|
 |
||
|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
January 29, 2008 - 12:13pm.
If the "War on Terror" is really a "war", then how come all the "terrorists" Mr. Bush is illegally holding indefinitely down at Gitmo are still being (politely) referred to as "detainees" rather than "prisoners of war"? And, how come the NSA and the CIA (et al) can easily read my vehicle's license plate from space as well as tap my phones, read all my e-mails at will, and even know when I post a comment on the Internet, yet these agencies all seem to have an extreme amount of difficulty locating a Bedouin like Bin Laden and his henchmen, all of whom are supposedly traveling ON FOOT (and dragging a dialysis machine along, no less!) in a clearly defined mountainous region of the world? Could it simply be that Bin Laden and the Taliban are FAR more valuable to Mr. Bush and his Republican Cabal in the Congress alive and kicking (rather than dead) come election time? Over 60 years ago, our then President Franklin Roosevelt told us the only fear we had to fear was fear itself. However, THIS President and his Republican goon squad (along with numerous Republican Presidential wannabes) are actually now running campaign TV commercials pointing to the face of Bin Laden and telling us over and over again to "be afraid…. be very afraid." The dictionary defines terrorism as: "To fill or overpower with terror; terrify; to coerce by intimidation or fear". That is, the key to terrorism is NOT the act itself, but the FEAR of the act somehow coming to pass. Therefore, by definition, terrorism is only effective when it makes people afraid! So, why then Mr. President, do you and your merry band of Republican despots STILL insist on crawling into bed with Bin Laden and the terrorists by continually giving State of the Union addresses (as well as press conferences and running TV commercials) that do absolutely nothing but foment and perpetuate those EXACT same fears among your own citizens? Could it be that without Bin Laden still at large (and your "detainees" firmly behind bars for you and your ilk to keep pointing to) your illegal "War on Terror" would simply evaporate in the shallow minds of the millions upon millions of ignorant lemmings who STILL eagerly and unquestioningly swallow such manufactured BS hook, line and sinker? Or, could it simply be that you now have no choice but to keep beating the "terrorist" drum so as to give you and your goon squads enough time to get your rearward facing anatomies out of the country and not tossed into prison for war crimes when your terms of office are (thankfully) at an end. As they say, if it walks like a duck………  Technorati Tags:
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
 |
"Could it simply be that Bin
Submitted by Trip C on January 29, 2008 - 1:41pm."Could it simply be that Bin Laden and the Taliban are FAR more valuable to Mr. Bush and his Republican Cabal in the Congress alive and kicking (rather than dead) come election time?"
Personally, I think republicans would benefit more from killing Bin Laden come election time. Being able to say that they succeeded in killing "the greatest terrorist of our time" (they'd probably call him something like that) would undoubtedly win them at least some popularity and votes, and it's not as if anyone thinks he's the only terrorist out there. Capturing/killing him would make the American people feel like Bush was at least able to accomplish this, if nothing else. This would restore some small degree of faith in him and his party.
I just really doubt that Bush is knowingly letting Bin Laden roam free. At least not for the reason you're mentioning here.
Trip C... it's not the
Submitted by almandine on January 29, 2008 - 5:18pm.Trip C... it's not the republicans, per se, that Bushco, et al, are concerned with. Are the SPP, NAU, NWO, etc., being pushed for republican aims... or merely the benefit of the very, very few? Yeah, many republicans benefit to a degree, but the republican base is made of so many lesser factions - pro-lifers, evangelicals, mom/pop businesses, home schoolers, etc. - who do the electoral bidding but who don't actually share in the spoils of the elected. It's a shill/shell game meant to give vent to republican feelings, while amassing and hoarding the booty behind the scenes as fast as possible. Bin Laden is the JibJab puppet to keep the game going.
Almandine: Maybe I'm just
Submitted by Trip C on January 29, 2008 - 8:20pm.Almandine:
Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with the rhetoric, but what you're saying here make absolutely no sense to me.
The spp, nau, and nwo are being pushed?
People are benfitting from it?
People, when elected, get spoils to share with others?
Booty?
What the hell is a jibjab puppet?
Would you mind making your point again, in a more understandable manner?
Hmmmm... Security and
Submitted by almandine on January 30, 2008 - 1:27am.Hmmmm...
