Scuba Forum / General / March 2007
The Tragedy of a Dozen Evil Men
|
|
Thread rating:  |
RecScubaPoster - 06 Mar 2007 03:00 GMT http://counterpunch.org/roberts03012007.html
The Tragedy of a Dozen Evil Men Americans Have Lost Their Country By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The Bush-Cheney regime is America's first neoconservative regime. In a few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, and the remains of America's moral reputation along with the infrastructures of two Muslim countries and countless thousands of Islamic civilians. Plans have been prepared, and forces moved into place, for an attack on a third Islamic country, Iran, and perhaps Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon as well.
This extraordinary aggressiveness toward the US Constitution, international law, and the Islamic world is the work, not of a vast movement, but of a handful of ideologues--principally Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Philip Zelikow, and Attorney General Gonzales. These are the main operatives who have controlled policy. They have been supported by their media shills at the Weekly Standard, National Review, Fox News, New York Times, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and by "scholars" in assorted think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute.
The entirety of their success in miring the United States in what could become permanent conflict in the Middle East is based on the power of propaganda and the big lie.
Initially, the 9/11 attack was blamed on Osama bin Laden, but after an American puppet was installed in Afghanistan, the blame for 9/11 was shifted to Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who was said to have weapons of mass destruction that would be used against America. The regime sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to tell the lie to the UN that the Bush-Cheney regime had conclusive proof of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Having conned the UN, Congress, and the American people, the regime invaded Iraq under totally false pretenses and with totally false expectations. The regime's occupation of Iraq has failed in a military sense, but the neoconservatives are turning their failure into a strategic advantage. At the beginning of this year President Bush began blaming Iran for America's embarrassing defeat by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents in Iraq.
Bush accuses Iran of arming the Iraqi insurgents, a charge that experts regard as improbable. The Iraqi insurgents are Sunni. They inflict casualties on our troops, but spend most of their energy killing Iraqi Shi'ites, who are closely allied with Iran, which is Shi'ite. Bush's accusation requires us to believe that Iran is arming the enemies of its allies.
On the basis of this absurd accusation--a pure invention--Bush has ordered a heavy concentration of aircraft carrier attack forces off Iran's coast, and he has moved US attack planes to Turkish bases and other US bases in countries contingent to Iran.
In testimony before Congress on February 1 of this year, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said that he expected the regime to orchestrate a "head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large." He said a plausible scenario was "a terrorist act blamed on Iran, culminating in a 'defensive' US military action against Iran." He said that the neoconservative propaganda machine was already articulating a "mythical historical narrative" for widening their war against Islam.
Why is the US spending one trillion dollars on wars, the reasons for which are patently false. What is going on?
There are several parts to the answer. Like their forebears among the Jacobins of the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks of the communist revolution, and the National Socialists of Hitler's revolution, neoconservatives believe that they have a monopoly on virtue and the right to impose hegemony on the rest of the world. Neoconservative conquests began in the Middle East because oil and Israel, with which neocons are closely allied, are both in the MIddle East.
The American oil giant, UNOCAL, had plans for an oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan, but the Taliban were not sufficiently cooperative. The US invasion of Afghanistan was used to install Hamid Karzai, who had been on UNOCAL's payroll, as puppet prime minister. US neoconservative Zalmay Khalilzad, who also had been on UNOCAL's payroll, was installed as US ambassador to Afghanistan.
Two years later Khalilzad was appointed US ambassador to Iraq. American oil companies have been given control over the exploitation of Iraq's oil resources.
The Israeli relationship is perhaps even more important. In 1996 Richard Perle and the usual collection of neocons proposed that all of Israel's enemies in the Middle East be overthrown. "Israel's enemies" consist of the Muslim countries not in the hands of US puppets or allies. For decades Israel has been stealing Palestine from the Palestinians such that today there is not enough of Palestine left to comprise an independent country. The US and Israeli governments blame Iran, Iraq, and Syria for aiding and abetting Palestinian resistance to Israel's theft of Palestine.
