"We create our own reality..."

[Al_U_Card]

H.G. Wells wrote "The War of the Worlds".

 

Big Dick and Little Dick are writing "The war on the world" in the blood of innocents.

 

For shame.

 

Canadians fought bravely and died for freedom in past world wars. Our record as a "Peace-Keeper" was spotless until Afghanistan. The bandwagon mentality that is the US has run off the road. We need the US to counteract the inhumanity and senselessness of RADICAL Islam. (Islam, like most religions, is pretty favorable to humanity until humans get hold of it.) Western culture may be hedonistic and self-indulgent but it is nurturing and not annihilating. Pray for us all.

[pbleighton]

"The amount of time required seems to vary dramatically. North Korea and Cuba are still kicking arround."

 

Is it an accident that these are the two regimes which the U.S. has tried the hardest to isolate? Cuba, in particular, might well have been reformed by now if it weren't for the crazy U.S. policies.

 

North Korea may be different, it looks like there is mental illness at work.

 

Peter

[mike777]

I agree they did tend to fall into themselves but not before millions and millions died and a billion or more were enslaved......

Let us not forget in the their name Stalin and Mao killed millions if not tens of millions...... so much for the cold war after 1945.....

[mike777]

H.G. Wells wrote "The War of the Worlds".

 

Big Dick and Little Dick are writing "The war on the world" in the blood of innocents.

 

For shame.

 

Canadians fought bravely and died for freedom in past world wars.  Our record as a "Peace-Keeper" was spotless until Afghanistan.  The bandwagon mentality that is the US has run off the road.  We need the US to counteract the inhumanity and senselessness of RADICAL Islam. (Islam, like most religions, is pretty favorable to humanity until humans get hold of it.)  Western culture may be hedonistic and self-indulgent but it is nurturing and not annihilating.  Pray for us all.

Let us not forget that Canada commited just as many atrocities per soldier in WW11 as all of our allied grandfathers did......in that terrible terrible war.

 

D day in France was not a peace keeping mission...it was killing.....

 

 

100,000 or more German women in Berlin alone were raped.....

[hrothgar]

I agree they did tend to fall into themselves but not before millions and millions died and  a billion or more were enslaved......

Let us not forget in the their name Stalin and Mao killed millions if not tens of millions...... so much for the cold war after 1945.....

Hate to break this to you mike, but ***** happens. The world is far from perfect and any society that you look at has plenty of skeletons in its closet. The US comes across with relatively clean hands because most of the native Americans were killed by diseases before the settlers and the army had the chance to massacre them. Even so, the US record for ethnic cleansing is pretty damn impressive. We managed to slaughter our way across the better part of a continent.

 

BTW, you really might want to spend a bit of time actually studying Soviet History.

 

Stalin was certainly responsible for the deaths of millions of people. The forced collectivization of the agricultural system and the purges that Stalin lead were every bit as horrific as anything that the National Socialists unleashed during the Holocaust. Really dreadful stuff. The Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe during the Second World was equally horrific.

 

Here's the thing... These events didn't take place during the Cold War. Most of Stalin's body count occured before or during the Second World War. Stalin died in 1953 and missed out on the bulk of the Cold War.

[Al_U_Card]

H.G. Wells wrote "The War of the Worlds".

 

Big Dick and Little Dick are writing "The war on the world" in the blood of innocents.

 

For shame.

 

Canadians fought bravely and died for freedom in past world wars.  Our record as a "Peace-Keeper" was spotless until Afghanistan.  The bandwagon mentality that is the US has run off the road.  We need the US to counteract the inhumanity and senselessness of RADICAL Islam. (Islam, like most religions, is pretty favorable to humanity until humans get hold of it.)  Western culture may be hedonistic and self-indulgent but it is nurturing and not annihilating.  Pray for us all.

Let us not forget that Canada commited just as many atrocities per soldier in WW11 as all of our allied grandfathers did......in that terrible terrible war.

 

D day in France was not a peace keeping mission...it was killing.....

 

 

100,000 or more German women in Berlin alone were raped.....

Oh boy, comparing WWI and WWII with Iraq etc. is not even conceivable.

 

I DID indicate that there was no comparing then and now. Genocide (in North America or elsewhere) is only a human activity. Atrocities are part of human nature (a bad part but a part nonetheless).

 

Let's get real and look at what is happening like it was 100 years in the past. Think Andersonville or the trail of tears....perspective gives us the ability to understand not only motivation but also direction. We know why they are doing these things, now we must figure out where they are going with them before it is too late....

