[Winstonm]

In an April 10, 2006, interview by Wolf Blitzer of Seymour Hersh, investigative reporter who first brought to light the Abu Ghraib prison abuses, Hersh talks about his "New Yorker" magazine article in which he states that President Bush is actively preparing a pre-emptive strike against Iran - and the White House refused to remove limited nuclear action from the list of possible actions.

When asked if he believed the President was planning a pre-emptive strike against Iran, this is how he answered:

Quote

HERSH: The word I hear is "messianic." He thinks, as I wrote, that he's the only one now who will have the courage to do it. He's politically free. I don't think he's overwhelmingly concerned about the '06 elections, congressional elections. I think he really thinks he has a chance, and this is going to be his mission.

This exchange is chilling:

Quote

HERSH: What you just read says this. If you're giving the White House a series of options, and the option is to get rid of an underground facility -- the facility I'm talking about is Natanz, 75 feet under hard rock -- if you want to tell the White House one sure way of getting it in a range of options is nuclear, what happened in this case is they gave that option, the JCS, the Joint Chiefs [of Staff].

And then, of course, nobody in their right mind would want to use a nuclear weapon in the Middle East, because it would be, my God, totally chaotic. When the JCS, the Joint Chiefs, and the planners wanted to walk back that option, what happened is about three or four weeks ago, the White House, people in the White House, in the Oval Office, the vice president's office, said, no, let's keep it in the plan.

The entire CNN interview can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/her...cess/index.html

This is a terrifying visage to me, of a President with a Messianic vision of self-righteousness who thinks only he can save the world from terror with a White House staff that refuses to eliminate tacticle nuclear weapon strikes as part of that vision.

Who are these guys?

[pbleighton]

As low as my opinion of Bush is, I don't think he will use nukes.

I think it's anyone's guess whether he will use conventional weapons, or simply allow Iran to possess the technology to develop nuclear weapons, of which the U.S. has over 10,000.

Peter

[mike777]

Europe has abdicated, let Iran go nuclear, let Egypt, Saudi follow......so what if we lose a few cities to a few nukes? We have 10,000.

The important thing is that they like us and we stop doing evil bad things that makes them hate us.

[keylime]

Not delusional....determined.

There is a change in the air with regards to Islamofascism. More and more I am reading accounts of people starting to come to grips with this.

For the record, "lan astaslem".

[Winstonm]

Quote

Not delusional....determined.

Determined to do what.....start WWIII?

[Al_U_Card]

How terribly sad and incredibly ignorant. If we look at the last few messiahs to pass through, what has been their legacy? Do we never learn anything from our blood-sodden history? We must truly exist in hell for this to be our lot. An eternity of confusion, malfeasance and suffering.

[hrothgar]

keylime, on Sep 29 2006, 10:36 AM, said:

Not delusional....determined.

There is a change in the air with regards to Islamofascism. More and more I am reading accounts of people starting to come to grips with this.

For the record, "lan astaslem".

In my mind, the issue is not whether people need to come to grips with religious fundamentalists, but what the right response is.

Let me be perfectly clear. I consider religious fundamentalism an extremely significant threat to contemporary Western democracy. Where I expect that Wayne and I differ is that I consider him every bit as delusional and almost as dangerous as the mullahs that incense him so... Take a good look at some of the source material that Dwanye has been recommending to us. The fundamentalist's christians preaching about the end times are the mirror image of Ahmadinejad talking about the return of the 12th Imam.

Where people differ is the right way to deal with all these various idiots.

Personally, I think that the best thing to do is to is to put our faith into the decadence of Western materialism. All these different whackjobs thrive on persecution and attention. Deprive them of this, and the rot of secular humanism will take hold much faster.

Internationally, this means that you don't go off and bomb Iran because this is the one thing gaurunteed to unify the Iranian people arround their leadership. Domestically, this means that you don't deploy black helicopters to scoop the true believers into UN administered re-education camps. Internet porn and videos games will do the job much more quickly.

[mikeh]

Islamofascism.

What a nice word: some spin merchant was having a good day when he or she came up with that neat little capsule-word that sounds like it means something to which we should be opposed: it makes us feel good about hating others: after all, they are 'islamofascists'.

As Hrothgar has observed, in somewhat different words, the western world has its own islamofascists, except that they are christian fundamentalists... and woe betide the spin merchant who would dare call them 'christofascists': doesn't have that nice, safe sound to western ears, does it?

I am sure that there have been (or certainly should be) many doctoral theses on WHY someone succumbs to the mental virus that is fundamentalism: and I strongly suspect that the reasons are the same no matter what the religion. Something to do with being afraid of thinking for oneself: the comfort of 'knowing' that one is right.. that one's belief renders one 'special' in terms of the universe.

I find it all so sad. The truth, to the extent that we have so far been able to determine it through rational investigation, is awe-inspiring and beautiful. It seems fair to assume that the awe and sense of beauty will get stronger as we learn ever-more. Perhaps we, as creatures who evolved in to survive in this world, and this universe, will never be sufficiently intelligent to understand the universe, but is that an excuse to retreat into 'revealed truths'... and to surrender that part of us that gives rise to the best in humanity: the ability to THINK?

