Valuable site :kick:
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many injured...It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" Barbara Bush on 'Good Morning America'
"...a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world– maybe in the United States of America– that causes our population to question our own Constitution and begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event...the US Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government." General Tommy Franks, George W’s former CentCom Chief.
Fascism (n): A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a single ruler, most often in league with corporate interests; stringent socio-economic manipulation; suppression of opposition through censorship and terror; and policies of belligerent nationalism and racism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. DejaVu: You Should Have Seen It Coming
For nearly a decade, America's attention was diverted (by Whitewater, Monica lewinsky, and other media sleight-of-hand) from the Bush Gang's carefully laid plan to retake the White House. That it took the BG eight years, and hundreds of millions of dollars, to win back the American Presidency is a testament to the fact that even the dumbest Americans aren't necessarily eager to line up for liars and bullies.
In the end, however, the propadandistic singleness of the right-wing message infected all mainstream media, dominated political discourse, and insured that Americans would indeed return the Bush Gang to the White House. Liberal Ostriches (see: PunkySez), could have, and should have, investigated for themselves the sources and merits of the continuous assaults on the Clinton Presidency, as well as the press's complicity in perverting public perception of liberals, Democrats, etc (while repeatedly glorifying the members and ideologies of the Bush Gang). Even after Election 2000, Liberal Ostriches could have closely examined the press's role in hiding the true character of each candidate, as well as the extent of irregularities in the voting process; or questioned the leadership of the Democratic Party about strategies and vision; .they could have investigated the new emphasis on electronic voting, and W's HAVA legislation; they could have examined Liberal ostriches could have done a lot of things to stop; intoxicated by the new consumerism, ignored alarmists at their peril and even abetted the right in their mendacity. Meanwhile, corrupt conservatives of all stripes and policial positions were only too happy to get in on the game.
The Center for Cooperative Research has done an excellent job of timelining various aspects of this Bush Gang invasion and coopting of Washington. I've reporduced one such chronolgy below; to view this page with fully operative source links and expanded data, go to
Inquiry into the decision to invade Iraq
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete timeline of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: Pre-9/11 plans for war
Project: Inquiry into the decision to invade Iraq
Open-Content project managed by Derek Mitchell
March 8, 1992
The Defense Planning Guidance document, a “blueprint for the department's spending priorities in the aftermath of the first Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union,” is leaked to the New York Times.
The paper causes controversy, because it hadn't yet been “scrubbed” to replace candid language with euphemisms. The document argues that the US dominates the world as sole superpower, and to maintain that role it “must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” ] As the Observer summarizes it, “America's friends are potential enemies. They must be in a state of dependence and seek solutions to their problems in Washington.” The document is mainly written by Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby, who hold relatively low posts at the time, but under Bush Jr. become Deputy Defense Secretary and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, respectively. The document conspicuously avoids mention of collective security arrangements through the United Nations, instead suggesting the US “should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted.” It also calls for “punishing” or “threatening punishment” against regional aggressors before they act. Interests to be defended pre-emptively include “access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to US citizens from terrorism.” Senator Lincoln Chafee (R), later says, “It is my opinion that plan for preemptive strikes was formed back at the end of the first Bush administration with that 1992 report.” In response to the controversy, in May 1992 the US releases an updated version of the document that stresses the US will work with the United Nations and its allies (see also January 1993).
People and organizations involved: Paul Wolfowitz, Lincoln Chafee, Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush
:kick: