US Losing War on Terror: Book by CIA Official

Re:One person’s viewpoint…..

I thought the Bushies controlled everything.

Political spite. I imagine that the CIA is feeling less than its usual sterling loyalty for that president who tried to blame them for the WTC attack, and then committed a felony by revealing one of their covert operatives. I wonder if allowing this book to be published is also any fallout from the political tensions that drove Tenet from the agency.

Re:One person’s viewpoint…..
Greg, the problem is not so much what Bush wants to accomplish — a better, more secure America — it’s how he’s going about it. Everything he is doing is exactly the wrong thing. If Bushites had any capacity to comparmentalize they would realize that you can protect the physical security of the citizenry AND their civil liberties at one and the same time. Instead, Bush is destroying all liberties. In his overzealousness to eradicate terrorism, he has actually exacerbated those conditions which give rise to terrorism, and provided millions of potential recruits for suicide missions. Bushites have no ability to understand any of this, however, and continue to demand blind obedience to The Word of the King, and to proclaim any criticism, no matter how valid or real and true, as unAmerican and anti-patriotic; in short: the same kind of treason it was to criticize King George III.

Re:One person’s viewpoint…..
Dude, our elected assholes aren’t fucking around anybody but Canadian citizens. The government of Canada has never gone in for such wholesale imperialism that we’ve become hated around the world; quite the contrary, Canada is generally respected in foreign countries and Canadians who visit those countries are usually treated warmly; so much so that Americans have been known to wear clothing that implicitly identifies them as Canadians. We haven’t perpetrated genocide against the Iraqi people and pretended nobody got hurt because those civilian casualties were only “collateral damage” anyway, and that doesn’t count. We haven’t invaded any foreign countries, ever, using an excuse that was obviously bullshit from start to finish as part of an effort to extirpate a sociological phenomenon, and certainly not against two of our former puppets. And speaking of puppets, Canada has never gone in for destabilizing governments and then installing a pet bloodyhanded butcher. In short, we have never comported ourselves in such a manner that we would have to enact such knee-jerk reactionary, paranoid measures because we haven’t made ourselves a target.

You won’t like to hear it, but it is a fact that the United States acted against an elected, popular, and progressive Prime Minister in Iran to install the Shah. Osama bin Laden was trained and funded by the CIA. Saddam Hussein brought the chemical weapons he used to gas the Kurds from the United States. The U.S. government continues to refuse to reign in the depredations of the Israeli government who has adopted the American method of blowing up civilians in the streets and marketplaces with helicopter gunship missile fire.

Get with the program, fella. A credibility gap is: when what we see does not match up with what they say. And nothing Bush has said is an accurate reflection of reality. Even to this very day, his lackeys are attempting to distort the perception of the American people so they won’t believe the 9/11 commission report that the entire invasion of Iraq is based on a lie. To this very day, one year and seventy-seven days after the start of the invasion, nobody has found anything even vaguely resembling nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

Everything Bush continues to do plays into the hands of the terrorists. And, no, you ineffable, idiot, that does not mean that I blame Bush for everything that’s going on in the world. But I do blame Bush for what he’s done and doing to make matters worse.

And one last thing: stop asking individuals to speak for the entire left-wing political spectrum; you have no idea how stupid that looks, but rational people do.

Re:One person’s viewpoint…..
Did they? Goodness! I stand corrected. Although, cynic that I am, I suppose I should ask if they really found it or if they planted it themselves.

Well, well. That’s great. One [1] 155 mm arty shell. I suppose that’s a good start. And, of course, your weapons inspectors have properly verified that this sarin was from Saddam’s still missing stockpiles and was not bought on the black market just for the invading forces after they’d already overrun the country; right?

Re:One person’s viewpoint…..

Bush has not destroyed all liberties and is not in the process of destroying all liberties.

That might be your call on it, but I see it differently. And I am a multidisciplinary thinker, not someone who merely rearranges his prejudices. Right now, there are only two amendments, the Second and Third, that I would say with any confidence Bush has not violated, and I can certainly make a pretty good argument that his unilaterally extending the term of service of armed forces personnel in Iraq constitutes a Second Amendment violation in that the right to keep and bear arms also means the right to lay down arms.

If he has destroyed all liberties then how does the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, Indymedia or the Palm Beach Post have the right to run any editorial or editorial cartoon critical of President Bush?