[mike777]

Let's not forget that the cold war basically started in 1945 so that did give Stalin and Mao time to kill millions.....

 

Heck after wwII Stalin killed or imprisoned at least a million German soldiers and hundreds of millions in eastern europe.

 

Card, I am a bit at a lose how the 1980's Cold War where hundreds of millions were trapped is somehow ancient history and does not relate to what is happening now but.....

 

If comparing the aftermath of WWII has nothing to do with Iraq and then I guess lessons are lost.....

 

If comparing the Indian wars in the USA or the Marines fighting in the early 1900's in the Philipinnes (sp) have no lessons to be learned in the 21st Century so be it.....

[Al_U_Card]

Stalin killed 10 million and Mao about 30 million. Man's footprint in history is always filled with blood. The lesson that we must learn is that fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity......it makes no sense. Self-defense is a broadly abused concept. Saving the innocent is not. Has the Iraqi incursion benefitted the Iraqi people? I would say not. Will it eventually? Perhaps like Vietnam or Germany they may be lucky, perhaps not, as only time will tell.

 

As Aesop described in his fable. The wind can blow all it wants but the man will just clutch his coat more tightly. The sun has only to come out and show its warmth and the man will remove his coat. There are many ways to float a boat but blowing it to smithereens only means that there will just be little bits left to float off uselessly. Since "IRAQ" was created by the west out of the vestiges of the Ottoman empire, surely the west could have allowed for the shepherding of the region by supervising free elections in the various "ethnic" regions so that majority rule (remember that concept of democracy?) would have a chance. Iraq is pretty much defined by its regions. Why not help them define their leadership as they saw fit. Only the oil in the ground and the avarice in the hearts led to the current situation. Indeed a sad story.

[mikeh]

Mike, your arguments fail to convince those who post in response in part, no doubt, to the sad reality that most of us see opinions contrary to our world view as reasons to restate our convictions, rather than as reasons to rethink our convictions. But your arguments also fail to convince because you seem to fall into that trap yourself. You repeatedly refer to the 'war' in which you say that the US (and the rest of the western world, whether it knows it or not) is engaged in with 'radical islam', whatever that is. You appear to have the existence of this 'war' as a foundation for all your opinions, to the point that you concede that discussion, on your part, is bound to be fruitless if your audience will not accept this reality.

 

'War' can be defined in many ways, and the US government is fond of making up new ones, from the well-intentioned but poorly implemented 'war on poverty' to the ludicrous, counter-productive 'war on drugs'. Now there is the 'war on terror' and, for you at least, the 'war with radical islam'.

 

What the US is engaged in is not a war in any sense of the historical meaning of the term. The word 'war' has been co-opted by leaders of the US, including members of the media who should know better than to become unthinking conduits of government propaganda. Bush used his self-portrayal as a 'war president' to win a second term: he was doing very poorly in the polls prior to 9/11 and thereafter used a version of an odious but very american slogan: my country, right or wrong... in essence: my president, right or wrong. It worked: the use of the term Patriot Act to describe the greatest single assault on individual liberties the US has ever seen.... think of your revolutionary hero who is alleged to have said: Give me liberty or give me death! He was a patriot (only because his side won: had the British won, it is Benedict Arnold who would be remembered as the patriot)... so it is truly orwellian to use that term to describe the circumscription of liberty encompassed within the Patriot Act.

 

The US is engaged in a contest: in fact in a multitude of contests, involving armed conflict and rhetorical struggle with many disparate groups. Various Islamic factions hate the US... while hating each other. Look at Iraq: more violence occurs between radical islamists than between either islamic faction and the US. 'Radical Islam' is hardly a monlithic organization: indeed it is not even remotely a single entity.

 

Accepting catch-phrases such as the war on terror or the war on radical islam alows and in fact requires that one stop looking behind the label: that one not think critically about what is going on. Doing this, abdicating our innate ability to make our own assessments, is precisely what all religions require, whether they be islam, christianity, judasism or what have you. For religions, the catch-word is God. For acceptance of the need to have one's country slaughter inhabitants of other countries, it is 'war'. It is almost certainly no coincidence that those areas of the US that most strongly support your 'wars', on terror or on radical islam, are those areas in which religious belief is the strongest. Both attitudes require acceptance of paternalistic governance: surrender of critical thinking to 'superiors', whether they be your president or your pastor.

[pbleighton]

Mikeh: Good post.

 

Mike777: To reiterate my question, do you think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake? If not, why?

 

Peter

[mike777]

Peter I have answered that question quite a bit here...

