DuHS

Get a life. Get a real job. We never needed a Department of Homeland Security, and we never will. Fuck you. Quit spying on and harassing me online. Stop sending web bots and AI profiles at me wasting my very valuable time. Fuck you. I want my money back, assholes. Why do you love Christopher D. Baker and Shirlington Limo so goddamned much, huh? America could survive one hundred 9/11s, I'm no pussy. Fuck you assholes. Go away nepotists, criminals. Building a corporate castle system isn't going to save that old money. DHS, you're the best argument for smaller government (and birth control) that there is.

On the approaching tenth anniversary of 9/11: Time for a commemorative orgy

What should we all be doing on that day? What should we be thinking? Many will continue to be afraid, very afraid, of their own shadows and shadow-sides that are the terrorists, really an archetype of our own collective crimes. Let me be clear on this: Nobody who died in the attacks on September 11th, 2001 deserved to die.

It was a heinous crime against humanity since there were people from all over the world who were killed by a coterie of madmen who were being bankrolled by wealthy sources in Gulf State nations, nations such as Saudi Arbia, Kuwait, Pakistan-and-Ollie (yes, not a "Gulf State, thank you. I hope your ego's been mollified...look up "mollified."), and the rest of the Middle Eastern Lollipop Guild, the usual suspects who are supposed to be our "friends," "friends" of America.

Of course, those regimes aren't ours or anyone's friends, they're theocratic criminals.

Here's the real problem: Being our own worst enemy, we're our own worst enema. We've sold many of our basic rights for...for...for...no idea whatsoever, some weird-assed contention that 9/11 was more catastrophic than it really was. It was not. It was horrible, an underhanded crime committed by Gulf State nations, using proxies, and then we started blowing our own balls off, even before the Nigerian bourgie who unsuccessfully attempted the same on a flight to Detroit not so long ago. This is the threat? Gimme a fuckin' break...

Nonetheless, the Children of Fear are running around, jerking themselves off every year September 11th rolls around. Do they really care about the victims? Nah. People even have commemorative picnics, which has to be the most retarded bullshit I've ever heard of in my natural life. Next year, I'm having one for the sinking of the Lusitania (look it up, Class of 2014, ya' fuckin' morons...) and the Civil War ironclad, the Monitor. I gotta say--and I had a classmate who died in the WTC and know people who witnessed the event firsthand--that with all the co-opting and misuse of the memories of the dead, I'm beginning not to care anymore, and that's not my fault, but the fault of the scumbags who have tried to "own" 9/11 to use for political gain. The worst offenders are the former Bush II administration and the GOP, but once again, the Democrats are doing likewise, only with more cunning and guile. We would have no war on terror otherwise.

So, no, I'm not having a picnic on these days. Instead, I'm not going to "observe" it at all. We need to move on emotionally from this event and bury the dead. We need to stop blowing our own toes off in the name of concentrated wealth, because they've used 9/11 to protect the core of the most evil form of economy on earth, namely American-style capitalism. It can end in peace, or it can end in slaughter, and likely, the collapse of human civilization, but the world cannot take the war on terror in its current form for much longer. Let's quit pretending that 9/11 was the most important event in our history, we've blown its significance entirely out of proportion and handed over too many of our rights.

Some more observations on conspiracy buffs and the Boogeyman...

They--the ubiquitous "they"--see them everywhere, and they know the score, according to...well, to them. Above all others, they understand the "true" machinations of our civilization, never mind those silly academics-they're part of the conspiracy too if they don't agree with the conspiracy buffs. Which conspiracy theory? Take your pick. Isn't it really about crime, under the color of law and authority? Isn't that something you could actually try in a court of law, before a jury? Wouldn't going after politicians who are criminals by treating them as such work better? No, it's a conspiracy, because that's easier for me to unthink about.

The truth? Ultimate truth is unknowable, so the conspiracy gurus like the Alex Joneses and Alex Constantines of the world must be elves, pixies, faeries, and the Oracle at Delphi, atop mount Parnassus, telling everyone what they already know: that conspiracy buffs are full of shit, possibly nuts in many cases, and need to get a life and learn to be responsible citizens who really watchdog their government. Constantine claims that he once did. He might return to his good work, but like Alex Jones, it takes him all morning to get his coffee back from the toxicology lab. No, the ones that really get away with murder in our society are the business & finance sectors. But most of the cranks love them, contrary claims aside, because those CEOs believe most of the same things that the dopes do: the Libertarian credo of the lawless Frontier maverick (long dead in the real world, meaning it's alive-and-well on Wall Street and in boardrooms) who's entitled to do whatever he wants without any repercussions. That's not freedom for everyone else, it's negative freedom, negative "Liberty."

There are legitimate researchers, journalists, and historians out there who are doing diligent and thoughtful work that at least eventually gets some kind of a "peer review" (we won't dwell on the nano-thermite flap regarding the rickety WTC-7), and they should be thanked. Naming them here would be unfair, and anyone familiar with academic intelligence history and credible historiographical research (private and academic) into our political history knows wildly speculative crap when they see it. Many in the public today do not, and I lay the blame at the feet of educators and the individual. The mainstream media is also sorely to blame. Too many members of the public are simply not credible or rational thinkers, generally, and more standardized requirements for logic training would go a long way in ameliorating this problem. Americans don't stand on the international stage as especially rational thinkers, hardly. Many Americans have literally never written a thesis in their entire lives if they even know what it means.

Our domestic policies are a great illustration of this: on the one hand, many Americans don't trust their government (thanks partly to scandals like Watergate and Iran-Contra, but perpetuated by anti-government cranks who call themselves "conspiracy researchers," etc.), yet expect to receive social services from it. The prevalence of the myth of "the disappeared" gives this attitude an especially weird quality when one considers that many Americans don't want to pay taxes, but again, expect social services like Social Security checks, roads, bridges, power plants, drinkable water, and all of the things social infrastructure can bring. Still, according to some on the fringe, the government is totalitarian and "evil." That's a conservative argument, though not a traditional one. There are no real conservatives, but that's a theme for another time.

The fact is that even with all of the corruption, the bribing lobbyists, crony appointments, kiss-ass politicians, a mostly comatose and wrong-headed public, obviously unconstitutional legislation, absurd Supreme Court rulings, and the resultant scandals and cock-ups, they still have to deliver these social services because the social contract has to be served. Regardless of what anyone says, we're still a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, no matter how impaired these things might be at present. Classical liberal theory on servicing the social contract through the redistribution of wealth is a warning, not a threat, that if you don't manage your society wisely, you will reap chaos. If it is not, you can expect very serious drama indeed. What the conspiracy buffs and nuts are saying is that the social contract has been entirely forfeited, and that's not true by any stretch, especially compared to many other nations around the world where it's patently obvious that that's the case. However, were many of them to have it their way, yes, a cohesive society we can be proud of would be almost entirely null-and-void.

Without even understanding what the social contract is, conspiracy nuts say that we're already at the critical mass, that the government isn't delivering--or even that it should at all. Most of these people don't believe in traditional Western democracy nor the ideals of the French Revolution, meaning Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality. They're barbarians. They don't really believe in our most cherished American ideals of Liberty and democracy. What they believe in is selling you a t-shirt or a poorly researched and produced DVD so that they can turn a profit off of social discontent and sell you the anti-government line. Government is only as good as the people of a nation, and in that sense, it's not complicated. You must stay engaged. You must watch the watchers as a lifetime responsibility. If you want government services--rich, poor, or even middle-class--you must expect to pay for them, but you should also pay your fair share. When the top 500 corporations are often paying significantly less than a working-class individual, something's very wrong with the body politic.