They don’t. Ask the Republicans and you’ll be told that those editorials and cartoons are unAmerican, unpatriotic, and support the war on terror. The papers just go ahead and publish anyway and get away with it because the Bush drones can’t completely stop them yet, but you can bet anything that conservatives would be just as quick to call for censorious boycotts of those papers as they are to attack Michael Moore, and — funny thing — your King George the Pathetic does absolutely nothing to reign them in. One of the principles of leadership is: You’re in charge, it’s your fault. Bush is responsible for what is done by the members of his government, and moreso when they are done in his name and on his behalf.

By the by, pchuck, how do you explain Ari Fleischer’s proclamation just after the WTC attack, that Americans are required to watch what they say? A proclamation he was forced to recant. If the Bush administration had the respect for civil liberties and human rights that you impute to them, that comment would have been out of character. Instead, it is perfectly within character for a member of that administration.

How do you explain the shameless and censorious ass-kissing by Clear Channel when Natalie Maines said she was ashamed Bush was from Texas? “Just business?” I don’t think so. Clear Channel was kissing up to the government to curry political favour and was willing to sacrifice some profit to do it.

How do you explain the attack on CBS by republicans for daring to criticize another republican president? The documentary on Reagan. Free speech? Censorship is not a mode of free speech or free expression. A patriot, a real patriot, not your republican, double-thinking, sunshine patriots, understand that the answer to free speech is more free speech, not enforced silence.

How do you explain that the Bush administration created 14 million secrets in 2003, up twenty-five percent from 2002 — itself a record breaking year — and some of those secrets were material that had been previously declassified and some of it was stuff that couldn’t rationally be classified at all, so the Bush administration created the category of “Unclassified but Sensitive”.

Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force documents are still in a legal limbo after years and rulings by the court system that he had to cough them up, and now your Supreme Court has ruled that this government by secrecy is perfectly acceptable. The only thing that keeps me from thinking of the U.S. Supreme Court as “Bush friendly” is the fact that they shot down the Bush adminstration’s blatant attempt to enslave the reproductive faculties of women.

For that matter, the first thing Bush did on taking office was to expand censorship in matters of sex, sexuality, sexual health, and human reproduction, and his most recent act, as of June 16th, was to emplace total Abstinence Only Ignorance on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Or is that just lower on the George Bush “destroy-all-liberties to-do” list? Will that be in late 2005 or early 2006?

If the Republican National Guard has anything to say about it they’ll start on 03 Nov. I’m willing to bet that if Bush is re-elected they’ll find an excuse to savage a major metropolitan newspaper in The Name of the President before December.

How come Michael Moore hasn’t been arrested, executed or at the very least ordered to take a bath?

How come your conservative groups have taken up trying to silence his criticism of the president since Disney didn’t manage to do it for them? You think they wouldn’t arrest Moore if they had half an excuse? As near as I can tell the only reason they haven’t touched him so far is that: 1) he is too visible to just disappear him like a minority immigrant, and 2) he’s white so disappearing him is not politically feasible.

This morning I had a summer clerk who is interning for Federal District Court Magistrate and she was writing a draft for a summary judgment order. […] How do you think it would go over if I called her up and told her to tell her judge that they should just forget about that order and forget about everything because fang face said all our liberties have been destroyed by President Bush?

Here’s a clue, pchuck: try telling her instead that her reproductive faculties are under the control of George Bush and that she is forbidden to know anything about how her own body works and that she must consider herself the slave of any pregancy that results from this forced ignorance.

Then try telling the same thing to the rest of the women in the U.S. and around the world.

Let me know how it goes. By mail, not in person.

A “comparison of Bush to Hitler is unfair to Hitler” is your comment. This is silly, plain and simple.

To quote your own words back at you: You can click your heels together and wish the nonsense you spew is real but that won’t make it real.

If you have anything concrete you can use to refute any of my parallels and analogies, put them out here where everybody can see them. If all you have is a lot of bluster based on an Argument from Personal Incredulity, then you cannot refute anything I’ve said.

The salient facts in my commentary are as follows:

1. Adolf Hitler was an effective political leader who led his country out of hyper-inlation to become an economic force that challenged the allied might of the free world.

   George Bush has rammed the American economy into the toilet with a plunger.

2. Adolf Hitler saw combat in World War One.

   George Bush is a draft dodger.

3. Adolf Hitler returned to combat after he was wounded; he was wounded at least twice — by one account, which I cannot verify, he returned to combat as many as five times, with his being wounded a sixth time in October of 1918. He was awarded the Iron Cross second and first class.