 

As for MikeH...yes I use the word war...and yes many believe we(the west) are not at war..that is the point......to discuss whether we are or not.

 

To use some euphemistic term for war is to just avoid the question and a critical discussion.

 

Of course even if you agree we are at war, you need to decide if it is worth fighting or winning. Ya I think you either win or lose a war....there ain't much of a middle ground despite people wishing to debate the definition and semantics of it.

 

As I have said many times..if you think we are not at war what the USA is doing must seem insane.

[pbleighton]

"Peter I have answered that question quite a bit here..."

 

Where, I missed it?

 

Peter

[the hog]

Mike,

I really feel that you need some lessons in History. WW1 was fought by colonial powers attempting to retain a hold over their empires. There was no "right or wrong side" as you seem to suggest. The USA entered the war due to intense pressure and lobbying from the Brits and finall only ue to economic circumstances.

WW11 was a slightly different scenario, however let us not forget that the rise of Hitler and National Socialism in Germany was a direct result of the unfair peace treaty of Versailles forced upon Germany. No one can say for sure what would or wouldn't have happened, but there is a strong argument to suggest that Hitler would nee have been able to sieze power had a fairer peace treaty been written.

 

The Cold War, which you repeatedly mention, was a by product of the distrust between Western nations and the Russians. No one argues that Stalin was a "nice guy", but the intrigues fostered by the US and Great Britain exacerbated the situation dramatically. The Soviet Union and later the Warsaw pact were the direct antithesis of Nato.

 

If you are discussing US policy in the Asia, the Containment policy of John Foster Dulles was an absolute disaster. After the fall of the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the US supported a series of petty dictators who did not have the support of the populace. Diem was a Catholic in a predominently Bhuddist country and was corrupt. Further the US made no distiction between the Communist Nationalism of Asia and the Communism of Stalinist and post Stalinist USSR. The US could have aided and supported Asian Nationalists and gained support and kudos. Instead it followed a hysterical policy designed to alienate.

 

The policy of the US in SEA was a total failure. Are you aware that Laos, a country of 6 million people, had more bombs dropped on it than the WHOLE of Europe in WW11? To what end, I may ask?

[mike777]

As usual you seem to wish to repeat the obvious but that is ok...perhaps many do not know many of your stated facts. Some actually took some classes in history and read it voraciously and some even piddle around with getting/working on a PHD in the subject in their spare time...anyway

 

As for your one opinion of containment, I strongly disagree and every usa pres. did too but that is another discussion for another time.

 

I do see parralles (sp) in the lessons of the cold war 40+ years and now..heck I see lessons as I mentioned in the Philippino(sp) insurgency and the Usa Indian Wars....

 

After reading such books as Fiasco. Looming Tower, Denial and many others I remain as befuddled as many others what the heck we are doing in Iraq and what are best options are.

 

 

As for Afghanistan..many thought we should not do that outside of the USA but the thirst for revenge and bombing something, even mud huts was overwhelming in the USA at that time and noone gave a damn about the post war reconstuction in that country to be blunt.

[Winstonm]

Mike, let me ask one of you, OK? What is most important do you think, protecting us from the threat of radical Islam or maintaining the integrity of our constitutional freedoms?

 

The war that I see most clearly is one that is occuring right here in the U.S. - a war of ideology. I think this is the most important war to win.

 

Item: Newt Gingrich arguing for a containment of free speech due to the threat of terrorism.

 

Item: The Military Commissions Act stripping habeus corpus rights from "enemy combattants", with language so loosely written that U.S. citizens are not excluded from being classified as such.

 

Item: President Bush authorizing the NSE to eavesdrop without judicial oversight.

 

Item: President Bush ignoring the Genova Convention and allowing toture of terror suspects.

 

Item: Fox commentators stating that those who publicly oppose the Iraq war and the president should be thrown into concentration camps.

 

Item: Seton Hall study using DOD data shows that only 5% of those held at Guantenemo have al-queda connections. All the prisoners are subject to military tribunals with no writ of habeus corpus available.

 

The decision, it seems, is whether there will be a United States of America or a United States of Secrecy, Torture, and Paranoia.

 

At let me state lastly, I do not blame Bush/Cheney for any of this - the fault lies with ourselves, for allowing this to happen.

[mike777]

Ya I think integrity is worth dying for but easy for me to say as an old man sitting at my keyboard.

 

I do not question those that really had to face this issue in real life.

 

Of course I also believe the Constitution is not a Suicide document.