But the conspiracy nuts--in-the-main--don't get this...or much else.

Some more thoughts on the word "retarded"

Now that Sarah Palin's tried very feebly--as is her wont in all endeavors--to control our language when she can't even control her own, it's time to pull our collective-heads out of our collective-asses and realize that this is just a word and that the context it's used in and the intent behind it are what's important. The word itself is unimportant, and mature adults know this and accept it for what it is. People say hurtful things, get over it, grow-up.

But we's a reactionary people--bawss--and we go off half-cocked all the time since many of us "natives" (Eurotrash) are descended from lynch mobs, though that's another fairy tale for another time. Does it have to be said that this is just a word? Yes, apparently, it does: it's just a word, folks. You can't shield yourself or your kids from everything, and sometimes, sometimes, we have be tolerant and take our licks like everyone else. That's life, and part of being a real adult. You accept that there are things that are never going to go away and that you cannot get rid of them.

When you stampede like a wild herd of mindless buffaloes (OK, that's unfair to the bison), as many of us did in the immediate aftermath of the events of September 11th, 2001, you start fucking-up all over the place. We all blew it, myself included, for various reasons. In my own case, I should have been far more defiant and opposed to the Bush II administration even in the aftermath of that event. I was not, and I was not alone, not by a long-shot. And wasn't the manipulation of language at the core of their misrule for eight very long years that the Tea Baggers (Tea Tards) seem to have missed entirely? Words like "terrorism," "weapons of mass destruction," "mushroom clouds," "attacks," "suspects," "terror alerts," and so many others, were injected with and took on new and very hollow meaning to whip-up fear in an already reactionary society and culture.

The bastards knew their marks well, and they not only rifled-through our wallets, but convinced many of us to hand over our hard won rights as Americans. This was not only stupid, it was, and still is, pathetic, and stinks of a people who probably don't deserve their liberties, if they ever did. That's not to say we can't fix what happened, but we have our work cut out for us, and that means endlessly demanding of the current administration, and probably the one after it, that there are real investigations into the crimes known or suspected of being committed by the administration of George W. Bush. We're either a nation of laws, or merely one of words, and now we seem to even want to hand over one of the last things that makes us truly unique as a nation: a historically rare and wide-ranging freedom of speech and press.

So, for an obviously corrupt and moronic woman and former politician like Sarah Palin to tell anyone what they can and cannot say is absurd and should be met with horselaughs from all corners of American society. The upside of this is that she's actually accelerating the demise of the GOP and causing incredible division in the ranks of the Tea Party (bowel) movement, a group comprised mostly of reactionary small business owners who, until very recently, were either apolitical lumps who flunked civics class, or outright ignoramuses. Instead of the Boston Tea Party, these misguided morons invoke the memory of the same kinds of idiots that gave us the Teapot Dome scandal, courtesy of the gift that keeps on giving, the GOP, a party that makes no bones about being for the big-shots and conglomerates.

Yet many of these same turds that gave us some of the mess we're in think they have the answers when they clearly don't at all. To say that these petty bourgeois fools shit where they eat would be redundant and their reactions are just that: the dysfunctional flailing of retarded children. Put that in your meth-pipe and smoke it tonight, Bubba.

The time has come for a national strike and groundswell, the time is now...

For those of us on the progressive left (meaning the majority), the time has come to make ourselves heard. The majority of Americans want socialized medicine, a special commission to look into 9/11, a special prosecutor to investigate serious crimes committed by the Bush II administration, relief aid for the growing-ranks of the unemployed, deep and meaningful reforms in the financial sector and how it does business, and general restoration of New Deal controls and protections that have served the public well for over 75 years, like the Glass-Stegall Act. Who got rid of Glass-Stegall, a barrier that kept banks from running amuck? A Republican controlled Congress, blue dog Democrats, and the Clinton administration, that's who. It gave us much of the economic crisis we're inhabiting right now. The time has come to rollback these policies, the time is now to mobilize.

If those on the right really love their country as much as they say they do and wish to join us in a common cause, they need to drop their bizarre obsessions about race, immigration, and other ideological fetishes that are going nowhere fast and will never fix the problems we're facing right now. But don't think that disruption's going to be tolerated. Don't think that you're going to hijack anything, because we're wise to you and your games and your agenda. We can spot you in a moment. You won't be accepted and will be driven out, and quick. The time has come for all of us to realize that the common enemy is concentrated wealth and the abuse of it. The time has come for Americans to quit shopping at Wal-Mart (fine, get the cheap drugs there if you have to). The time has come for the return of the boycott, the general strike, and the shutting down of everything for a few days to send a political message to unaccountable power. We are that accounting, we are the government, and we are the answer to our nation's problems. Politicians cannot and will not do this, at least not without the application of incredible pressure to do so. The time has come, the time is now, and there are no more valid excuses.

Call in sick. Afraid of losing your job? When did that become a new thing? Don't buy anything for a week except the barest-of-necessities. For the love of God, quit using credit cards all the time, use cash. Don't even use checks. Make the banks scream for mercy. Keep writing, phoning, faxing, and haranguing your representatives. Educate yourself on their pasts. Give them hell, give them an earful like they've never had it before. But don't break the law and keep it as civil as possible and adhere to non-violent civil disobedience when the time comes, it's key.

The best part? For many of us, we won't have to do anything--that's actually the point: to stop engaging in negative behaviors that keep empowering the rich through what we eat, what and how we often we drive, work, and what our daily routine is comprised of. Grow a garden. Drive less, a lot less. Quit watching TV so much. Get your news from the Internet and read multiple-sources, including the foreign press. We have everything to gain by asserting ourselves in a civil manner and showing power that we're not kidding around at all.

A healthy reminder: David Corn's 9/11 truth article from March 2002 and some personal observations

WWW--This is an oldie but a goodie and is still sadly relevant. Corn had this op ed out in the March 2002 issue of the Nation, the publication he still edits from Washington.

Corn wrote presciently at the time:

There are always national security misdeeds to be mad about. They may not be as cinematic in nature as a plot in which shady, unidentified U.S. officials scheme to blow up the World Trade Towers to gain control of an oil pipeline in Central Asia. But dozens of dead Hondurans or twenty or so Afghans wrongly killed ought to provoke anger and protest. In fact, out-there conspiracy theorizing serves the interests of the powers-that-be by making their real transgressions seem tame in comparison. (What's a few dead in Central America, compared to thousands in New York City? Why worry about Negroponte, when unidentified U.S. officials are slaughtering American civilians to trigger war?)

Perhaps there's a Pentagon or CIA office that churns out this material. Its mission: distract people from the real wrongdoing. Now there's a conspiracy theory worth exploring. Doesn't it make sense? Doesn't it all fit together? I challenge anyone to disprove it. ("When 9/11 conspiracy theories go bad," The Nation, 03.02.2002)

Good luck proving him wrong! You know, I had a kind of lame experience during the DC Madam scandal with Corn, but I don't fault him these days (at the time, it was quite the opposite). He asked me about the presence of Ronald Roughead in the late madam's records and why it was relevant. He was skeptical, and that's fine, as he should have been. I remarked that it was relevant since Roughead was violating the terms of his security clearance at the time he made the calls in late 2005. Such an activity is forbidden. Corn never replied back. Palfrey had hooked-me-up with him, lamely, and without any good context. She would continue to do such things as time bore on.

