INDICT--IMPEACH--REMOVE
THE WHOLE 9/11 CREW
Last night I saw the current occupant of the Oval Office assert that he ordered the National Security Agency to spy on thousands of American (the New York Times says 500 at a time) because Mohammed Atta and his motley Middle Eastern crew escaped detection in the months leading up to their spectacular demise. That is a lie.
Anyone who watched Senator Specter's hearing knows that Atta had not only been identified while he and his cohorts were cavorting around the country from Florida to L.A. and Reno to Portland, Maine, but Atta's name and picture were displayed for all to see in a diagram put up by one of our security analysts.
Of course, we didn't actually get to hear the analyst provide his evidence because, like the members of Congress Bush claims to have kept informed about his illegal orders, he was effectively kept from speaking by the threat of prosecution for the crime of treason. And since the Bush Department of Justice seems to take its orders from someone who has no respect for the Constitution or the law and who still commands the police powers of the state, that's not an idle threat. Not to mention that under the provisions of the Patriot Act, it would not be impossible for a suspected "enemy of the state" to be disappeared, not just gagged, to keep him from revealing the truth.
Considering that the deaths of tens of thousands in Iraq, not to mention the destruction of their cities, are still being justified by the lie cloaked in the mushroom cloud, Americans can consider themselves lucky that it's only the violation of their civil rights, their private communications and the security of their persons on which the treasure of the nation, as well as a swelling debt to foreign nations, has been spent.
But to what purpose? If the stated reason is a lie, what's the truth? Since there were no WMD, why was Iraq invaded and why are the American people being subjected to constant surveillance of their communications?
One is tempted to conclude it's just a matter of personal hubris, the desire of one incurious and increasingly furious George to demonstrate his ability to control the nation. But, like the conclusion that Nixon's hubris led him to disregard the rule of law, that would be a mistake. The stakes are much bigger. This is the work of empire builders, of people who appreciate that those one seeks to rule cannot be killed off and, having determined that by controlling what people think and speak global domination can be maintained, the empire builders are busy taking over the system of electronic communications.
So, what's Iraq's role in that scheme? What are the permanent bases and the largest American embassy anywhere really for? While my guess is that the WMD scam was designed to hide the introduction of American missiles and nuclear warheads into the Iraqi countryside as part of the effort to "project power" in the Eastern Hemisphere, the Baghdad Embassy looks more and more like the NSA Annex in the Middle East. When one follows the carreers of Intelligence Community retirees, it's pretty clear that information technology and the control of electronic communications is where the action is expected to be for the rest of the 21st Century.
Of course, their assumptions may be mistaken. Information and thought control may not be the efficient and effective strategy towards global control they expect. Moreover, it might just turn out that, regardless of what they are led to think and believe, that's not what determines how people behave. If received ideas were the primary motivating agent, there'd never be any self-less deeds. And there certainly wouldn't be any heros who sacrifice their careers and their livelihoods for the truth.
Bet that's something the Diddler in Chief doesn't even comprehend.
Posted by Hannah at December 18, 2005 06:34 AM