 

Heck I want you guys to howl loud and often....just vote for us to Win...whatever the heck that means.... :rolleyes:

 

We are all old enough to remember how millions, literally millions of Europeans marched against the Pershing Missile deployment. This was the short range nuke that would land on Europe, mostly West Germany if ever used.

 

It would be used as a first strike missle..we use nukes first, to stop tanks.

 

Europe as a result spent very little on antitank defense and basically had none once this was deployed. It spent its money on consumer goods.

 

Too its credit West Germany's leaders voted eagerly for this weapon despite it meaning the wipe out of most of their country. Not sure the Usa would have been so valiant.

 

I just bring this up again because that war was 40+ years long with victory ill defined and millions and millions calling the usa empire killer baby mongers willing to use Nukes first to kill Europe's children.

[pbleighton]

"Heck I want you guys to howl loud and often....just vote for us to Win...whatever the heck that means.... "

 

I vote for us to avoid tragic unwinnable situations, and I know exactly what that means...

 

"I do not question those that really had to face this issue in real life."

 

A war crime is a war crime. No question about it.

 

Peter

[mycroft]

I've avoided these arguments for two reasons:

1) I'm Canadian. I happen to be a liberal (not a Liberal, more liberal than that) *in Canada*, which means that U.S. Democrats think I'm on a par with Castro, and Republicans actively look for horns or copies of the Little Red Book.

2) I'm Canadian, which means that there are Americans (not meaning anyone here, but there are Americans) who say "you don't live here, you can't know, it's not your problem, go away." Now those people want the best of both worlds - they want to be the Only Superpower, able to affect the rest of the world with their actions and use that to their advantage, but also telling rest of the world that what happens in the Only Superpower doesn't matter to them. They haven't called me a wog, yet, but it's only a matter of time...

and 3) of course - my opinions are from Mars. I know that.

 

However:

 

1) This is a war, if anything, about power. I said on September 11, 2001, to my Irish ASL opponent, that the overreaction is going to be ugly. And as far as I am concerned, it has.

 

- The PNAC-influenced Republicans found an pretext to implement their ideas; ideas designed to make it clear to the world that America has the Power, don't piss us off, or we can destroy you. And don't think we are distracted by the other people we are destroying; we have the power to do this on many fronts at once.

 

"CORE MISSION[] for U.S. military forces:

[]

fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars"

- "Rebuilding America's Defences", Project for the New American Century, Sept. 2000.

 

Note that that is not "have the ability to fight..." Hmm, shortly after WTC, we were involved in a war in Afghanistan, and the Executive was pushing hard for (and eventually got, despite the quality of the evidence and the "Okay, that didn't fly, let's try this reason" changes in why the US should) a war in Iraq. Which they decisively won, in both cases. It's the peace they're having trouble winning.

 

- Congress passes the PATRIOT Act. What is that, if not grabbing power from the people and putting it in the hands of the already powerful? A great way to have power over someone else is to know what they do, so that you can use any breaches from "accepted" behaviour to blackmail them into doing what you want them to do. And, of course, if you're a known blackmailer, others who know you know what they're doing will do what you want them to do to avoid the breaches from "accepted" behaviour that will put them under your spell.

 

Hmm, replace blackmail with arrest. Or refuse to allow to fly. Or rendition (Arar-style or "extraordinary"). or...And then look at TIA, Operation TIPS, "tell us everything and don't tell anyone you've told us" National Security Letters, ID required to travel anywhere by air, probably soon by bus or train, _Hiibel_-authorized "papers, please" checks, and decide whether this is being done.

 

Oh wait, what is the motto of the Office of Information Awareness? Oh yeah, "Knowledge is Power".

 

- On the other side, we have people - yes, mostly Islamic, mostly Arab (at the moment), but also South Americans, North Koreans, Chechnyans among others - who have no power. They have enough of a no life that suicide is worth it, if in doing so, it gives their life meaning. There are people in those groups - and you notice they're not the ones getting themselves killed - with power. Not USA-size power, not Bill Gates-size power, but power nonetheless. They get power by inciting hatred against the US and getting people to do what they want. They get money, too, that way. Are they fundamentalist Islamics? Well, they sound like it, but that's currently a great way to get the people - sorry, the power. In 1930 they were Communist, in 1950 they were Catholic in Northern Ireland, in 1770 they were white colonial male settlers.

 

Sometimes they win for "their cause"; sometimes even after that they retain their power. Sometimes - frequently, in fact - their life is short. But it has power. There were always candidates for the Roman Purple, even in 69A.D., the "year of the four emperors".