A ll that said, he wasn't willing to move forward on it, and who can blame him when you look at Palfrey's behavior during all of that saga towards the press? She jerked everyone around and tried to use jornalists and bloggers to do the investigating for her, to exonerate her. That's fine, but you don't send people down blind alleys, you have something relevant to tell them. That's not to excuse their laziness and jadedness in the mainstream media, but Corn, as an editor, had to prioritize where to put his limited resources to investigate a story. The Nation--in case you didn't notice--isn't made of money. Yes, he'd found Roughead in the phone records but probably knew he and his staff could investigate the whole mess for years without that many real breakthroughs, and besides, people like me can grind away at finding the primary historical documents that they and others can examine in the aftermath (or vice versa). Surely, he had to know that Roughead was the brother of CNO Gary Roughead! No, it wasn't simply about "big names," there were other issues at play.

What do I think the significance of SAIC's Ronald Roughead was, his being in the DC Madam's phone records, a former Defense Attache, former director of the Iraqi Media Network, an investigator at the Kenya Embassy bombing, and likely an employee of defense/intelligence contractor SAIC? I can't draw any final conclusions, but it's pointing towards illegal lobbying practices, not that he would be a final indicator or it. His very presence is the answer. Corn hasn't had access to the defense materials I and others have, but he surely knew that it would practically take a congressional inquiry to get to the bottom of what appeared to be evidence of corruption beyond the mere issues of government and elected officials frequenting hookers.

In short, he asked me the wrong question, but not out of malice or apathy when he mistakenly focused on one man. The patterns are what count in this story, but again, he hasn't seen everything I have. A lot of people have dismissed this 2002 article as being jaded, but it's not, he's right. People have been wasting an incredible amount of time and energy chasing ghosts. I have done my share of this, but that's part of these times and part of investigating events like the DC Madam story where there have been a number of blind alleys. Even the House Judiciary Committee was interested in investigating whether Palfrey's 6th Amendment rights were being violated during the proceedings; but as happened again and again, they got cold-feet and gave no answers as to why.

It's almost hopelessly complicated and obscured, but there were a few peeks behind the curtain that were more than tantalizing and even a little revealing, about how business is done in Washington D.C. But a conspiracy? All I saw was incredible incompetence from the prosecution and the Court, and even from the investigators that likely created the whole mess to begin with.

"When 9/11 conspiracy theories go bad," The Nation, 03.02.2002http://www.alternet.org/story/12536

We don't need most of the intelligence community

WWW--After this Detroit "attack" (get real folks), if you think the threat of terrorism is especially potent or real, you're basically lower than an animal. Animals generally understand the real threat to themselves as a biological imperative and react appropriately. Granted, when they don't, they die, and sometimes die-out as a species.

If we should have learned anything from the Detroit attempt on flight 253 by a rich Nigerian it's that for the tens-of-billions wasted on these highly-politicized institutions that are really predicated on shaping public opinion towards an imperial-agenda, we're not being protected or defended at all, and that money is being wasted. Even in so-called "flush" economic times, this is galling, a total waste of a nation's treasure, and while millions of Americans are being foreclosed on thanks to incredible economic mismanagement at the highest levels.

But this is exactly why they're going to call for more money: the economic and political establishment know that they're the greatest single threat to our national security and are building a bulwark to protect themselves from the coming groundswell, maybe even a total breakdown of order thanks to their policies. This is the purpose of the war on terror. That's why we're going to keep hearing that such an infinitesimally-small threat is actually significant when it's not. The real threat comes from above--from Wall Street, from the corporate board rooms, from the lobbyists, the politicians, and their appointees. That's not an anti-government stance, incidentally.

The war on terror is just like the war on drugs in that it's a war on the public. Terrorists aren't going to be nearly as affected by it, which is the point.

The Northwest flight tard who blew his balls off (blues)

It seemed poetic, didn't it? The ruins of Detroit and the rest of America now needed to be protected once again from rich Nigerian tards with a screw loose (definitely not Fela Kuti material) and Gulf state professionals (easily indoctrinated with a middle-class education), and this would then require things like a "Department of Homeland Security for the Department of Homeland Security," it being that corrupt and worthless government institution created by "anti-government conservatives" inspired by the laughably sad likes of Grover Norquist. Thanks for the inaction with FEMA during Katrina. Point taken: government doesn't work...when you're in charge.

Yes, Washington D.C. really is Hollywood for ugly, stupid weaklings, and a more byzantine route to sex hasn't existed since the Mandarins. It's called "dysfunctional" for reason.

We're told with a straight face by Republicans, pundits (usually the same thing), and even the White House, that this is all serious when it's not. There's nothing serious or even remotely threatening about a retard blowing his balls off on a crowded airliner. This is all that he accomplished. This is the threat of terrorism, creole bourgeois extremists. That's not a very real threat at all. The real threat is how compromised our elected leaders--a euphemism--are to the paymasters in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states. This is that infinitesimal chance that you'll slip in the shower and break your neck. This is the fear of one's shadow, the time of the hollow men. They will build palaces to this stupidity and this fear that will stand less than a generation, because you can't build a solid foundation on quivering shit.

To be afraid of a gaggle of clowns; to hand over any rights whatsoever over this; to think that the threat of terrorism is especially great and will affect you; is madness. The threat--I repeat--the threat is not real, and the war on terror is theater. No, I don't think this was "planned"--once again, like the events of September 11th, 2001, this is one more case of profound bureaucratic incompetence, piled one-upon-another and opportunism after-the-fact. I repeat: this is not a confirmation that government does not work. It's a confirmation that conservatives and corporatist influence within government do not work, and can never work to protect us or even to provide a livable society. In other words, any State-corporate nexus is the problem, and this comes from the revolving-door of appointees from the corporate world, something this current president has done plenty of, just like the last. Why would he fire all these Bush II appointees when he's the same? Quit fooling yourself.

But if stupid young men blowing their balls off scares you enough to hand over your liberty, you don't deserve any. If you allow the herd to stampede us there without a fight, you don't deserve any. Cowardice comes in many forms, and Americans do plenty of talking and no walking. I could take these bastards on any flight, any time, any day. I am not afraid. Cowards are afraid of their own shadow, and that's exactly what's happening in the American mind (or what's left of it) right now: we know our wars are illegal and immoral and that we have something coming to us. We know we are complicit. This is collective-guilt writ large. Did he blow off your balls, or his?

Alex Jones has been backpeddling about Charlie Sheen this week by taking a vow of silence (please extend it to all utterances)...

WWW--Yesterday, syndicated conspiracy nut radio jock Alex Jones [GASP!] was making some really baseless about the also completely wacko Charlie Sheen being "innocent" when it's pretty clear that something's incredibly amiss about this recent incident with his new wife, the fact that they were both dangerously drunk, and that he was definitely wielding a knife yelling, "I'm going to kill you!" at her and had to be restrained by others. The 911 call is online and on television today, it's everywhere, and it gives a new layer of meaning to "911" once again since Jones has been fobbing the always-intoxicated Sheen as a "truther," meaning someone who thinks the WTC was felled by alien technology...