The Bush-Cheney regime came to power with the plans drawn to attack the remaining independent countries in the Middle East and with neoconservatives in office to implement the plans. However, an excuse was required. Neoconservatives had called for "a new Pearl Harbor," and 9/11 provided the propaganda event needed in order to stampede the public and Congress into war. Neoconservative Philip Zelikow was put in charge of the 9/11 Commission Report to make certain no uncomfortable facts emerged.
The neoconservatives have had enormous help from the corporate media, from Christian evangelicals, particularly from the "Rapture Evangelicals," from flag-waving superpatriots, and from the military-industrial complex whose profits have prospered. But the fact remains that the dozen men named in the second paragraph above were able to overthrow the US Constitution and launch military aggression under the guise of a preventive/preemptive "war against terrorism."
When the American people caught on that the "war on terror" was a cloak for wars of aggression, they put Democrats in control of Congress in order to apply a brake to the regime's warmongering. However, the Democrats have proven to be impotent to stop the neoconservative drive to wider war and, perhaps, world conflagration.
We are witnessing the triumph of a dozen evil men over American democracy and a free press.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
--
http://911research.wtc7.net http://stj911.org http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of warfare or morality." -bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq. http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
Lee Bell - 07 Mar 2007 12:34 GMT > few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights . . . The single most significant attack on the Bill of Rights in the history of our country is the constant attack on the Second Amendment and the Republicans are not the ones reaponsible.
RecScubaPoster - 08 Mar 2007 06:31 GMT > > few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights . . . > > The single most significant attack on the Bill of Rights in the history of > our country is the constant attack on the Second Amendment and the > Republicans are not the ones reaponsible. When can you and your loud mouthed pussy ilk be expected in Iraq?
Defend freedom tough guy.
Danlw - 09 Mar 2007 01:46 GMT >> > few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights . . . >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Defend freedom tough guy. SO that means you are there (Iraq), pussy? I did my part--what have YOU done? Now our fine pres candidate, McCain, apologized for saying lives have been "wasted" in Iraq. Also, that means he most likely won't tell the truth ever again. Try a politics group, asshat. Dan
RecScubaPoster - 09 Mar 2007 02:30 GMT > > few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights . . . > > The single most significant attack on the Bill of Rights in the history of > our country is the constant attack on the Second Amendment and the > Republicans are not the ones reaponsible. Have the Brady Bunch have switched parties?
http://www.bradycenter.org/
Scott - 29 Mar 2007 08:36 GMT > > few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights . . . > > The single most significant attack on the Bill of Rights in the history of > our country is the constant attack on the Second Amendment and the > Republicans are not the ones reaponsible. http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/
http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/feinstein-resigns.html
And the silence is deafening.
Rod - 29 Mar 2007 14:04 GMT >> > few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights . . . >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >And the silence is deafening. Did you notice in the last 10 or 20 years you can go swiming in most bodies of fresh water and not find any leaches ? I submit, that is because they have evolved, they have grown legs, become lawyers and become elected officials.
Greg Mossman - 29 Mar 2007 16:38 GMT > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:31:21 -0800, "Scott" > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > because they have evolved, they have grown legs, become lawyers and > become elected officials. Perhaps the leaches [sic] all developed into the moronic sort of people that get into the kind of trouble that only lawyers can bail them out of.
Galen Hekhuis - 29 Mar 2007 16:49 GMT It kind of tickles me (I'm easily amused) that the first thing these anti-attorney people do when they get in trouble is "lawyer up." Bush, who talks about being against courts and all had to go to the courts and hire lawyers when he wanted to get into office. It's kind of like saying you hate guns and don't need them for defense and all and then grabbing one and shooting as soon as you are threatened. -- Galen Hekhuis ghekhuis@earthlink.net "Mistakes were made"
Dennis (Icarus) - 29 Mar 2007 18:21 GMT > It kind of tickles me (I'm easily amused) that the first thing these > anti-attorney people do when they get in trouble is "lawyer up." Bush, > who talks about being against courts and all had to go to the courts I don't recall Bush every saying he was against courts.
> and hire lawyers when he wanted to get into office. It's kind of like > saying you hate guns and don't need them for defense and all and then > grabbing one and shooting as soon as you are threatened. Or calling someone who has a gun.