Unfortunately, so many Americans (more than any other western counttry) prefer to believe than to think, and Bush seems to be of that ilk: thought liberates. belief tyrannizes. And the White House is full of believers, not thinkers.

[pclayton]

So a CNN reporter (like theyre unbiased) was interviewing another 'investigative reporter'? Even Hersh's comments are couched; "...I hear..." is hearsay.

Just as we are addicted to internet porn and video games, the allure of a scandal is just as enticing.

Nothing to get your panties in a knot over.....

[Winstonm]

pclayton, on Sep 29 2006, 11:51 AM, said:

So a CNN reporter (like theyre unbiased) was interviewing another 'investigative reporter'? Even Hersh's comments are couched; "...I hear..." is hearsay.

Just as we are addicted to internet porn and video games, the allure of a scandal is just as enticing.

Nothing to get your panties in a knot over.....

So I guess these kinds of things are irrelevant also?

From Reuters, 29 Sept 2006:
House passes warrantless domestic spying measure
Backers contend the legislation would bolster congressional oversight and better protect civil liberties. Critics charge it would expand presidential powers and further threaten the rights of law-abiding Americans.

"Hidden in the fine print are provisions which grant the administration authority to maintain permanent records on innocent U.S. citizens, granting the administration new authority to demand personal records without court review, and terminating any and all legal challenges to unlawful wiretapping," said Rep. John Conyers, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee"

And this from The Washington Post:
Many U.S. legal rights absent in detainee bill
Rules are far different than in American criminal justice system

By writing into law for the first time the definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant," the bill empowers the executive branch to detain indefinitely anyone it determines to have "purposefully and materially" supported anti-U.S. hostilities.

Included in the bill, passed by Republican majorities in the Senate yesterday and the House on Wednesday, are unique rules that bar terrorism suspects from challenging their detention or treatment through traditional habeas corpus petitions.

This is a direct assault on habeus corpus and the protection of the 4th amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. I thought we fought a cold war against the old Soviet Union over things like locking up "enemies of the state" indefinately without legal recourse?


Since 11 September 2001, there has been an unparalleled usurption of power by the executive branch that continues to argue for more - and under the pretext of safeguarding all of us from terrorists, congress keeps granting it.

The real terror threat is domestic tyranny.

[Gerben42]

Quote

House passes warrantless domestic spying measure

Many U.S. legal rights absent in detainee bill
Rules are far different than in American criminal justice system

What worries me more than the consequences of the bill is that it was allowed to pass. Why didn't anyone stop this?

[Al_U_Card]

Doesn't anyone remember the term...."communist sympathizer"? In Macarthyesque style, most are now afraid to resist the current movement for fear of being labelled "terrorist sympathizer". They are all hoping that the next election will rid them of the problem........how sad.

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Oct 1 2006, 01:16 PM, said:

Quote

House passes warrantless domestic spying measure

Many U.S. legal rights absent in detainee bill
Rules are far different than in American criminal justice system

What worries me more than the consequences of the bill is that it was allowed to pass. Why didn't anyone stop this?

Sadly, most of the Democratic leadership is afraid to take a principled position. A small number of leading democrats have given some very good speaches opposing the bill. Hillary Clinton gave a very power speach on this subject, as did Russ Feingold and a few others. However, the rank and file of the congressional Democrats ceeded responsibility and left the opposition in the hands of McCain, Grahem, and the like. (Don't get me wrong. I'm very thankful for McCains opposition, however, the Democrats also needed to be taking a leadership role here).

Many of the Democratic leaders privately state that they are waiting for the Supreme court to strike down these new laws. Personally, I expect more from my representatives and would like them to take a principled stand.

[Winstonm]

I am not so fearful of terrotists as I am American neo-fascism. I have been accused of improperly applying the word fascism, and I may have done so.

Here are definitions I read which may or may not be right, as the source is the internet:

1. Economic fascism is based in a merger of big business and big government. Sometimes, a formal corporatism emerges; other times, the private sector (monopolies and oligopolies) simply pass over into the public sector (as in the US), capturing the state and using it to wage that most profitable of activities: war

From "Harper's":

Among the Times' other interesting findings:

More than half of all employees at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCC) are outside contractors, and the former head of the NCC, John Brennan, is now the CEO of Analysis Corp, which supplies contract analysts to the center. The use of contractors is especially heavy at the CIA. Abraxas Corp, a firm conveniently located near the agency in McLean, Virginia, and home to many former CIA veterans, creates false identities for an elite group of overseas case officers.
Contractors have at times outnumbered CIA employees at key stations like Baghdad and Islamabad. In Baghdad, contractors aren't simply performing bureaucratic functions; they recruit informants, manage relationships with the military, and “handle agents in support of frontline combat units.”
Senior U.S. intelligence officials told the Times that agencies have become so dependent on contractors that they could no longer function without them. “If you took away the contractor support, they'd have to put yellow tape around the building and close it down,” a former CIA official told the newspaper


2. Political fascism normally includes, as it did for Italy and Germany, a retreat from already-existing democratic practices – an erosion of democracy. The political class begins to express a disdain for human rights and international treaties. Power is increasingly centered on the executive branch, and elections become less transparent, even fraudulent. Civil liberties are restricted, and constitutions are ground under the hobnailed boot.