Let's not forget that Sheen has a very prolonged history of sexual and substance-addictions and has even had to come under intervention from his poor family, poor Martin Sheen, a man who I assume is very ashamed of his son right now. Jones certainly knew about Sheen's problems before becoming associated with him., something we can safely presume that he did to suck-off some of the troubled star's fame to bolster site hits and merch sales on his constellation of websites and other media. In other words, the mugs, t-shirts, poorly produced DVD documentaries, and crypto-racist posters and shirts of the current president, weren't selling briskly enough to keep the new Father Coughlin afloat in the kind of luxury he's been used to. He has a lot of mouths to feed, and besides, he's fat.

But yesterday, Jones was trying to "minimize" the damage against Sheen without much basis or luck. Not that that's anything new, but today...nothing, nada, he's moved on from the subject with nary-a-comment of explanation. There's an pretty obvious reason for this silence having to do with sticking one's foot in one's mouth: Expect Sheen to become so radioactive--as radioactive as Fatty Arbuckle or D.C. Stephenson--that Jones stops talking about the movie star almost entirely, if not altogether. Why did Jones ever want an association with Sheen? That's obvious. Charlie Sheen's famous and it props-up Jones's own absurd conservative, anti-government line that's mistaken as genuinely progressive and populist, it "mainstreams" him, a trick possibly learned from Ron Paul. He's not "mainstream," he's a far-right demagogue who's been given too much rope, but with some luck, he's going to hang himself with it before long.

So, what happened between yesterday and today? The dumbass (who has more-than-adequate resources to discover the truth) probably actually read the Colorado police reports or had someone like Kurt Nimmo hand him copies of the reports out of concern, and he stopped talking about it altogether today. Wise move, but the statements stand and were heard. Note that the facts have never stood in the way of Alex Jones and that there was never an objective truth he wasn't willing to avoid or to accuse of being part of "the conspiracy." He and Kurt Nimmo had no problem whatsoever in claiming that the DC Madam was "suicided" by imaginary government operatives when there was and is no evidence whatsoever to conclude it. Reportedly, in March of this year, Jones fired erstwhile compatriot and shill, Jeff Rense, one of the other twits peddling this hollow meme that also fosters the impression of an ubiquitous police state (something supporters of one would want out there) while at the same time reviling it, a neat trick.

The objective truth never stopped him from yelling the sky was falling in the run-up to Y2K, so to keep listening to him and thinking he has a shred of credibility because he's singing your tune is simply intellectually dishonest, a lie to oneself, that deepest-of-cuts. The late (Milton) William Cooper--author of Behold a Pale Horse--even saw Jones as a fraud and a liar, as he would have known having beheld one in the mirror the majority of his short life. A wolf knows a wolf. I have to assume that the radio show's site has the show archived from yesterday, so hit it, I'm not going to listen that crap, it's infotainment for the terminally paranoid bigot (including people with a predisposition for psychosis who smoked too much pot, took one-too-many hits of LSD).

The dead speak, again and again, accusing the living, even when they were the same kind of fraud--especially because they were the same kind of a fraud. Jones could be caught in lies and mistakes forever and his moronic crowd would keep believing, like the flock led by another man with the same last name...

Behold, the persistence of stupidity: flogging a stale horse.

Listen, at your own peril: http://www.thealexjonesshow.com/listen.html

(Milton) William Cooper disussing Jones's December 31st, 1999 Y2K sham: http://www.archive.org/details/WilliamCooperDiscussesAlexJonesY2kHoax

"Twenty lines with the President," a fictional fiction, fictionally, by Charlie Sheen:

http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2009/09/twenty-lines-with-president-fictional.html

Arlen Specter surprises again: Reintroduces legislation to allow 9/11 lawsuits against Saudi ruling-class to move forward

Washington D.C.--If there's anything one can say about the senator from Pennsylvania, it's that he's unpredictable and probably really does have this nation's best interests at-heart--in his own mind at least. We'll set aside the magic-bullet theory for a moment...

This week--on December 21st--Specter called on the floor of the Senate for the passage of legislation that would allow lawsuits initiated by thousands of survivors (as well as the families of those killed and insurance companies) of the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001 to move forward, and introduced the proposed bill with bipartisan support from no less a non-man than Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), although I'm sure it's purely a political move on his part since it's not likely to pass, at least not on his watch.

That would require will and real support, something Graham and others in both major parties aren't inclined to do since there's a lot of money at stake, never mind the destabilizing effects actual justice directed at the Saudi ruling-clans would have on the world's oil supply and the global economy. The coverage in the mainstream media--once again--has been virtually non-existent.

It's not his first time, and he began this road in late 2003 with roughly the same reaction, meaning indifference if not obstructionism. On October 25th, 2007, Specter introduced the "Saudi Arabia Accountability Act" that was designed to accomplish essentially the same aims, meaning dragging the Saudi government and various institutions and charities into the light and allowing lawsuits to proceed that are currently being barred by the State Department (the executive branch) and questionable Federal Circuit Court rulings, more recently in the 2nd Circuit:

Specter (D., Pa.) said the legislation would clarify that lawsuits by U.S. citizens could go forward without a sign-off from the State Department.

A federal appeals court in Manhattan last year dismissed claims against the Saudi government, saying such litigation can proceed only if the State Department finds that the Saudis provided financial aid and other assistance to terrorist groups.
Besides clarifying the law, the bill would reinstate those lawsuits.
The Philadelphia law firm Cozen O'Connor has sued Saudi Arabia, members of the Saudi royal family, and more than a dozen Islamic charities, alleging responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. The Cozen lawsuit, on behalf of dozens of U.S. and international insurers that lost billions of dollars at ground zero, accuses the Saudi government of financing charities that in turn laundered money into al-Qaeda. ("Specter looks to revive 9/11 suits against Saudis," Philadelphia Inquirer, 12.24.2009)

This is all very new since Americans have never been allowed to sue a foreign power without the permission of the executive branch through established channels at the State Department. In other words, this is a new right that Senator Specter is proposing, an expansion of legal recourse for the American people that should have been in-place generations ago.

Granted, this is just a new submission of essentially the same legislation he's been proposing since as early as 2003, but he's not giving up, and neither should anyone concerned at getting to the bottom of what happened. The problem for the "truther" movement is that this doesn't fit the anti-government agenda or many of their theories that go in the same direction (nowhere), so we can expect a general lack-of-enthusiasm let alone any noise over this from them. They're hardly alone in the business: there are extremely powerful players in the financial and political sectors whose ties to the Saudi regime run deep. Instead, hundreds-of-thousands are running around in denial with their science fiction theories that would never stand the legal test in a court of law.

This is why the last administration did everything it could to keep these things from going anywhere, and likewise for the new one. Rather than actually protecting the American people then, what we have is a sham in the so-called war on terror, making it blatantly reminiscent of that other failed war, the war on drugs. Who's side are they on anyway? Do we really want to get to the truth at all? If not, we need to stop talking about concern over the victims and using them as a political hot-potato, now. Frankly, it was always distasteful, but this is probably another reason that Graham signed-on with Specter as a co-sponsor, to cover his and the GOP's ass for the next elections hoping everyone's forgotten their real role in all of this.

Here are a few things remarked on by Specter when he introduced a similar bill in 2007 that "truthers" (their "truth" being highly-selective) tend to ignore:

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, evidence has emerged indicating that support for al-Qaeda, Ramas, and other organizations has come from Saudi Arabia.

Testimony presented to several Congressional committees, including the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Judiciary Committee, and Intelligence committees in both houses, has indicated that Saudi Arabia is an epicenter for terrorist financing. These committees have also found the Saudi government's cooperation in investigations into the al-Qaeda terrorist network has been lackluster.