Dennis
Chris Guynn - 29 Mar 2007 21:32 GMT > > It kind of tickles me (I'm easily amused) that the first thing these > > anti-attorney people do when they get in trouble is "lawyer up." Bush, > > who talks about being against courts and all had to go to the courts > > I don't recall Bush every saying he was against courts. I think he's talking about the ICC. It's the only thing that even remotely makes sense.
Scott - 29 Mar 2007 21:36 GMT > > I don't recall Bush every saying he was against courts.
> I think he's talking about the ICC. It's the only thing that even remotely makes sense. If you squint real hard you can almost see the elephant.
Greg Mossman - 29 Mar 2007 23:37 GMT > It kind of tickles me (I'm easily amused) that the first thing these > anti-attorney people do when they get in trouble is "lawyer up." Bush, > who talks about being against courts and all had to go to the courts > and hire lawyers when he wanted to get into office. It's kind of like > saying you hate guns and don't need them for defense and all and then > grabbing one and shooting as soon as you are threatened. Yeah, well any piece in a storm. I'd be hard-pressed to find one around here, though. Heck, I couldn't even muster up a decent golf club if I tried. Or a baseball bat. Fortunately I have fierce attack cats.
Danlw - 30 Mar 2007 02:41 GMT >> It kind of tickles me (I'm easily amused) that the first thing these >> anti-attorney people do when they get in trouble is "lawyer up." Bush, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > club if I tried. Or a baseball bat. Fortunately I have fierce attack > cats. How about a spear gun? They work great, and you can back it up with a dive knife, strike that, dive tool. Dan
Greg Mossman - 30 Mar 2007 03:39 GMT > >> It kind of tickles me (I'm easily amused) that the first thing these > >> anti-attorney people do when they get in trouble is "lawyer up." Bush, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > How about a spear gun? They work great, and you can back it up with a dive > knife, strike that, dive tool. Dan I pet fish, I don't shoot them in their cute slimy little heads. I did catch and release a Spanish lobster last week in Bonaire, and felt really bad when the bugger finally realized what was happening and took off like a shot right into the side of the reef. Dazed him a bit, but I doubt he was confuzed.
Grumman-581 - 30 Mar 2007 04:21 GMT > I did catch and release a Spanish lobster > last week in Bonaire Lee catches and releases lobsters also... Hell, he even relocates them in the process...
Joe English - 30 Mar 2007 03:44 GMT > It kind of tickles me (I'm easily amused) that the first thing these > anti-attorney people do when they get in trouble is "lawyer up." Bush, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Galen Hekhuis ghekhuis@earthlink.net > "Mistakes were made" I thought it was Gore that did that
Scott - 30 Mar 2007 03:59 GMT > I thought it was Gore that did that Let's not forget John Edwards channeling stillborn babies...
Scott - 29 Mar 2007 16:40 GMT > >> > few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights . . .
> >> The single most significant attack on the Bill of Rights in the history of > >> our country is the constant attack on the Second Amendment and the > >> Republicans are not the ones reaponsible.
> >http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/
> >http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/feinstein-resigns.html
> >And the silence is deafening.
> Did you notice in the last 10 or 20 years you can go swiming in most > bodies of fresh water and not find any leaches ? I submit, that is > because they have evolved, they have grown legs, become lawyers and > become elected officials. If this had been a Republican, the village idiots would be out in the street with nooses, torches and pitchforks, screaming for a conviction, trial, and investigation, in that order.
Since Feinstein panders to the far left Democrat moonbats, she will be, and is, getting a pass.
Google it and see how many news agancies are covering it.
People are more interested in Anna Nicole.
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick - 29 Mar 2007 22:17 GMT >> >> <rubbing his nubbin in the corner of the basement> RecScubaPoster >> >> wrote [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > People are more interested in Anna Nicole. Where's all those people that have been chanting about Halliburton for years?
Scott - 29 Mar 2007 22:54 GMT > Where's all those people that have been chanting about Halliburton for > years? They cant come to the phone right now, they have Dianne's dick in their mouth...