 

This is why, I believe, the "war on terror" is fundamentally wrong. The Amish got it right - you do the Christian thing (in their case, at least - insert your own religion here) and turn the other cheek, rebuild and prepare for the next nutcase in any way they can without changing their lives. And they are respected for it, and I bet they're a lot less likely to have repeat terror attacks than the US in general. And they've done it without changing the nature of their lifestyle, or compromising their fundamental beliefs.

 

What the US is doing with the "war on terror" is propping up the terrorist leaders by augmenting their power. "See? If we don't fight The Great Satan, they will come and kill us - for no reason. I will give you power (a gun, or a bomb), and your life will have meaning". Oh, and I get more powerful because I can send a bomb anywhere I want.

 

I believe this is the fundamental problem with the "war on drugs" as well - illegal drugs have an artificially-supported massive profit margin in its market. All that does is increase the power of the drug lords. It also increases the power of the people down the chain, because there's just so much profit to run around. I happen to think that drug addiction is very wrong, but basically harmless - it's all the things that happen to keep access to the massive profit margin, and all the things the addicted do to meet the massively-inflated payments that are the harm. But that's way off topic.

 

2) This fight for power is fundamentally changing the United States of America, and the ideas on which it stands. Not everybody knows the freedoms granted them by the United States Constitution, but they know the last line of the "Star-Spangled Banner", you betcha.

 

Mike says the Constitution is not a Suicide document. Sure it is - if necessary. The declaration of Independence expects the rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", and in order to truly retrieve it, the signers "mutually sign [their] Lives, [their] Fortunes, and [their] sacred Honor". The preamble of the Constitution states:

 

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

It does not state that the defence of an individual is at all important - in fact, the only thing in there that is individuated is "secure[ing] the blessings of liberty". The Constitution is a Liberty document - and that that was the intent is borne out by the Amendments, most of which reiterate rights ensuring the liberty of citizens. And that has always involved people dying to keep the Constitution alive.

 

To paraphrase a famous American,

"Eleven score and ten years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

 

Now we are engaged in a great war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."

 

That nation, it is my firm belief, has nothing to fear - as far as enduring is concerned - from the terrorists. Even left totally alone, they could not do enough to the United States to even make anyone worry about its fall. The world's terrorists, dropping all their various current goals and targeting America's downfall, couldn't put even the pressure that is currently being put on Israel; and that is in no danger of ceasing to endure.

 

However, a nation so concieved and so dedicated is under terrible pressure from the powerhungry, who gain power in the name of Safety - not safety of the nation, but safety of individual people. In that fear - and it is a fear, not a reality, especially considering the relative chances of death by terrorism vs. death by firearm (which We are willing to Accept to retain our Liberty) or vs. death by vehicle (which We are willing to Accept to retain our Freedom) - they have passed laws that are designed to remove the dedication to equality and remove Liberty.

 

If that is a cause for which Americans should still fight - if they still wish to be Brave, Brave enough to continue to live in the land of the Free (you thought I had forgotten about how I started this part, didn't you?) - then they must accept that that fight costs lives. Not the lives of the Military, perhaps - perhaps the lives of random stockbrokers and their children, or you, or me - but there is a cost. Bravery is accepting that cost to oneself. Freedom does involve the freedom to choose to remain free, paying whatever cost that entails, or to give it up to ensure Safety.

 

As far as I am concerned, if this does not happen, if Freedom is no longer Free (as in GPL, not as in beer), then the great experiment that is the United States of America has failed, and the terrorists have won. I frankly believe that the terrorists have already won, that the US is no longer the country it was in 2000, and that the debilatory changes weren't due to a couple of planes-turned-bombs.

 

Please note, my Constitution states that the intended goals are "peace, order and good government." So "practice what you preach" has an odd consequence (we're peaceful, orderly, and Stephen Harper is the PM. Well, two out of three ain't bad).

 

3) The Government says it's "promoting democracy". The problem with democracy, is that it requires Freedom. And as I said above, true Freedom includes the freedom to give up that freedom. If democracy is truly the goal, then the US would accept a party running on an abolitionist, totalitarian or monarchist ticket, and should it win, and implement its policy, it should be accepted as the will of the people. Ain't gonna happen in Afghanistan (at least not through the duly elected government, at least), nor in Iraq. The US only wants democracy in other countries when the will of the people is compatible with the will of the US. If that's not the case, a puppet "democratic" government will be set up that is acceptable to the US, and "nation-building" will consist of writing a constitution that will make the removal of "democracy" impossible (instead of just difficult, which is a good thing to do), and transition orders that can't be voided for three years after the US leaves, and...