In the 108 Congress, as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, we worked to establish a basic point that anybody who knowingly contributes to a terrorist organization is an accessory before the fact to murder; so when people contribute to al-Qaeda or Hamas, knowing that both organizations employ suicide bombers, they are accessories to murder.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted in 2001, mandates that all States "refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts,'' take "the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts,'' and "deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts.'' There is mounting evidence that Saudi Arabia has not been compliant with this resolution.

The 9/11 Commission interviewed numerous military officers and government officials who repeatedly listed Saudi Arabia as a prime place for terrorists to set up bases and found that "Saudi Arabia's society was a place where al-Qaeda raised money directly from individuals through charities.''

The Council on Foreign Relations concluded in a 2002 report that "for years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for al-Qaeda, and for years, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye.''

There are indications that, since the May 12, 2003, suicide bombings in Riyadh, the Government of Saudi Arabia is making a more serious effort to combat terrorism. That said, I would like to draw attention to the following findings recanted by organizations which have studied the record of the Saudis.

In a June 2004 report entitled "Update on the Global Campaign Against Terrorist Financing,'' the Council on Foreign Relations reported that "we find it regrettable and unacceptable that since September 11, 2001, we know of not a single Saudi donor of funds to terrorist groups who have been publicly punished.''

A joint committee of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives issued a report on July 24, 2003, that quotes various U.S. Government personnel who complained that the Saudis refused to cooperate in the investigation of Osama bin Laden and his network both before and after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It should be remembered that the Saudi regime executes their own citizens publicly in Riyadh with beheadings and amputations for violations of religious laws in what is a theocratic dictatorship. Interestingly, there's no entry for the legislation for either December 21st or the 24th (the date of the Philadelphia Inquirer coverage) on his own web page, but the story is gradually getting out there. This pretty much spells-it-out in a clear and basic form that should be understandable to anyone who can read and comprehend, and Specter is hardly a radical.

Neither is Charles Schumer (D-NY). What's radical in the current political culture, however, is for this legislation to go anywhere at all. Is this about justice or agendas? Go ask Alex Jones. Go ask the Obama administration. They're against any such moves that the senator from Pennsylvania is suggesting. But Specter appears to feel that the prospects for the bill and its main-thrust are good, stating, "I think it will pass." Let's hope so since the Saudis aren't about to stand down anytime soon without sanctions. Think what you want, but government is the only answer in all of this, surely not oil companies and trusts.

"Specter looks to revive 9/11 suits against Saudis," Philadelphia Inquirer, 12.24.2009: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/homepage/20091224_Specter_looks_to_revive_9_11_suits_against_Saudis.html

Arlen Specter's Floor Statement on the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2007, introduced October 25, 2007: http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.ArlenSpecterSpeaks&ContentRecord_id=f6853748-1321-0e36-baae-0e4b60c0cd96&Region_id=&Issue_id=bd50d272-7e9c-9af9-72de-559d0e9aeed9

Call for information on those pesky Libertarians...

WWW--Jaenelle Antas sated my appetite to remove these bastards once-and-for-all from any affiliation with the counterculture and the antiwar movement. I think this is very doable and I will be investing some more time in this area as I think the turds have been coming around trying (without any luck) to cause problems on this site and elsewhere. They should know that any attacks are going to be reported to law enforcement...

I've told Cindy Sheehan on her Facebook page that I thought she was making a mistake going on Alex Jones's radio program, and she was not only dismissive but made it personal. That's not a level-headed person. It helped me understand the problems that people have been talking and writing about regarding Sheehan over the last few years: the notoriety has gone to her head, and she's listening to the Sirens. The fringe-right has her ear when logic would dictate that they're part of the problem. She's fallen into the wrong side of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." She's got it all wrong--they're part of the enemy camp on the right and some of their rhetoric has seduced her, as has issues of convenience. I hate writing any of this about her.

Meanwhile, Sheehan falls deeper-and-deeper into a depressing irrelevancy, which was probably part of the plan of some of the people currently whispering in her ear. They didn't have to try too hard considering the target. Since at least the end of the American Civil War, provocateurs and spies of capital have done these kinds of things--there is plenty of precedent here. I'm all-but-certain she's been the victim of at least a few agent provocateurs.

Why mention Jones in a call for information about Libertarians? Because he's been closely-affiliated with them and is a "self-described" part of that other branch of the Lollipop Guild of little men and women on the far right, the lunatic fringe (the public has never supported their agenda in the polls or the voting booth). Listen to him and read him enough and this is patently clear. Jones has also had Naomi Klein ("Disaster Capitalism," a book whose premise and thesis I consider to be conflated--go back to Canada) and numerous others from the progressive movement/left on his program to woo them into neutralization, a trap, and simply to feed his ratings. Surely, this is a case of mutual masturbation if ever there was one. It doesn't hurt for the target to be overambitious and egotistical. Take your pick as to which one best describes Klein and Sheehan--or some permutation of both--but they're most assuredly blowing it by associating with these people.

You don't build bridges with people who are the fringe of the wrong side of history. Considering that they have nothing to offer in numbers should be a real indicator of their standing with the public. They're not going to change, and they're not especially significant. However, these people associating them are helping to change that a little by "mainstreaming" them a tad, not that the public is even remotely ready to buy their agenda that's barely different from that of the GOP. These juvenile clowns are also trying to make inroads through the "9/11 Truth (bowel) movement," truly a gaggle of fools if ever there was one, and that's not to say there isn't a cover-up (which doesn't automatically imply an "inside job," that's someone sneaking an arch-conservative agenda through the back door).

My own take? The Bush II administration was so corrupt and incompetent (and compromised thanks to direct-ties to the Saudi ruling-class) that they blew it. It's about oil, dummies. The rest has been a cover-up to protect them and unaccountable power in Saudi Arabia, just like at home. How often do the "truthers" talk about the Saudi connection, assuredly the "foreign state" found in the 26-27 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission's report? That's not an invitation to a debate, incidentally, I don't do those unpaid, my time's worth something.

So here's the deal: I want information--any information--that's reasonably verifiable as in the case of the Antas story. I want intelligence on the Libertarian Party in any and every state in America, and even Canada. Mmm-hmm, I want the dirt, the bad-with-the-bad, but it must be reasonably verifiable and pertinent. We all have agendas, and mine is to remove their influence from the progressive movement and the counterculture once-and-for-all, an evil thing, I know.

This isn't about money on this side of the fence, this is about fixing our nation and our culture and moving on from the myth of the Wild West and the Frontier. It's time America grew-up. Unlike Jones and Nimmo, I'm not trying to sell coffee mugs, books, quasi-racist images of the president emblazoned on t-shirts, and heavily-edited DVDs of insane ranting about the Bohemian Grove and other examples of Libertarian non-sequitur babbling. I want dirt. This is about principles, and I don't pay sources.

On Colin Powell's "Terror-Industrial complex" video

Washington D.C.--So what? He covered his ass just like Eisenhower did with his "military-industrial" speech on his last day in office as president. Yet, both men can be credited as key in their creation. Now, why in the name of logic and reason would you believe them or value what they had to say when they not only did nothing to stop it, but actually did everything to encourage its creation to enrich themselves and their careers? That's correct, logic and the historical record dictate that you wouldn't, but mythologies are very hard to counter once they've taken root.