Security and Prosperity Partnership... North American Union, New World Order... google them all... are being forced upon all of US by the corporatists via their hold on our government apparatus, as well as through control of the media - which works daily to make you "want" it all. High flying corporatists and their political shills are the ones who benefit most... the rest of the mainstream republicans (and everyone else) get the crumbs. Transfer of wealth to the upper echelon is the modus operandi. Jib Jab is a political commentary website that uses political cartoons to make its points... hilarious, and while I'm not sure there is one on Bin Laden (more than likely so), OBL has become a caricature worthy of a place on JibJab. Are YOU afraid of him... or does it seem like his "monster" self is all blown out of proportion? Don't you feel like the billions and billions of dollars spent on the WAR ON TERROR are misplaced? Don't you feel the Patriot Act, FISA, Protect America Act, Real ID, etc., are more of a problem than external terrorism? Who benefits from all this? How about the Halliburtons of this country, the Blackwaters, the military-industrial complex, politicians that align with it, etc? Certainly not average republicans. Think John McCain versus Ron Paul...
Security and Prosperity
Submitted by Trip C on January 30, 2008 - 12:36pm.I'm at least mildly familiar with all three, but I've never heard any politician push any of them, nor have I heard any of them supported by any member of the mainstream media whatsoever. So I don't really get what you're saying, because these aren't ideas that are pushed for anyone's benefit...they're not really pushed to the general public at all.
What are you saying they benefit from and what benefits do you see them getting? And exactly are they? I tire of generalizations such as "corportists". Are you saying that everyone involved in any level of business whatsoever is involved?
Are you surprised that they want to have more money? Of course they do. I do too. I'm betting you wouldn't mind havning more money either. I'm also betting you'd like to see more money transferred to the middle class. So let's hold off on passing judgement on people with whom we share a common motive. Furthermore, what exactly do you think these people are doing to achieve this goal?
I'm not really sure how to go about comparing political ideas that I feel are in direct contradiction to the constitution to acts that can kill thousands of innocent people at once. They're both pretty bad.
Perhaps, but if that is the case, then the people that are most to blame are the average republicans.
I wanna say never mind...
Submitted by almandine on January 30, 2008 - 1:33pm.I wanna say never mind... but just can't.
I want you to go to SPP.gov... look around, read it, see what's happening - BEHIND THE SCENES - of your government. NOTHING there is being pushed PUBLICLY. Bush has denied it all. But the House of Reps has passed a resolution against it. Why? Then go to Augustreview.com and check out the NAU. It is one and the same as SPP-taken-to-its-intended-conclusion. Heard of the Amero? The single North American currency to replace the dollar, looney, and peso? Bush said no such thing is contemplated... still does. Vincente Fox (Mexico's most recent past president and signatory to SPP) admitted the plan on Larry King within the last 3 months. Why all this sub rosa activity? Why all the secrets? Why not tell us all how good it will be and how much money we'll ALL make? Who benefits? Global multinational corporations and their political enablers. Interestingly, they're all leaving - or have left - America and are taking the jobs with them.
And you're right... blame average citizens of all political stripes... not just average republicans... especially those who choose to stay misinformed and naive. Perhaps studying the information above will partly answer your question, "Furthermore, what exactly do you think these people are doing to achieve this goal?"
Much of the rest of the answer lies in the antics of the Federal Reserve (corporation), its use of inflation as a wealth-transfer tool, and the current bailout of big banks and big business at the expense of the middle class.
In the end, one might ask, does it matter who's to blame? I guess not unless you're tying to rouse that ignorant and naive populace to reassert their liberty, sovereignty, and will to survive.
So you told me to go to
Submitted by Trip C on January 30, 2008 - 2:18pm.So you told me to go to spp.gov to see what's happening "behind the scenes"?
...it's not very well covered up if it's talked about openly on a government website. Sounds to me like someone's looking for a conspiracy where really, the people involved aren't hiding a thing.
Do you you have citable quotes from pres. Bush denying that such a thing exists, as you say he's done?
Ignorance must be
Submitted by almandine on January 30, 2008 - 4:15pm.Ignorance must be bliss...
and the NAU "conspiracy" has been talked about so openly by government that you've apparently missed it all.