 

4) I will not discuss the "war on terror" as a War, because when it's convenient for the Executive, we're at war, but when it's not convenient (i.e. it will result in lost votes for the election), we're "America as always." It's just a word, not a state of the state; and that particular end run around the checks and balances and Extreme Powers in Time of War bothers me. At least Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act officially, and paid the price for it, in 1970.

 

End of Rant. You may start reading again.

Michael.

[Al_U_Card]

Well said, Michael. My only problem is that we are geographically VERY close to the US...

[Winstonm]

Here is something interesting I read about these so-called Radical Islamics.

Anyone know anything else?

 

1) Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that: "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international Mujiheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.”

 

2) The CIA and MI6 (British Intelligence) recruit and train more than 100,000 militants to Help Fight Afghan “jihad” against the Soviet Union.

 

3) History of “Al Qaeda” or “the Database” 1992-1995: The Pentagon Uses Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to fight against the Serbs in Bosnia. The Pentagon helps bring thousands of mujaheddin and other Islamic militants from Central Asia into Europe to fight alongside the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs.

 

4) The ISI (Pakistani intelligence agency) actively collaborates with the CIA. It continues to perform the role of a ‘go-between' in numerous intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA. The ISI directly supports and finances a number of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. [Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research CA 10-9-2001]

 

5) Shortly before 9/11 the then-head of the ISI, General Mahmood Ahmed wired $100,000 to the lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta. This was confirmed by the FBI investigation and Indian intelligence officials tracing the financial ties of the hijackers. [Wall Street Journal 10/10/01, Times of India, 8-15-02]

 

6) Despite all of this information, the 9/11 Commission report claimed: “we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding” [9/11 Commission report pg. 172].

 

7) In July 2001, FBI counterterrorism expert John O’Neill says, “The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” He adds, “All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden’s organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia.”

 

So who are these Radical Muslims? And why didn't we invade Pakistan? Are we fighting a ghost of our own creation? What the heck is going on?

[Al_U_Card]

Welcome to the "real" real world. Where illusion and subterfuge, obfuscation and confusion are the tools of those that hold and wield the power. Never be surprised by the lengths nor the breadth of the methods that can be used to manipulate and control. What indeed is going on?

[Winstonm]

Here is an example of a little more reality creationism - from the Attorney General of the U.S. and Sen. Arlen Spertre.

 

Yesterday, during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, then added, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”

 

Specter pushed back. “Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?” Specter told Gonzales, “You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.” Watch it:

 

 

No, Senator, Gonzales is not violating common sense - he is just taking a view from a point of created reality to fit the belief system.

 

And how about this - I knew that darned Patriot Act would be good for something. A little known amendment last year waived the 120 day rule for interim U.S. attorney appointments, meaning that when a U.S. attorney is forced out or resigns, his replacement is there for the duration of the president's term, bypassing the normal process of Senate confimation:

 

Ryan is one of 11 top federal prosecutors who have resigned or announced their resignations since an obscure provision in the USA Patriot Act reauthorization last year enabled the U.S. attorney general to appoint replacements without Senate confirmation. Carol Lam, who headed California's Southern District, also announced Tuesday she would be leaving.

 

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat, complained on the Senate floor Tuesday that the White House is using the provision to oust Ryan, Lam and other federal prosecutors and replace them with Republican allies.

"The Bush administration is pushing out U.S. attorneys from across the country under the cloak of secrecy and then appointing indefinite replacements," Feinstein said.

 

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales denied the claim, saying administration officials "in no way politicize these decisions."

 

 

Of course, bypassing Senate confirmation and appointing whom you want in no way politicizes the decisions - another form of reality creation.

[RedSpawn]

"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

 

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''"

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine...9e162076ei=5090

One has to wonder. . . .exactly what reality has our U.S. government created from 2000-17 and while we are busy trying to reconcile its reality back to the one we live on Main Street, It is off to the races to create another reality.

 

I think a solid case can be made that America of 2017 is not the same America of 2000 in terms of freedoms.

 

Aye Yai Yai!

 

And here is the philosophical rub:

 

If the government is in the business of creating its own reality, is it a conspiracy when one presents fact-based evidence that dispels the underlying principles of that reality? Does sovereignty give the government permission to create political realities that knowingly violate the Constitution and undermine the rights of Man?

 

And if someone questions said violation are they labeled dissident, unpatriotic or a nutjob?