Cannon here: Of course I support Feingold's call for censure, and I'm angry at the Democrats who would not stand with him. Even so, a part of me can understand the skittishness.
Censure may seem politically safe now, with Bush's approval rating sinking toward the 30% mark and points southward. But those approval ratings will skyrocket after the Sears Tower comes down and a good chunk of Chicago lies in ruins. Or after some similar event happens elsewhere.
Let's face it -- a new terror attack is the only thing that can salvage the neocon experiment. Such an attack is therefore inevitable.
We already know who the perps will be (the neocons) and who the fall guys will be (the Iranians). Afterward will come the great round-up of the "America-haters" -- defined as you and me and anyone else who considers Big Brother doubleplusungood. There will also be war with Iran. Nuclear war.
The signs are unmistakable. Come and see:
1. The far-right continually assails anyone who criticizes Bush as working with the terrorists. This accusation seems inane now, but it will take on quite an ominous tone after Big Wedding II.
2. Official propagandist Jerome Corsi, who is surely on the inside, has warned of an Iranian nuclear terror strike within the United States -- even though (as a moment's thought will tell you) Iran has nothing to gain and everything to lose from such an event.
3. No one doubts that the adminstration is gearing up for war with Iran, even though no political will exists in this country to prosecute such a conflict. Obviously, Cheney and co. know full well that an event will soon take place which will create sufficient backing.
4. Bush himself has repeated the false claim that Iran is arming the insurgency in Iraq. (Why would Shi'ite Iran want to undermine the most Shi'ite-friendly neighboring government they've ever known?)
5. Katherine Harris is staying in the race.
Point five may not seem obviously connected to my larger argument. But think about it: Under normal political rules, the woman has zero chance of winning, and no reason whatsoever to waste ten million bucks of her own money. Yes, I know that she has plenty of other dough, thanks to her wealthy husband. Even so, let's be realistic: The rich do not get rich by tossing cash down the garbage disposal.
But Katherine Harris is on the inside. She knows what is coming. She knows that after Big Wedding II, all the normal political rules will no longer apply. Anyone in any race who happens to have an "R" next to his or her name will automatically win in the election held after the next strike.
How "inside" is Kathy? She and Jeb Bush endorsed a strange entity called "Florida Air," an airline which, so far as I can tell, rarely offered actual airline services to members of the general public. Like the Wilkes enterprises, this was a spooky company run by spooky individuals for spooky purposes. From Welcome to Terrorland, written by Daniel Hopsicker:
"The chief and, indeed, only accomplishment of Boehlke and Dekkers’ unsuccessful airline was that it provided a rationale for the presence on the tarmac of the Venice Airport of a half dozen British Aerospace Jetstreams poised within easy reach of Caribbean hot spots. Well, the airline did have one other accomplishment: It was publicly endorsed by then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris..."Here's more, from Hopsicker's web site:
At the same time their planes were flying back and forth from Venezuela with illegal cargo Hilliard's charter service was also, unbelievably, being utilized at virtually no cost––despite the fact that rentals for Lear jets can run as high as $1,800 an hour––by Florida Governor Jeb Bush.Think -- think real hard -- about the reason why any covert operator would set up a fake charter airline service. In Florida.
Even stranger, both Governor Jeb Bush and Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris were providing celebrity endorsements to Hilliard's operation well after the company's Lear (N351WB) had been busted by DEA agents armed with machine guns.
Pretty poor advance work, at the very least...
One would think a sitting Governor seems well-advised to steer well clear of anything to do with heroin trafficking. Yet Governor Jeb Bush honored Hilliard's operation––called at various times Florida Air, Sunrise Airlines and Discover Air––with a personal visit, even posing for photos with the "Discover Air family."
The company promptly commemorated the memorable event by posting pictures of the visit on their website.
Finally somebody in the Bush camp realized their lethal potential exposure, and the webpage was hastily taken off the Discover Air site.
Do you really think that Kathy is going to spend $10 million dollars' worth of her daddy's money?
And do you really think that if IT happens before the election, she will lose?
16 comments:
sofla said:
My first thought on the Feingold resolution of censure was about the same as yours. A no-brainer, of course he should be censured, and even a failed effort would be worth getting on record. Then, I read about the dynamics of the '06 Senate races, where the Dems need 6 seats, 5 of which are in blue states. The argument is that it would be better to get the Senate than this rather toothless marker against Bush, and that putting a lot of effort into a censure would harm the other effort.