On August 21, 2007 at the concluding press conference for the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) in Montebello, Quebec, Fox News reporter Bret Baier asked if the SPP is a prelude to a NAU similar to the European Union (EU), and if there are plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all 3 countries. President Bush replied: "If you've been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist."
THERE'S YOUR QUOTE, DENIAL BY OBFUSCATION, Yet...
Rep. Virgil Goode Jr., R-Va., has introduced a resolution – H.C.R. 487 – designed to express "the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico and Canada." (It passed.)
As I suggested, check out NAU and Amero, then NAFTA Super Highway, Trans Texas Corridor, NASCO, etc. Do your own research... and quit drinking the Kool Aid.
This sounds to me like
Submitted by Trip C on January 30, 2008 - 4:22pm.This sounds to me like exactly what President Bush was talking about when he said that people often lay out conspiracy theories and then try to force others to disprove them.
The SPP is not at all "behind the scenes" as you said it was. You're assuming that there are plans for an NAU going on behind the scene, though you haven't provided any reason for believing that.
Congress passes resolutions against things all the time. Have you considered that perhaps enough people in enough congressional districts heard these rumors and were opposed to them that Congress pass a resolution just to appease them. That Congress has disucssed it doesn't mean that President Bush is making it happen in secret, as you seem to believe.
Never mind was the best
Submitted by almandine on January 30, 2008 - 5:17pm.Never mind was the best course...
Good night, John Boy.
It's pretty disappointing
Submitted by Trip C on January 30, 2008 - 5:36pm.It's pretty disappointing that you're completely unable to provide any actual evidence. Oh well. Nice try, though.
It's there... you have to
Submitted by almandine on January 30, 2008 - 7:59pm.It's there... you have to WANT to engage it... ahhh... I almost forgot... the movie version. Takes very little effort at all... it'll be like a dream... you'll hardly have to even wake up.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1355300745...
Heh. Bin Laden can't be
Submitted by Caine on January 29, 2008 - 2:41pm.Heh. Bin Laden can't be found because only a hand full of people know where his grave is located! He is already dead folks! IMO, here is one of the reasons why Bhutto was murdered. She may have been shot because of what she would have done if she won Pakistan over, but the explosion was for announcing the death of Bin Laden.
Benazir Bhutto: Bin Laden Murdered
If it were announced officially that Bin Laden were dead, just what do you think would happen to the war in Iraq and the War on Terror? What do you think the reaction would be of the American people? Think about it.
Hi keith... The answer to
Submitted by Carl Nemo on January 29, 2008 - 3:04pm.Hi keith...
The answer to all your rhetorical queries are yes, yes, and yes...! Our government has evolved into an enemy of "we the people" and will resort to maximum terror and force if necessary to keep us in line and for them to maintain their power.
If it looks like a skunk, smells like a skunk, then it is a skunk good buddy...! :|
To even question them, as we do on CHB could be classed as sedition in a time of war even if it's a contrived war as in this case.
CHB is loaded to the gunnels with seditionists...! :)
Carl Nemo **==
You said it, Carl !
Submitted by almandine on January 30, 2008 - 1:24am.You said it, Carl !
Sedition? Hardly. The
Submitted by keith on January 30, 2008 - 8:52am.Sedition? Hardly.
The dictionary defines the term as: "Covert conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority."
Clearly, Mr. Bush and his ilk would have a hard time proving what is being expressed by me here and elsewhere as seditious. That's because NOWHERE in my writings have I advocated "subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent against lawful authority".
In fact, I've consistently advocated just the opposite...using the tools our founding fathers gave us in our Constitution to get rid of such scum....via impeachment and removal from office in the US Congress, via the courts and via our periodic votes at the ballot box.
Our President and all of us who have ever served in our nation's military took a solemn oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL (emphasis mine) enemies, both foreign and domestic". For the military, that oath also contained words that we are to obey the "lawful orders of those appointed over" us.
Now, clearly, what Mr. Bush and his ilk have done to our nation (and our Constitution) is anything but lawful. But, by the same token, it us up to the Congress and the courts to decide what (if anything) is to be done about it.
To do otherwise brings us down to the same level as the Taliban. For, unlike the Taliban, from the very beginning, ours has been a nation of laws, not of men.