It's my guess that Powell and his associates and allies are trying very desperately to recast his role in the historical landscape that was his time as Secretary of State under George W. Bush. The fact is that he lied to the public during that time in a manner that got us into an unnecessary war that came directly out of his and the administration's grandstanding and exploitation of the terror attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Powell wasn't merely an enabler of the illegal war in Iraq and Afghanistan, he expedited it with gusto and he is a co-conspirator. In fact, General Powell is a war criminal not only from these wars, but from the Gulf War (Bush War I) and Vietnam when he was part of the cover-up of the My Lai massacre in 1969. People from that time refer to Powell as a "team player." Well right, that's the kind of stupid asshole you bring on board, a moron who will follow any order so long as it's coming from a superior. The legality of those orders rarely ever crosses their minds, and when it does, it gets a backseat in the final judgment, theirs.

Yet, somehow, he's a "hero," which is an insult to the mentally handicapped everywhere. He's not a hero, he's a war criminal just like the Einsatzgruppen commanders who slaughtered entire villages of Slavs on the Eastern Front. Nobody made them do these things just as nobody forced Powell into doing it. They did it willingly to further themselves and their position in the hierarchy. To allow someone like Powell to even walk around free is an insult to the rules of war and the rule of law everywhere, and he's not alone in the American pantheon of the damned, not even remotely. Eisenhower was cut of the same cloth--burlap, the preferred material officers are made of, because it gives easy. Officers are political operatives expediting political orders, period. A 1932 example offers some insight into what kind of officers Powell and Eisenhower were and how they rose through the ranks.

In the last full year of the Republican Hoover administration, economic conditions had gotten so bad that WWI veterans were flooding the nation's capital demanding their military pensions ("bonuses" originally slated to be issued in 1945, though you could borrow against them) early. Collapse was in the air. By June, the Bonus March Force had come and many veterans were camping out on Capitol Hill in semi-permament "Hoovervilles," bitterly named for the president who did virtually nothing to alleviate the desperate conditions of the Great Depression. Rather than do that, Hoover allowed the situation to grow worse as a lack of proper hygienic facilities and public services in the makeshift camps--continued neglect--contributed to incidents of violence and an atmosphere of fear and dread. Fear mounted in governing circles since it was known that President Hoover had no intentions of giving the veterans any of their very minimal demands.

On July 28, 1932, when Treasury Dept. agents and Capitol police were unable to evict the marchers peacably, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur mobilized 600 regular troops under the command of Majs. George S. Patton, Jr. and Dwight D. Eisenhower and violently routed the Bonus Marchers with bayonets, bricks, tear-gas, truncheons, and fists. MacArthur was on the scene and actually disobeyed Hoover's orders to go about it as peacably as possible and not to push too hard. Hoover who instructed MacArthur that his men go in unarmed, but no shots were fired by federal troops. Three veterans died, many more were wounded, and an infant died in the scuffle. It all-but handed FDR the election in November of that year, something the Democratic candidate was heard to affirm in his own estimation of the mishap. Others weren't so pleased either.

Patton later went on to describe it all as "discgrace to the service," but it's not entirely clear how Eisenhower felt and seems to have simply followed orders and kept his mouth shut as MacArthur's assistant. How familiar, then, this all is with Powell who helped keep a lid on My Lai and numerous other war crimes we don't even know about. He kept his mouth shut as Eisenhower most certainly did on many occasions to advance upward in the ranks. For what? Money and the perks, of course, but what more was going to await him than just more illegal and unethical orders, more crimes to push events towards war? I won't even bore you with his actions surrounding Iran-Contra. Yes, he was even part of the arms-for-hostages deal, so he'd know about how not to deal with terrorists, a practice he adhered to until he finally, belatedly, left life as a public servant, the one constructive act of his time working for the public.

Now, he and others have released this dumb video of him warning about a "terrorist-industrial complex" because he's realized too late that he's been nothing but a stooge for bad people in high places. The timing is curious, so you have to wonder if charges are coming, possibly from Spanish courts. What an idiot to think that he can do anything to change how he's going to be portrayed in the history books. By even the most casual observation, he's viewed as the man who got us into Iraq with his "16 words" before the U.N. Security Council that were a panoply of lies. Were it not for Powell's 16 words in the early months of 2003, we wouldn't be in Iraq now, there would never have been the all the billions-upon-billions of military defense contracts going to the highest-bidders, meaning friends of the president and vice president.

You don't rise to the top in the military by bucking orders. Eventually, they shut you down, just as they did with Patton and MacArthur, albeit for the right reasons (one of the men Patton slapped is buried here in Michiana and my grandfather served under him). No, those who are rewarded make it to the "top," only to realize that it's really the bottom, and then it's too late. I have very little doubt that this stupid video surfacing is a last-ditch effort on the part of Powell and his associates and allies to repair the damage and to paper over the very dishonorable and criminal acts that General Powell has been party to, his involvement being either before or after the fact. It's not going work.

The other story--the truth--escaped out of the bottle long ago. No human being, no tyrant, has ever been able to escape the judgment of history. Colin Powell is no exception to this rule and should serve as a warning to those willing to follow illegal orders out of convenience and the yearnings of crass careerism that there really is no escape; not from the judgment of history, or that "sun that never sets," one's own mind, that harshest of judges. What most of these men did wasn't serving their country, it was serving criminals and themselves to the detriment of the nation. Shame. Dishonor.

"We won the Cold War," but didn't want it to end: reflections on the Thatcher-Gorbachev revelations

WWW--We did? Who won it? It wasn't the average person. Considering the recent revelations about former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ("Iron Maggie," a beloved to neocons along with the Maoist veneration of Ronald Reagan) and her discussions with the final Soviet President Mikael Gorbachev--that Thatcher and the rest of the West including America--didn't want reunification of Germany under any circumstances, you'd think it would be everywhere in our media.

Fine, it came out on September 11th, our new sacred national day, but this is earth-shattering news, it downs many myths about the Cold War, including the legacy of President Ronald Reagan. The contention of "we won the Cold War" just doesn't float anymore, they wanted to keep it going, and it served many purposes for the power structures on both sides, and Thatcher's comments underscore what many have suspected all along: the Cold War was a lie, a big lie. I could have told you that, but now we have solid-proof.

As usual, the official line and rhetoric are just window dressing, a lie, cover. The Western powers wanted the Soviet Union to stay-in-place for the foreseeable future during Peristroika (the thaw of authoritarianism in the Warsaw Pact nations) and the collapse of the Berlin Wall. This exchange comes less than three months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and it is extraordinary.

From the Times:

September 23 1989 : transcript

Thatcher: I wanted to raise some questions regarding the situation in the countries of Eastern Europe. I was deeply impressed by the courage of General Jaruzelski in Poland and by his patriotism. Of course, the future of Poland and its alliance with you are very important. I noticed that you reacted calmly to the results of the Polish elections and generally to processes taking part in this and other Eastern European countries. My understanding of your position is following: you welcome each country developing in its own way on the condition that Warsaw Pact stays. I understand this position perfectly.

Now I would like to say something in complete confidence and would ask you not to record this part of our conversation.

Gorbachev: I agree to your request.

(The following part of the conversation is reproduced from memory)

Thatcher: We are very concerned about the processes taking place in Eastern Germany. Some big changes could happen there, forced partly by the state of the society and partly by the illness of Erich Honecker. One example of this is the flight of thousands of people from the GDR to the FRG. All of this is on the surface, it is very important but even more important is something else.