But the likelihood of a 18/22 (9/11 v. 2) does loom, as it is about the only thing that could cement a GOP victory in '06 and rush the rest of their fascist agenda forward. We already had Tommy Franks opining that another attack on the US would likely see the Constitution suspended, and martial law imposed.
sigh. it does seem inevitable, does it not. although the logic of the repugs' gaining unequivocal support may be yet another of their infamous miscalculations. i would not have believed the citizenry would sit still for another iraq, that is until the last poll, which showed that they trail the dems on EVERY issue, EXCEPT trusting this admin to deal properly with iran.
they have certainly done it again in terms of successfully shaping the american mind on the key issue. all their other crimes fall neatly into the permissable column if we're attacked again.
but do you honestly believe the 'who'd'a thunk it' defense will work yet again? i mean, the down side of having an attack occur is that it happens on their watch.
still, kudos to you for catching the katherine clue. these tea leaves will be essential for getting through all this.
Another "planned" attack could have its downside. As another indicated, there's no mistaking on whose "watch" the next one will have occurred. And with Bush's nonchalance about the DP World deal and his administration's noted incompetence regarding Katrina, et al, I don't think another attack would necessarily be a no-brainer popularity gain for Bush. Any escalation of fear certainly seems to provide a boost, but that may be too much to expect.
My guess is that the "next one" will happen in another country, an ally necessary to push the Iran agenda. Don't be surprised to see Germany or France in the crosshairs on that one.
It's all very well to censure this Shrub but, if the Democrats across the country don't tell the American people on main stream TV that they are expecting the neocons to engineer another attack on the American people again then most Americans will beleive anything they hear on rightwing radio or from whatever source they get their news. Why in an election year have we not heard from most of the Democrats about their fears of what this administration is capable of. Why must we leave the bandwidth to the neocons to spew their filth. Where is our Democratic Leadership and why are they hiding? Democratic Statesmen?
Is that an extinct species? If it isn't, maybe we should ensure it get's to be one in 2006-2008. What have they, with a few noteable exceptions been doing for the last six years?
Said Venice airport is the SAME airport that at least 2 of the 9/11 hijackers trained at--coincidence? probably, but still scary.
I disagree about the likelihood of another false flag terorist attack like 9/11 before the November election. The GOP and the Bush administration would gain nothing from it. Much more likely it would be the last nail in their coffin, confirming their utter and profound incompetence to all Americans and sealing their downfall. If these GOP are the poeple the American public needs to protect them (as Evil Dick Cheney and the GOP like to claim), who needs them! A recent poll already says 29% say "incometent" for their first word descriptor of Bush.
I read the same poll. Democrats should not crow. Of the 210 respondents who offered one-word descriptions of Bush, 96 used positive words, while 114 used negative words. (I'm not counting the term "President," which is neutral.) The results are not so lopsided as some would have you think.
Most Americans thought that Feingold's censure call was based on partisanship, not principle. If the impeachment question is asked separately (not as an "if-then" formulation), only 29% back the idea. Roughly the same number of people backed the impeachment of Clinton.
Don't kid yourself. Bush still has more support than most of visitors to this site would like to think.
In the wake of tragedy, most Americans will not allow themselves to contemplate the notion that the neocons would engineer a terror attack. Our intelligence agencies will no doubt offer faked intercepts or some similar form of "proof" of Iranian guilt. And most people will buy the story.
Joseph, your characterization of a
neocon-perpetrated "terrorist" attack
as "Big Wedding II" suggests that you
regard the 9/11 attack as "Big Wedding
I" and yet you have expressed distaste
for the 9/11 truth movement.
Has something changed your thinking
about 9/11? If you, I'd be interested
to know what caught your atention and
how your ideas have evolved.
Above should of course be "If so".
Posting before coffee should not be done.
I expressed distaste for PART of the 9/11 truth movement. I haven't yet come up with a workable terminology, so the phrases I will use here are not really satisfactory. But I divide the movement into two categories: The "physical" theorists -- by which I mean the bombs-in-the-buildings crowd -- and the "connections" theorists -- by which I mean the folks who think there is more to the story of Mohammed Atta and co. than has been told.
In other words, I say "viva Daniel Hopsicker" and "fuck you, Tom Flocco."
It pisses me off royally that so many people have heard absolute nonsense about the collapse of the WTC (the temperature at which steel liquifies is NOT the temperature at which it starts to bend), yet have never heard of, say, Magdy El-Amir.
I don't think we yet have enough data to understand who knew what would happen on 9/11. If Bush knew the precise details, he would not have been caught on videotape looking like an idiot while holding a children's book upside-down.
Even so, I am now persuaded that some people in or around the administration DID have advance knowledge. They may not have comprehended the full scope of the operation. But a tight-knit group was aware that something big was about to go down.
Will Bush have advance warning of Big Wedding II? The more pertinent question is: Why tell him? He's an idiot.