Under our Constitution, our role as citizens is to insure that those persons we elect to our Congress and the Presidency will "do the right thing". And I remain confident that, somewhere, sometime, even the worst of the "bottom feeders" now running our nation will eventually be brought to justice.
Keith - nicely said,
Submitted by almandine on January 30, 2008 - 9:46am.Keith - nicely said, but...
"Covert conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order" covers much here... from the "bottom feeders" point of view. Subversion of a constitution is not a necessary corollary - and in this case not applicable, as I agree that most all who post here would act in the best interests of the country and shield themselves with the very words in our nation's constitution, which protects political activities. It should be noted that the word sedition carries no intrinsic moral value; it is the context in which seditious activities are expressed that instantiate its meaning. Insurrectionists... or Patriots... you make the call.
Agreed! During the American
Submitted by keith on January 30, 2008 - 1:58pm.Agreed!
During the American Revolution, such people were called "Patriots". Today, I have no doubt that Mr. Bush and company would most likely call them "Terrorists".
I guess it all depends on who wins.
What's more, with the invention of the Internet, there simply aren't enough goon squads and "Gitmos" in Mr. Bush's arsenal to incarcerate everyone who is speaking out against him and his failed policies.
Even his farcical, keystone-cop-like attempts to "seal our borders" from terrorists is a joke. That's because, particularly along the vast stretches of our northern border with Canada, a whole lot of NOTHING has been erected between our two nations. For miles, there's no fence...no river...nothing!
And our Canadian friends will never stand idly by and let Mr. Bush and his clowns erect anything more substantial than that, lest they be quickly cut off from the nearly 35 percent of everything the US imports (including most of the electricity for the US Northeast from Quebec and a whole lotta oil from Alberta) now flowing south. In fact, in one border town in upstate New York, the international border runs right through someone's private home!
Clearly, the military will be of no further use to Mr. Bush and his Cabal because of the unprecedented (and highly vocal) criticism now emanating from a whole slew of very senior military Generals (retired and otherwise) against his seemingly endless, "total war" policies.
And, because even the enlisted members in the ranks are now highly educated these days (all that federal money for college education has also helped keep our country safe from such demagoguery) FAR too many military officers and enlisted people now know the difference between a "lawful" and an "unlawful" order.
The bottom line here is that Mr. Bush is running out of henchmen and goon squads to do his dirty work. Which is probably one of the reasons why he has yet to invade Iran. He knows full well he will absolutely NOT have the full backing of the US military if he ever did.
A quote from a much revered Revolutionary War "patriot" (General John Stark) still adorns our license plates up here in New Hampshire....and for good reason. It enjoins us all to "Live Free or Die". Clearly, NONE of the threats from Mr. Bush and his Cabal will ever deter those of us who can clearly see through such demagoguery from speaking out to save our nation.
As Abraham Lincoln once said, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves".
Release them, close
Submitted by Flapsaddle on January 29, 2008 - 4:01pm.Release them, close Gitmo!
It does more damage to us and to our image as a moral nation that respects human rights than it ever helped us.
Anyone still there who was captured in Afghanistan has no more information that we can use, much less can we be sure that they had any to begin with. Release them! The bad guys assumed from day one that they were potentially compromised.
Close Gitmo!
If we needed a troop "surge", we should have done it in Afghanistan three years ago instead of being sidetracked.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
What Dubya's doing isn't
Submitted by whoops12 on January 29, 2008 - 8:21pm.What Dubya's doing isn't right, but at the same time, the fighters caught in the Middle East don't deserve "prisoner of war" status.
The Geneva Conventions only require granting that to uniformed soldiers of a nation/state against whom we've declared war.
According to the Geneva Conventions, irregulars and spies have NO protection, and can be abused as mercilessly as the captors desire.
This is one of the reasons why being a member of the French Resistance, Yugoslav & Soviet Partisans, the Polish Home Army, the Norwegian Milorg, and/or the Italian CLN was so dangerous, and why the survivors are so praised. Being CAUGHT was a death sentence, most times, and a horribly painful and terrifying death at that. Captors would try to break the captive's will to extract secrets, and would probably also destroy the captive's family, if said family could be found.
THAT'S what the Geneva Conventions specify. I'm still wondering why Bush & Co. didn't just go with the letter of the law, unless it's because it was (& is) an international treaty and that's when the current administration was still in unilateralist mode.