   George Bush deserted, in legal parlance, his military service. And it is being covered up to this day.

All other things being equal, as far as I am concerned, these facts make Adolf Hitler a person of higher moral fiber than George Bush.

If you have any facts to refute any of the above, post them here.

So Bush wants to kill all the Jews?

Oh, no. But he is clearly willing to stand by while the Jews kill all of the Palestinians. And he has certainly proven that he is willing to kill any number of Iraqi women and children — that would mean non-combatants to anybody who has served in the military — even down to the last one to “free” them.

He wants to kill all the homosexual?

It sure looks that way to me. In fact, in what way would that not be in keeping with the ultra-conservative mantra, “Homosexuals are morally disordered and intrinsically evil”. And what place does a religious doctrine like that have in any government that is supposed to be secular?

As far as that goes, pchuck, I’ll even go one step further and say that Bush’s promoting the spread of AIDS is tantamount to using the HIV as a Biological Weapon in an ideological war on homosexuality. And, of course, he doesn’t care one whit about all the collateral damage that will ensue among those who are heterosexual but insist on having sex in violation of ultra-conservative guidelines. I will allow, however, that he not using HIV as biological weapon consciously. He isn’t smart enough to figure that out. Like most everything else he does, it’s being done out of ignorance.

He wants to take over vast parts of who-knows-where so that America has more living space?

So America can have more oil, in any event.

Are we going to annex Canada soon like Hitler did Austria?

I wouldn’t put it past him, but Canada is still in the position of Martin Neimoller’s political victim. If we don’t speak up, and a Liberal government certainly won’t, the day could very well come when Canada becomes another American satrapy. After all, we not only have oil, we also have uranium.

In which parts of New Jersey, Florida, Idaho, California or Texas are those death camps located?

Ah, a straw man argument. Taking into account the qualifier “death camp” as opposed to concentration camp, and disqualifying it, you can find your concentration camps at Guantamao Bay, Cuba, Abu Ghraib Prison, Baghdad, and there is another prison in Afghanistan the name and location of which escapes me. You might want to argue that those places are not within the purlieu of America, but they are all under American sovereignty/control.

As for internment camps within the U.S., there was the prison in New Jersey where all the wogs were sequestered and held incommunicado as terrorists for the crime of being immigrants.

I seemed to have misplaced that Karl Rove memo about the date and time of the Crystal Nacht 2004?

It was cancelled. The idea of a law whereby even a white bread, American born citizen could be disfranchised and locked up as a terrorist was too much even for the drones in Congress. What is pertinent here, however, is not that that law was not passed, but that Bush’s administration tried to enact such a law in the first place. Plus, even though it failed to pass as a law, there are indications that it is being enacted piecemeal as riders to various other laws.

You know, it’s kind of funny. When I heard about the proposal for that law I immediately thought of the short story The Man Without A Country. Where would a person go who has no national citizenship whatsoever? I guess you could always send him to France to live with that guy who’s been residing in the Charles de Gaulle Airport terminal since 1988 because he doesn’t have any citizenship.

How come Howard Dean or John Kerry have not been arrested and imprisoned?

How come the Republican National Guard members are comporting themselves with a clear and present double-standard morality in their dealings with those candidates? Why is it acceptable for Republicans to scourge political opponents as Nazis, while it is forbidden for others — me, for example — to show the obvious parallels between Bush and Hitler?

And as I ask in my commentary: Why, if Republicans don’t like being compared to Nazis, do they insist on acting like Nazis?

How can the CIA allow this anonymous CIA agent the ability to publish this book critical of Bush?

I already answered this one: Political spite.

For goodness sake, why do I have to hear the ABC News “Decision 2004” theme song?

Why are you such a simple-minded idiot that you can’t turn off the television? Or at least change the channel or hit the mute button? Why can’t you understand that it is you that controls what access you have to the media and not the media that controls your access?

Why are we holding another election?

Yeah, that’s what I’d like to know. I asked that question too. Why is it the Republican Party is allowing an election to be held when its attitude is very clearly that you aren’t allowed to vote for anybody but Bush? I wrote it in a commentary I haven’t uploaded to my site yet. The pertinent section is this: Michael Moore is an American citizen, that is his political system, and he has every bit as much right to influence those politics as the profit-mongering, capitalist owners of the congresscritters. Kaloogian makes it sound as if, by wanting to see elected a government not under the Bush heel, Moore is advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and actively engaged in terrorism. Has it now become illegal for a private citizen to vote against a sitting president in the U.S.? If so, I will simply point out that this election is as much a sham as the last election held by Saddam Hussein where he got 100 percent of the vote. In fact, why is the U.S. even bothering to hold an election if you’re not allowed to vote the president out of office?