Joseph,
There's certainly a metaphorical truth to your theory (the players involved are capable of this kind of treason), but the chances of them actually perpetrating these acts, or even contemplating perpetrating them, are another matter. Sure, they'd love to nuke Chicago and Iran, and make Christ or Santa Claus the patron saint of the country. But that doesn't mean they *could* or would venture to try. It's not simply a matter of the Bush circle. They would need far wider cooperation, and in a country which remains open as this one (despite their best efforts), that's no small challenge.
Unless your sources are a lot better than everyone else's, or you have prophetic dreams, it remains the rankest fantasy. The fact that Katherine Harris is vain and fautuous enough to persist in what looks to be a lost campaign hardly nails the case. It's far more likely she thinks she can game the voting machines, than that a nuke will put her in the Senate.
Speculation is one thing, but you're setting all this out as if it were a foregone conclusion.... Would you bet your personal wealth, and all your future assets, on a nuclear device going off in the U.S. within the next 3 years, followed by a nuclear attack on Iran, which would end all international cooperation with the U.S. and (in all likelihood) precipitate economic catastrophe? If so, I have a bridge I can sell you.
Of course, you could still be right. But, the point is, there's no evidence for it unless you're going to invoke Divine Inspiration, and I thought that was something the reality-based community tended to avoid?
I've had another nagging suspicion about Harris' candidacy. I think she's keeping the seat warm for Jeb, who knows he doesn't want to withstand the stigma of being dubya's brother during a long campaign. I fully expect Harris to withdraw for "personal reasons" sometime say, around 9/11 for symbolic and subliminal reasons, and that Jeb will then step in to save the day.
The republicans are greatly concerned about losing the Senate and surely don't expect Harris to win. They want Senator Jeb in the worst way. Harris will, of course, be rewarded for her willingness to "take one for the team."
Kim in PA
This answer will probably exclude me from the reality-based community...or at least shunt me off to the slummier sections of that community...but, yeah.
Prophetic dreams.
I didn't have one, but my ex did. In August of 1999. She dreamed about Airplanes slamming into the World Trade Center. Upon awakening that morning, she remianed in a semi-entranced state and went on to make quite a few other predictions. Including the one about a "small" nuke going off in Chicago (which had acually been the subject of a whole series of prophetic dreams she once had.)
I discussed this in a lengthy post some ages ago. (I'm too lazy to dig up the precise date right now, but a little googling might do the trick.) It may have been the most embarrassing hting I ever wrote, but it really happened, cross my heart and hope to die...and NO, I did not misrecall or misinterpret what she said.
I told only one person about the WTC prediction before the fact and he does not now recall my having said it. If I had published what she said on the internet, Lord knows how the FBI would have reacted. So maybe I was an idiot to put the nuke prediction on the record beforehand.
I guess you can say my materialistic curmudgeonhood did receive something of a shake-up, if only in regard to the idea of ESP. Obviously, I cannot expect my experience to persuade anyone else. It's, like, a personal thang.
Call me a situationally-modified materialistic curmudgeon.
So to me it IS a foregone conclusion, or if not that, then at least a likelihood. But I don't expect anyone else to share this view or to take my account at face value. You'd be a fool to trust in an anecdotal report of ESP as manifested by someone whose name you do not even know. I don't say any of this to convince YOU, merely to confess just what it is that drives ME.
If I'm wrong...GREAT!! That'll be the best-tasting helping of crow anyone ever gobbled.
That said, I'm a little miffed at myself for taking a swipe at Tom Flocco. He's not so bad, not compared to some of the others. Alex Jones, on the other hand...
Flocco self-destructed with the
Barbara Olson story. Current
WTC-was-demolished advocates Dr.
Steven Jones and Dr. David Ray Griffin
are made of sterner stuff.
Funny you should mention Alex Jones in
juxtaposition with your precognitive
dream story. I've been told by a
reliable 9/11 truth activist that
Alex Jones warned of 9/11 in
advance, telling his listeners to
call their federal legislators and
sound the alarm.
I've been worried about this for weeks. It's totally crazy, of course - but so are they! So it could still make sense to them. More to the point, I don't think they have another option. Sooner or later the whole house of cards is coming down - 9/11 cracks (CNN covers Charlie Sheen), the Plame investigation, the Abramoff and Cunningham scandles, plummetting popularity, stolen elections, wiretap scandles, Katrina, and always this crazy war where we can't win, can't break even, and can't get out of the game. I think they know they're done for, by the elections if no sooner - and with democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Bush would be impeached. So I can see how they might feel that there is no other choice but to ride this one as hard and as far as it can go. And that was topic a while back: will they be desperate enough to stage this attack so they can nuke Iran? I'm afraid so, I think they might well be that desperate.
PLEASE, prove me wrong.
Cheers,
PeterT
Post a Comment