, he was pardoning Leonard Peltier. Would some Democrats denounce this as a publicity stunt, pardoning a dying old man who could barely even realize he was no longer in prison? Then, a police chief join the Impeach Bush campaign to the cheers of many antiwar activities? Is there anything, besides appointing someone like Ron Paul or Murtha to be Secretary Defense, that Bush could do without being condemned from every direction?
We are supposed to have a nation of laws not men, Bush isn’t totally aware of this fact, but impeaching him just because we need a scapegoat for everything going wrong, would be another blow to the concept of an orderly system of justice.
Kerry supporters used to use positive thinking on John Kerry that he was really for peace, despite all his hedgey statements. If we use positive thinking on President Bush I believe we will have a better world.
Should Bush Be Impeached? No.
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5108
Will blaming, or to some extent, scapegoating Bush solve our problems?
Let’s all admit it, America isn’t what it should be, but will blaming everything on Bush make it better? We had slick Willie, who gave the poor personal respect, by playing the saxophone and wearing casual clothing. He loved cultural progressive causes like feminism and gay rights, while attacking the unions on bread and butter issues. Earlier the Ronald Reagan revolution managed to get many Catholics and Jews to be less progressive, the way Clinton managed to get Gays and feminists to be less active against poverty.
The President’s father, Bush Sr., had no respect for civil liberties, all the way back to World War II where the war was won by terrorizing Japanese-Americans in order to put fear in the hearts of German and Italian American Nazis that if they misbehaved their children would be rounded up also. Plus, the war was won by breaking the German and Japanese secret code, and keeping it secret from them by such things as allowing Pearl Harbor command not to be alerted that the Japanese Ambassador in Washington DC got a secret message that the Japanese were attacking Pearl Harbor instead of Guam like everyone feared. [Relatedly-in-the-British-archives–now-declassified-Britain-knew-but-didn’t-tell-the-US-about-Pearl-Harbor-to-make-sure-the-US-declared-war-on-Germany-and-not-just-Japan.]
Bush was a rich spoiled brat, who ruined his life with drugs, got helped by a mentoring experience, and along with Jimmy Carter before him, truly hoped, that having become a Christian, would make this a more tolerant and caring world. But back in college he called a professor a Communist for assigning the “Grapes of Wrath” as a reading requirement. So, I see a total inconsistency, which Cheney and Karl Rove, and Tony Snow had been managing to play upon, while others see evil, and keep condemning him which makes him worse.
The worst way out of Iraq is for US troops to be leaving as al Qaida is firing at and suicide bombing US troops as they leave. It would be better to ask Iran to restore order in exchange for agreeing to punish al Qaida to the fullest extent of their laws, even better for Bush to appoint John Murtha, or Ron Paul to be Secretory of Defense to orchestrate a speedy exit strategy, one speedy enough for moderate Shiites to get worried that a terror attack by al Qaida might get in the way of US withdrawal.
When it comes to Bush I am also disgusted that he let bin Laden get away before 9/11 for fear of destabilizing Pakistan. At some point the US may have to invade Pakistan to prevent al Qaida from owning Pakistani nukes. But it seems to me al Qaida is hair triggering an attack on the US to coincide with the US sending troops to Pakistan.
No mater what al Qaida does, most Americans are not going to wear turbans and berkas or consider bin Laden a spiritual leader, and if the dollar collapse like bin Laden is systematically encouraging it will affect the Muslim world far more than al Qaida realizes. The greatest possibility for victory from al Qaida’s point of view would be for the US totally surround itself by a high wall, both physically and where impossible, electronically, and kick both Jews and Muslims out of the country to fight their wars in their part of the world not ours. Let’s follow Cindy Sheehan’s original example and try to speak personally with Bush to change his policies.
MASSIVE CHANGE
Whether Impeachment in the US, or a Brand-New-Government in Cuba may end up Bad News
Bush came into office hot to trot for war or for creating massive changes in Iraq, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. However, very unhappy changes in Iraq have ended his bellicoseness quite a bit but not many are noticing.
Cuba has also been mellowing; The elder Castro wasn’t the firebrand that executed his enemies early in the revolution, and his brother Raul is now cutting back some of the sharp edges of his brother’s revolution. And Venezuela, has taken over the role of backing progressive change elsewhere in the world.
However, since right-wing Cubans unhappy with Republican anti-immigrant feelings have been part of the 2004 Democratic sweep, and have been a integral part of lobbing against a harsh immigration policy, no one has noticed that Cuba has been slowly but systematically mellowing, nor note how ridiculous it would be to continually play around with encouraging drastic, and what may end up being, very unhappy change in Cuba.
Circumstance, and refusing to believe the President, have gotten in the way of Bush changing his ways. In October 2004, in Fuluja, an Iraqi go-between arranged with commandeers in the field for insurgents to accept nominal Baghdad authority and the US troops pulled back, while the locals cheered what they thought was the end of the war. The US peace movement instead of joining them was hoping to cheer Bush being kicked out of office. A Kerry ad, complained of terrorists hiding in Fuluja. President Bush then demanded that Al Sadr be turned over for trial. Imagine today Shiite rebels refusing to turn in an Sunni insurgent in return for peace Fulujans then suffered far worse then if they had never agreed to a cease-fire. Later, the Shiites got sick and tired of, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the extremely harsh al Qaeda leader, turning his whereabouts over to the CIA. Bush responded with a peace proposal, but didn’t think to apologize for (or even note) Fuluja so the insurgents didn’t believe him.
Bush humbly apologized for Abu Ghraib Prison abuse in front of the King of Jordan, giving a harried moderate, temporarily much needed status in the Muslim world. Then one general announced “How small Bush looked” and joined the Kerry campaign to the cheers of the antiwar movement. Also Republican Leader Bill Frist was going to call for bipartisan prison detention reform while he was making a grim Congressional report on the additional Abu Ghraib photos Congress privately viewed. But he was cut off the air by a news bulletin of Nick Berg being beheaded. I think if it wasn’t for the two above incidents, the war might be over and Bush’s policy toward detention may have changed as much as his policy toward North Korea has.
Internal image is important, when nuclear armed India and Pakistan were sliding toward war following a bin Laden inspired attack on the India Parliament both the President, and then
Secretary of State Collin Powell, were helpful as a go-between. But even Powell didn’t brag about his role.
So today everyone is focused on the possibility of Impeachment or short of that many are fixated at making Bush as powerless as possible.
In the early 40's Harry Truman, who later became President, suggested if it looks like “Hitler is winning we should support Stalin, and if Stalin is winning we should back Hitler.” I think al Qaeda might have a similar attitude toward both sides in the short period when the US might have no government. Some of the 9/11 plane hijackers had previously studied engineering with the idea that if Islam could return to its llth century ways, it could defeat the West in a few generations, and reverse the present day power roles between Islam and the West. Meanwhile both Bush and the Doves are trying to plan for the next three years, not the next three decades. Massive change in either Cuba or the US could end up being sad news for both countries. When Bush is gone, if we are still fighting Muslims, people will be looking around trying to find someone to blame. Zacarias Moussaoui during his 9/ll trial condemned his Jewish lawyer and urged America to join him in blaming the Jews. Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal correspondent, was lured to Pakistan, than forced to confess to Jews being evil conspirators while being videotaped for the Internet, then beheaded. Perhaps al Qaeda is the only group that really knows what going on. I say “no” to massive change in either Cuba or the US. Let’s lobby Bush to change his ways like Cindy Sheehan did in the first weeks or month of her protest when she was really trying to change Bush’s mind.
I live in Philadelphia where there is minority representation on City Council, I don’t believe the hype about Castro being particularly cruel and oppressive, but no opposition in the Cuban Congress has to mean that those unhappy with the way things are in Cuba don’t express it politically. I wonder if the Cuban Constitution could be amended to include minority representation whether it will satisfy the Miami Cubans who could go home in style without tearing up the place and making young Cubans think they are foreign invaders. (Also, in the US big states like NY could similarly change their state Constitution to elect five of their House of Representative seats at large, with two seats reserved for a minority party.) Maybe also the US could agree to abolish Capital Punishment in exchange for Cuba doing likewise. The inspiration of Communism at least to a certain extent detracts from bin Laden’s appeal. Innus depicting Attorney General Gonzales with a broken Cuban accent, made it easier for him to get in trouble for insulting high school basketball stars. Ending tension between the US and Cuba will strengthen us against terror and make the world more secure.
If Al Qaeda chooses an impeachment crisis in the US to throw its wait around, bin Laden’s dream of removing unrestricted sex, drugs, booze, and democracy from the face of the earth may succeed. Though Al Qaida may not succeed that much in totally outlawing booze.
I urge “VOTE NO” on impeachment, and hope future discussions include both sides of the issue. I agree with those who support Impeachment on one point. Those who claim it is treasonous to discuss the issue don’t understand what our precious freedoms are all about.
Most of the time Impeach Bush presentation have been presented without rebuttal, the following three links are exceptions:
Virginia Town Hall Forum
http://www.peaceandaccountability.com/panel6_23_07.htm
The Nation Magazine Debate
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070212/holtzman
http://www.thenation.com/doc/ 20070212/levinson
+ Read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