The reunification of Germany is not in the interests of Britain and Western Europe. It might look different from public pronouncements, in official communiqué at Nato meetings, but it is not worth paying ones attention to it. We do not want a united Germany. This would have led to a change to post-war borders and we can not allow that because such development would undermine the stability of the whole international situation and could endanger our security.

In the same way, a destabilisation of Eastern Europe and breakdown of the Warsaw Pact are also not in our interests. Of course, internal changes are happening in all Eastern European countries, somewhere they are deeper than in others. However, we would prefer if those processes were entirely internal, we would not interfere in them or push the de-communisation of Eastern Europe. I can say that the President of the United States is of the same position. He sent me a telegram to Tokyo in which he asked me directly to tell you that the United States would not do anything that might put at risk the security of the Soviet Union or perceived by the Soviet society as danger. I am fulfilling his request.

Gorbachev: Thank you for this message. In broad terms, you have outlined our position correctly. We believe that socialist countries should solve their internal problems themselves, chose themselves the course and speed on the way of implementation of their socialist choice. We do not want and will not interfere but will, of course help our allies as we have always done.

As for the state of health of Erich Honecker, he is planning to take part in all events commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the GDR. I can tell you that I am planning to arrive to the GDR on 6-7th October to celebrate this anniversary.

In other words, Reagan was in total agreement with Thatcher and considering American might, could be presumed to have been pulling some of the strings here. And there is more, much more to establish the veracity and legitimacy of these documents. Where was it in the American press? The virtual "page eight," if it was there at all.

This is a stunning rebuttal to the mythology surrounding the Cold War, former Prime Minister Thatcher, and the late President Ronald Reagan. Former President Gorbachev comes off looking very good, even better than before. Western leaders of the time look like the lying, scrambling, unimaginative clowns that they were and are. "Conventional wisdom" is often misinformed, now we know. The real history tends to be unwritten for generations. We lucked-out on this one. What a "Man in the High Castle" moment.

"Thatcher Told Gorbachev Britain Did Not Want German Reunification," The Times online, 09.11.2009: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6829735.ece

Excerpts from the Thatcher-Gorbachev talks and related excerpts:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6829416.ece

"Twenty lines with the president," a fictional satire of a fictional satire by the Great Charles Sheen

Twenty Lines With the President

Reported by CHARLIE SHEEN and his friend "Manly Gloss" [insert fear-based advertising]

Infopwarsh

Tuesday, September eleventy-twelve, 2009


Related: "Sheen blasts media for reporting truth about his addictions."

______________________________________________________________________

I recently--hiccough!--had the great pleasure of spending time with the president and several substances, some legal, others not. Bouncing a hooker on my knee was out, so I hid her in the bathroom of the Lincoln bedroom with my friend and erstwhile cohort, "Manly Gloss." The funny thing is, nobody else can see Manly, but I can assure you readers and my family (you can forget about the interventions pa, I have a gun now) that Manly's as real as you or me. Where the hell was I? Sorry, had to some DTs coming on...shit, uh--OH YEAH! Alex Jones asked me--since I'm famous, on the most popular TV comedy right now, to write an interview with President Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the 44th POTUS, and a socialist (needed spellcheck on that one!) darkie.

Our ersatz interview was conducamacated in the Lincoln bedroom, a place in the White House where the spirit of that assassinated president is sometimes seen, along with the smell of other spirits, so it was right up my alley. An autistic fella told me that twenty minutes is comprised of 1200 seconds, which is profound for a drunk, washed-up cokehead and whore-monger like yours truly, but it got me to thinking: "What the fuck was I thinking about with this interview, anyway?!"

I mean, the readers here at prisontoilet and infopwarsh are so retarded they're gonna think this shit is real, y'know? You think I'm wrong? Look at the comments below, fuck me, and I mean it, I have a sexual addiction...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Charlie Sheen: Uh--burp!--sorry about that Mr. President, I had a few-too-many on the red eye here to nation's capital, they just keep shoveling them into your lap--especially when you demand it every five minutes.

Barack Obama: Well--uh--thank you--uh--Charlie, and I have to say that I watch your "Two and a Half Men" show frequently here in the Oval office, it's as entertaining as the Tea Baggers and the town hall folks. It's a nice apolitical break from a hard day's work of avoiding the real issues, and I can tell you that that's a very hard job indeed. But then, that's what Rahm's for: to remind who's really in charge.

Manly Gloss: Shhhhhhhhhhhh...

CS: [Looks over to the bathroom of the Lincoln bedroom] Shut the fuck up!

BO: Uh...what was that?

Manly Gloss: Look--Charlie--you created me to find some kind of much needed objectivity here. What's the deal? Just get on with the interview, don't respond to me, ignore the man behind the curtain of reality.

CS: Right. Er, Mr. President. Why won't you examine the issue of thermite being found in the residue around the WTC ruins? Sorry, bad copy, Alex wrote this.

BO: Well, Charlie, the scientific community is in-consensus on this. "Nano-thermite" is a byproduct in welding. Also, nano-thermite is created from the super-heating of aluminum and steel. As anyone knows, much of the WTC was constructed of steel, the planes were constructed of aluminum, and the very girders of the buildings that were destroyed on 9/11 were fused together through conventional welding.

CS: Shit, you got me Mr. President--but do you agree with the findings of the 9/11 Commission then? I was hoping to create a straw man argument here, but you're clever, at least three-moves ahead of me, what with that homespun "negro wisdom" and all. I mean, you got me, I knew it too. God, I wish I had that "voice of authority" my pops has...

BO: Well, you know Charles--may I call you that?

CS: Certainly, sir. I feel like I'm talking to myself, this is so natural.

BO: Hahahaha, indeed it is Charles. You see, you understood this because you're Black Irish. We'll leave it at that, heh-heh. [They both laugh, then stop abruptly, becoming very serious]

Manly Gloss: Pssst! Charlie! Ask him about his birth certificate.

CS: Nah-nah, no way!

BO: Who are you talking to? Charles, I'm frankly becoming concerned for you.

CS: Look, Mr. President, I know something to win you over, and that's cocaine. Let's hit the bathroom.

BO: No, no, Charles, I left that part of my life behind long ago, money power are my drugs nowadays, and they're more socially acceptable. But our relations with the Colombian oligarchy are good, sound, and my Attorney General--Mr. Holder--knows how to "do business" down there, if you know what I mean. [winks]

CS: [shaking violently] Gotcha. Well, if you don't mind, I'm going to hit the bathroom. You think Rahm might want to join me?

BO: Assuredly, he's from Chicago and Hollywood, hahahaha. I would never appoint anyone I couldn't blackmail right back, now would I? Let me hit my Blackberry, he'll be here in moments. We might have to open the door so that he doesn't--uh--rip it off of the hinges!

CS: Gotcha. Do you think that 9/11 was an inside job?

BO: No.

CS: Uh...shit. Alex gave me all these talking points and notes, and I...seem to have lost them, maybe left them in the rental outside. OK...uh. You think that the Bush administration perhaps was incompetent on that day?

BO: [smiling broadly] I couldn't say...does this all seem unreal to you, like we're part of some fake reality? Have you ever had that feeling? I feel it a lot lately.

CS: [shudders] Yes. My God, Mr. President, we're characters in someone's simulacrum, a phony narrative.

BO: I agree, but is it simply Alex Jones's?