Greg Mossman - 29 Mar 2007 23:46 GMT On Mar 29, 2:17 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> >> >> <rubbing his nubbin in the corner of the basement> RecScubaPoster > >> >> wrote [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Where's all those people that have been chanting about Halliburton for > years? Isn't that the company that's relocating to Dubai, taking all its "hard won" profits with it (except for Dick's cut, that is)?
At least Mr. & Mrs. Feinstein will keep their money in California where we sorely need it. I can't wait till she runs for president to succeed Hillary.
In any case, my beloved NRA membership is running out. They're barely even sending me renewal notices more than every other week now. This time, with the Democrats firmly embedded in our near future politics, there aren't any bets worth taking. Therefore, I'm seeking rec.scuba sponsors to extend my membership, maybe even pony up for a Life Membership like Chris Dodd.
Please send donations to "Greg is the NRA", my mailing address on request via e-mail for those of you who aren't savvy enough to look it up. Contributions may be tax-deductible, but you'd want to check with a tax professional about that. I pledge to drink one beer for every $10 received, and I always honor my pledges.
dazed and confuzzed - 30 Mar 2007 03:55 GMT > On Mar 29, 2:17 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > a tax professional about that. I pledge to drink one beer for every > $10 received, and I always honor my pledges. I'm in for a buck.
 Signature “TAANSTAFL”
____________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________
Scott - 30 Mar 2007 04:05 GMT > I'm in for a buck. I dont give money to beggars, panhandlers, bums or liberal lawyers.
"Will work for food."
No sh.t, eh?
dazed and confuzzed - 30 Mar 2007 04:08 GMT >>I'm in for a buck. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No sh.t, eh? Don't forget, it's my fault that he's an NRA member in the first place.
in 2008, I'll try to get him into the NoR.
 Signature “TAANSTAFL”
____________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________
Grumman-581 - 30 Mar 2007 04:27 GMT > Don't forget, it's my fault that he's an NRA member in the first place. > > in 2008, I'll try to get him into the NoR. How about getting him in the UDC?
http://www.hqudc.org/
Chris Guynn - 30 Mar 2007 14:28 GMT > >>I'm in for a buck. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > in 2008, I'll try to get him into the NoR. NAMBLA might be better. ;-)
Greg Mossman - 30 Mar 2007 17:44 GMT > > >>I'm in for a buck. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > NAMBLA might be better. ;-) A little projection there, buddy? Hanging around with half-naked children all summer is your thing.
Rod - 31 Mar 2007 14:26 GMT >> > >>I'm in for a buck. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >A little projection there, buddy? Hanging around with half-naked >children all summer is your thing. Does anyone remember if the line item veto ever passed ? If so, why hasn't it been used? If not, why hasn't it? It seems the only way to empty the pork barrel.
Dennis (Icarus) - 31 Mar 2007 14:51 GMT <snip>
> Does anyone remember if the line item veto ever passed ? If so, why > hasn't it been used? If not, why hasn't it? It seems the only way to > empty the pork barrel. It was passed, but then declared unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto
 Signature Dennis
Joe English - 31 Mar 2007 15:45 GMT >>>>>>I'm in for a buck. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > hasn't it been used? If not, why hasn't it? It seems the only way to > empty the pork barrel. to my knowledge it never passed - no one wants responsibility
Greg Mossman - 30 Mar 2007 17:43 GMT On Mar 29, 8:08 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
> >>I'm in for a buck. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > in 2008, I'll try to get him into the NoR. NORML?
dazed and confuzzed - 30 Mar 2007 21:31 GMT > On Mar 29, 8:08 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > NORML? Nation of Riflemen
 Signature “TAANSTAFL”
____________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________
JOF - 31 Mar 2007 14:31 GMT > > I'm in for a buck. > > I dont give money to beggars, panhandlers, bums or liberal lawyers. > > "Will work for food." I think he actually said he'd drink for guns.
JF
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick - 31 Mar 2007 19:59 GMT >> > I'm in for a buck. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I think he actually said he'd drink for guns. Who is it that always starts the gunthreads?