Disdain for human rights and international treaties - The government has maintained since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that, based on its reading of the laws of war, anyone it labels an unlawful enemy combatant can be held indefinitely at military or CIA prisons. But Congress has not yet expressed its view on who is an unlawful combatant, and the Supreme Court has not ruled directly on the matter. Wahington Post

Power is increasingly centered on the executive branch - President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night. Washington Post

elections become less transparent, even fraudulent. - In the December 12 ruling by the US Supreme Court handing the election to George Bush, the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law. Vincent Bugliosi, The Nation

Civil liberties are restricted, and constitutions are ground under the hobnailed boot. - The legislation broadens the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in this country as well as those in foreign countries, and also anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense. New York Times

Donald Rufsfield can now define me as an enemy combatant - that is truly frightening.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Franklin D. Roosevelt
"We know that if one man's rights are denied, the rights
of all are endangered." Robert Kennedy

"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace." George W. Bush
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace. " George W. Bush

"There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it, and that's just a fact." Donald Rumsfeld


"With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got. " George W. Bush

"A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny."

~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[mike777]

"I am not so fearful of terrotists as I am American neo-fascism..."

It sounds like you want to fight American neo-fascism more than you want to fight terrorists? Or do you simply not want to fight them at all? Or do you believe that it is mostly the USA at fault and we need to change and if so how?

As for the majority of Democrats as near as I can figure most of them want the Supreme Court to fight. I am not sure what or whom they want them to fight but they sure do not seem to be for anything?

As least the Republicans want to spend money like a drunken sailor by throwing money at education, health care and pork projects.

[Winstonm]

Quote

It sounds like you want to fight American neo-fascism more than you want to fight terrorists?

I believe American neo-fascism the greater long-term threat.

Quote

Or do you simply not want to fight them at all?

I do not want to fight them but I support punishing the perpetrators for their actions. To use their implied threat for pre-emptive wars of imperialism is not acceptable.

Quote

Or do you believe that it is mostly the USA at fault and we need to change and if so how?

The blame can be equally shared between the U.S.A. and extreme fundamentalists.
A reasonable place to start would be to help establish a homeland for the Palestinians; second would be a withdrawl from Iraq; third, every once and a while tell Israel they are wrong - like invading a neighboring country because a couple of soldiers were kidnapped. Perhaps we should treat Israel as The Merchant of Venice, tell them they can have their pound of flesh if they can do so without shedding a drop of blood.

[mike777]

If you think American neo-fascism is the greater threat and the USA is equally to blame then what Bush is doing or talking about must really seem crazy or scary.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Oct 1 2006, 05:03 PM, said:

If you think American neo-fascism is the greater threat and the USA is equally to blame then what Bush is doing or talking about must really seem crazy or scary.

Along with Congress.

Here's hoping the Supreme Court will offer a checkmate to these bad moves.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Oct 1 2006, 10:51 PM, said:

It sounds like you want to fight American neo-fascism more than you want to fight terrorists? Or do you simply not want to fight them at all? Or do you believe that it is mostly the USA at fault and we need to change and if so how?

I'm much more worried about political developments here in the US than I am about terrorism.

Simply put, the terrorists aren't that dangerous. Yes, they have successfully destroyed a pair of skyscrapers. Yes, they are able to bomb the occasional airplane/train/bus. Someday, they might even set off a small nuke and massacres hundreds of thousands of innocent people. All of this is terrible, terrible stuff. I have nothing but sympathy for the victims of 9/11, the British bus bombs, the Madrid train bombing, on and on and on. However, none of these incidents represents any significant threat to continued existence of the United States.

This is not to say that the US is not threatened. I believe that the Bush Administration is sacrificing the finest traditions of the US on an altar of political expediency.

1. Our government has tortured and killed innocent civilians. Furthermore, we are in the process of passing legislation to institutionalize torture.

2. We have abandoned Habeas Corpus

3. We deliberately launched major military actions against a regime that posed little or no threat to the United States. We killed tens of thousands of people because we felt like it. We destablized the region to such an extent that the average death toll in Iraq is now higher than it was during the reign of Saddam Hussein. Let that sink in... Saddam reigned during the Iran/Iraq war. He launched genocidal attacks against ethnic minorities in his own country. We've made things significantly worse.

I don't recognize this country any more.

Whats the old saying... We've met the enemy and he is us?

[luke warm]

mike777, on Sep 28 2006, 09:06 PM, said:

The important thing is that they like us and we stop doing evil bad things that makes them hate us.

i agree... what exactly is it that we do that they want us to stop doing? i know we're the great satan and evil to the core, but i don't quite remember why that's true

winston said:

I do not want to fight them but I support punishing the perpetrators for their actions.

how, exactly? thru the un?