CS: No, this is something more profound, perhaps cosmological. Now my head hurts after thinking and saying that, but that's a given. Man, I need a drink, a bump...

Criswell: Mr. President, I predict that you will pass a major health bill, reforming the health care system of America. But, because you lack all principles, it will flounder and you'll be forced to push for that Mars mission the last executive did once his political capital was entirely expended.

CS: AHHHH!!! Who the fuck is that, Mr. President?! Where did he come from?

BO: Haw! That's the ghost of Criswell's past, Charles. People think they're seeing the late president Lincoln, but he never slept in here. Criswell did. President Nixon was a great fan of the psychic and had him here several times, so did the Reagans.

Manly: Pssst! He's right Charlie, I know these things. You need to come in here for some more coke-sniffing, I can sense Rahm Emanuel coming.

Rahm Emanuel: OK, where's the coke and a taint to sniff it off of? Hahahaha! I kid--or do I? Mr. President, I know Charlie well from Hollywood--quite the "ladies man," although I never pay for it, I just take what I want, when I want. Know what I mean?

CS: That I do! Mr. President--about Sibel Edmonds.

BO: Yes? She gave some testimony under oath recently, in August. What does that have to do with 9/11?

CS: OK, she's talked about a lot of subjects...oh fuck it, let's go snort some coke, won't we?

RE: You're the man! Let's hit that shit! No broads, though? Well shit, Charlie, you're losing it, man. I'd order out, but the heat's on with that shit. Some of these fuck-head prosecutors actually do their jobs around the beltway, we can't be too careful. In Chicago? No problem. You see, these Republicans are too stupid to cover their tracks, so ordering out for ass is just out. Surely you could have brought some groupies, some chicks from L.A.

Shit, who cares? There are plenty of interns to fuck around here. Besides, your fuckin' father might pull another one of his legendary "interventions" on you, and we wouldn't want that, would we? We need your ass at Alex Jones's site to bad-jacket real information that makes us and the last brew culpable for...hahahaha, we won't go into it, you're too fuckin' dumb to understand anyway. [slaps me on the back soundly]

(Incredibly loud sounds of snorting emanate from the Lincoln bathroom for several minutes. I, and Mr. Emanuel emerge with cocaine peppering our respective upper-lips)

RE: Good shit Charles, we'll have to hook-you-up some time with the good shit from Chiquita, from our friends to the North in Colombia! [slaps Sheen on the back so hard he hits the floor]

CS: GASP! So, where were we Mr. President?

BO: Charles, it appears that we're running short on time, I have a country to run, kinda like a 7/11. Someone has to be manning the controls at all times. You want a Big Gulp? Hahahaha! Ahhh, you "righties" and your endless stream of non-sequiturs--but we need people like you. Who else is going to distract the rest of the country when hardly anyone buys newspapers or trusts the mainstream media anymore? I cannot even rely on it for factual information anymore, and neither can investors on Wall Street, or even foreign investors, the only thing keeping this house of cards afloat these days.

CS: Thanks--I guess--Mr. President. You sure you don't want a bump?

BO: Hahahaha, very tempting Charles, but like I said, I have a country to run, bullets to dodge, and many promises left to break. I have my work cut-out for me.

CS: Mr. President, are you trying to stonewall me and the readership of...shit, what's the name of it?

BO and RE: It's "infopwarsh," get it right.

Criswell: What's "eleventy-twelve" mean?

BO: Freedom.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Comments

Texas Terrorist: Man, Charlie! You are true patriot, not one them socialest sissies!

LargeMardge: Spare any of that coke?

Non-sequitur Party of the Right: Man, why didn't he shoot that nigger-varmit? I was in Nam, man, I was there! What the hell is this shit about eleventy-twelve anyway, what the fuck is that--"niggerease"?

Tard Steve: I cant reat any o tis. Wil sumwun reat it 4 me.

Ted Nugent's Illegitimate Children: You tell that nigger a what for! Barack HUSSEIN O-bam-a! Yer wang dang doodlin' my country right into the ground, fucker! ...OK, my shrink has told me I need help, a lot of help and copious amounts of anti-depressants. The problem is, I don't do drugs of any kind. What do I do? Rush? Judy? Someone, turn on a spotlight now, I'm feeling randy, and he's getting pissed!

Jaenelle Antas: Springtime for Hitler? Germany? Anyone?

Bladderwarts: Clearly, the WTC could not have been taken down by human technology. This was a job by "greys," aliens. We must stop illegal aliens!!

The NYC flyover by Airforce One was a test...

New York, New York--It struck me even before there was news of the identity of the plane that this was a readiness test to see how fast the response by interceptor-jets was going to be. By all appearances they got up there a lot faster than on September 11th, 2001.

Small wonder that billionaire Republican Mayor Bloomberg was angry over not being notified. They just made an ass of him and his party again...because they can. Wish them luck making hay out of this one since the mainstream media isn't going to.

Would the administration of George W. Bush have even bothered with a readiness test? No. They were too busy robbing the public trough, that's why the attacks of September 11th, 2001 were such a success.

More change today: The Obama administration releases more Bush II torture memos

ACLU.org--Once again, I have to say that I'm impressed by this release of the internal record and that it's a hard day for cynics and the terminally jaded (if they can even fathom the meaning of it intellectually). This couldn't be kept in the dark any longer, and the new administration's actions today--while not going nearly as far as most of us would like--is a good step forward towards accountability for the architects of post-9/11 terror policy.

Looking at some of these memos, it's clear that the Bush II administration was in panic mode after the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Torture? That's for the desperate.

But this release is not enough, and significantly more declassification is going to have to occur in the near future. The ACLU requested these documents over a year ago, and they only came to the rest of us through court filings:

In response to litigation filed by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Justice Department today released four secret memos used by the Bush administration to justify torture. The memos, produced by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), provided the legal framework for the CIA's use of waterboarding and other illegal interrogation methods that violate domestic and international law.

The ACLU has called for the Justice Department to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate torture under the Bush administration.

"We have to look back before we can move forward as a nation. When crimes have been committed, the American legal system demands accountability. President Obama's assertion that there should not be prosecutions of government officials who may have committed crimes before a thorough investigation has been carried out is simply untenable. Enforcing the nation's laws should not be a political decision. These memos provide yet more incontrovertible evidence that Bush administration officials at the highest level of government authorized and gave legal blessings to acts of torture that violate domestic and international law," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. ("Justice Department Releases Bush Administration Torture Memos," ACLU, 04.16.2009)

The stakes in maintaining our liberties couldn't be higher regarding state secrets. Today, the Obama administration made a much bigger step forward than most administrations ever would --even under the current circumstances--but many more will have to come. However, there is now more than enough material to justify substantial investigations into crimes committed under the color of authority under the Bush II administration.

The ACLU's site has the most complete PDF collection of the four key torture memos, authored by the Justice Department's OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) under the direction of the White House to give illegal acts of torture a sheen of legality:

A 18-page memo, dated August 1, 2002, from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. [PDF]

A 46-page memo, dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. [PDF]

A 20-page memo, dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. [PDF]

A 40-page memo, dated May 30, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. [PDF] ("Abuse of Power: The Bush Administration's Secret Legal Memos," ACLU, 04.16.2009)

The New York Times is also offering an incomplete selection of the memos on its site. Accountability is coming.

"Abuse of Power: The Bush Administration's Secret Legal Memos," ACLU, 04.16.2009: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html