I thought this was Nazi Amerika?

You’re getting there.

How’s that movement to reinstate the draft coming along, by the way?

So these hordes of Christian Taliban in the United States are given sanction by the government to stone and murder gay people?

That is certainly what the Christian Reconstructionists want. Check out their web site some time. That is also pretty much what happened to Mathew Shepherd, by the way. Make no mistake about it, pchuck: rabid misohomonist bullies like white supremacists will be quick to jump on any anti-homosexual bandwagon to at least assault homosexuals or any person mistaken for one. Keep in mind that a Bishop of Canterbury was once murdered by a pair of lackey’s when they overheard their king intemperately demand, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?!” It is from this incident we get “The Word of the King”. Misohomonists of all stripes will see constitutionally institutionalized misohomonism as a cart blanche to discriminate. Faith-based initiatives will give the religious hatemongers the excuse to institutionalize their bigotry against non-christian faiths.

However, most of the “righteous” won’t have to sully their lily-white hands with the blood of the victims. They’ll just let AIDS do their dirty work for them.

How come President Bush didn’t dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court upon the issuance of Lawrence v. Texas last year?

Because it is more politically advantageous to turn the bench and make it a rubber stamp for ultra-conservatism. Adolf Hitler was legally and democratically elected to dictatorship, don’t forget. All of his bloodyhanded lunacy was perfectly legal under the laws of Germany. Ask any usurper what’s the first thing he does upon seizing the throne and he’ll tell you that you have to consolidate the legality of your claim. Doing that means doing two things. 1: Execute any other pretenders to the throne. 2: Marry a member of the deposed royal family. I doubt if Bush could conceptualize the principle, but I’m sure even he must know subconsciously that his actions on American soil must still be kept within the bounds of American law. And if he doesn’t know that his handlers will.

I didn’t receive that letter from the government or the Christian Taliban telling me that my girls can’t go to school in August because they are girls.

Patience, my young Padawan. They’ll get around to that in due time. While the slippery slope is a fallacy in logic, it is also a very real force in the physical world. It’s just that some slopes take longer to slip than others.

While we’re on the topic of the slippery slope, though, tell me something, pchuck. Given the samples I have at my site of materials which have come under censorship attacks by Christian groups, can you honestly think of anything that some raving idiot somewhere couldn’t challenge?

Let’s set the upper limit at the Bill of Rights, since that is already under constant attack, and let’s set the lower limit where the Tailban did: paper bags and applause. Pick anything, or everything in between, and I’ll come up with a rationale for why it should be banned.

Heck, make it fun! Choose the bible.

Of course the most likely rationale will simply be: it’s unGodly. It’s amazing how you won’t see how so much of ultra-conservative Christianity is just like ultra-conservative Islam.

Coke, Pepsi; what’s the difference?

Should I notify the Post Office that my mail isn’t arriving.

That could be just a slow down from their reading it. The Bush regime will have to keep an eye on everybody’s loyalty, after all.

You can click your heels together and wish the nonsense you spew is real but that won’t make it real.

It’s not un-real just because you don’t like to consider it might be real.

While you’re waiting for your church appointed overseer to come by and forbid you to send your girls to school, and to measure the lengths of the hems on their dresses and skirts, you might want to read Harry Harrison’s To The Stars trilogy. It’s amazing how contemporary society is looking more and more like that society every day.

Or, if you’d like a glimpse of what the Christian Taliban have in store for your little girls or maybe your grandchildren, try reading that epistilary first chapter of Alice Walker’s The Color Purple, and try really hard to understand how a woman can be so ignorant that she can’t understand that she is pregnant or why people are telling her the baby is hers after she gives birth to it. Because that is exactly the kind of society ultra-conservatives everywhere want for women. It used to be a crime in the Confederate States, or so I understand, to teach a slave how to read. Reading gives them ideas, you see, and that makes them harder to control.

Re:One person’s viewpoint…..

So according to your most recent post Bush hasn’t destroyed or isn’t in the process of destroying ALL liberties?

Bush is destroying all liberties. I don’t see why you can’t understand such a simple statement if you do not disagree with it. It’s short, it’s simple, it’s in plain English.