Scott - 31 Mar 2007 20:28 GMT > Who is it that always starts the gunthreads? Tries to, anyway.
He cant defend his liberal socialist masters, or lucidly address a single issue, so he has to try and derail it into another of his little senile games.
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick - 30 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT > At least Mr. & Mrs. Feinstein will keep their money in California > where we sorely need it. Yeah, yeah, double standards.
-Almost- Canadian-like.
> In any case, my beloved NRA membership is running out. Send it to me, I'll pay it.
163 Proffitt Rd, Gatlinburg, Tn 37728
Scott - 30 Mar 2007 04:11 GMT > Yeah, yeah, double standards.
> -Almost- Canadian-like. It's the disgusting disease that knows no border.
It is a defect of the mind and soul commonly known as "liberal socialism".
See Great Britain and Iran, for just one instance of the epidemic.
The Limeys need to bomb those dirty cocksuckers and their "Navy" so hard and so fast they would be begging the UN for the chance to return the 15.
> Send it to me, I'll pay it.
> 163 Proffitt Rd, > Gatlinburg, Tn > 37728 You I would send money to, but not for Greg.
Rod - 30 Mar 2007 04:09 GMT >> >> > few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights . . . > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >People are more interested in Anna Nicole. well at least she is off the commitee, 1 1/2 billion dollars late
Scott - 30 Mar 2007 04:16 GMT > well at least she is off the commitee, 1 1/2 billion dollars late And we have to thank her for providing another shining illumination of the blind hypocrisy of the far left moonbats.
I wonder how much cash she has in her freezer?
SeanMartinFarrell@gmail.com - 30 Mar 2007 17:29 GMT > > well at least she is off the commitee, 1 1/2 billion dollars late > > And we have to thank her for providing another shining illumination of the > blind hypocrisy of the far left moonbats. I would take it as more of a confirmation that all governments are comprised of hypocritic sh.t monkeys. It's sad that all sides are so brain washed that they'll just spout off their teams talking points instead of uniting to give her the boot. There's so much noise to signal now that they know that can get away with pretty much anything because any story that breaks immediately turns into two sides yelling stupid slogans that have nothing to do with the issue.
> I wonder how much cash she has in her freezer? Scott - 30 Mar 2007 18:11 GMT > > > well at least she is off the commitee, 1 1/2 billion dollars late
> > And we have to thank her for providing another shining illumination of the > > blind hypocrisy of the far left moonbats.
> I would take it as more of a confirmation that all governments are > comprised of hypocritic sh.t monkeys. It's sad that all sides are so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > because any story that breaks immediately turns into two sides yelling > stupid slogans that have nothing to do with the issue. Typical whitewash. Boringly typical. This is a far left Democrat (a position she chose and ran on) caught with her hand in the cookie jar.
Something those of us who consider ourselves Americans first have been saying for literally years, while enduring the onslaught of attacks, lies and simple outright fabrication from the far left socialists.
When Cunningham and any of the others *not* on the left get busted, we are all for stiff penalties *if* convicted. No fanfare, just slam him into a jail cell, and Cunningham was a hero of mine. The left wants all Republicans and those not on the left punished regardless of fact or truth. Even though they have no impeachable crimes to accuse or convict Bush of (that was the Clintons), they scream for him to be impeached.
We are also for stiff penalties for those on the left who get busted, but it is simply a fact that the lefties are willing to wink and nod at any goings on with their chosen leaders, see the Clintons for just one example. 100% of the people I know who are not way out in the left field don't care what brand the government crook is, they want them busted. The opposite is simply not true.
Not one word in the mainstream leftist media about Feinstein, not a peep.
Where is the outrage from Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry, Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington, Cindy Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, Sean Penn, ABC, CNN, George Soros, etc? Where is the independent counsel and investigative committee?
pppfffttttpppp.
Carl Nisarel - 31 Mar 2007 02:32 GMT "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> muttered:
> Even though > they have no impeachable crimes to accuse or convict Bush of As usual, you're in deep denial.
The Bush Administration has committed a long list of crimes.
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
|