The assassination of Lyndon LaRouche and the neo-con pretenders to Reagan's legacy

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

In political commentary over the last couple of decades, a number of names have surfaced who amount to one-line jokes. People like David Duke, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton, Oliver North, Sun Myung Moon. And Lyndon LaRouche.

While each of these people has had their following (and some still do), each also has exceptionally high negative perceptions in the mainstream media. LaRouche's "wacko ratio" has long been so high that I haven't bothered to look into his story until recently (this week, in fact).

Last night I wrote, and then shelved, a 3,000-word post called "The Executioners", which was the outline of the "Wolfowitz cabal" currently driving the Bush administration since (and possibly before) 9/11. It's a pretty explosive thesis. The short version, about which I'm most confident, is that the Wolfowitz cabal is driving a pre-emptive "Hundred Years War" against Islam in a titanic "Clash of Civilizations" that can only be compared to the Crusades. The more speculative extension of this thesis is that 9/11 happened as an inside job (directed by U.S. and/or Israeli rogue elements, with Islamic agents) to jumpstart the American assault on Islam.

(AirSarge: this is your evil empire calling.)

Obviously one trouble in making any of these assertions is finding not only a smoking gun but even credible sources to support the theories. Which brings me to LaRouche. While I can support these arguments without LaRouche, I've found that LaRouche offers the most compelling analysis of intra-party factions within the current Republican and Democratic parties, as well as the most compelling elucidation of the Wolfowitz cabal and their agenda.

I've been scratching my head since 9/11, trying to understand the sudden radicalism of the Bush administration and the utter silence of the Democrats. What LaRouche and his team show is that the Bush administration has been hijacked by the Wolfowitz cabal (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Richard Perle, Kristol, Gingrich and others), marginalizing the mainstream military and State Department (Powell, joint chiefs, etc.) as well as traditional Republicans (James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, etc.). This Wolfowitz group has been misleadingly self-identified as "neo-Reaganites", "neo-conservatives" and the like. (See Kristol's "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy".)

In fact, this group is anything but conservative or Reaganite in their views; they are radical fascists. As noted elsewhere, I believe Reagan to be the greatest president of my lifetime and one of the best of all time. But while Reagan's ideology was strong and his ambition was nothing less than the destruction of Communism and the promotion of human liberty worldwide, he was fundamentally conservative and abhorred war. Reagan's belief in the primacy of human liberty was so profound that even his followers in many cases didn't understand him. Reagan would be adamantly opposed to both the Ashcroft Patriot Act police state and also the appalling international neo-Crusades slaughter currently being waged by the Wolfowitz cabal in the name of "freedom".

(For more on the differences between Reagan and the Wolfowitz cabal, read "Why Some Neo-Cons Are Wrong About U.S. Foreign Policy".)

LaRouche and his team clearly understand these factions within the Republican party, which gives them tremendous insight into such bizarre scenes as Gingrich's recent attack on Powell for treason as a Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld gambit to replace Powell with Gingrich. (The gambit blew up in their faces when GW Bush perceived the attack as an attack on him.)

The LaRouche team also explains the silence of the Democrats, whom one might expect to be waging a very spirited campaign against the radical excesses of the Bush administration. Robert Byrd delivered some of the most courageous speeches I've heard in my lifetime, to a Senate chamber frequently almost empty, and to almost no media support or debate. The rest of the Democrats were largely silent. LaRouche's team offers a reason why: namely, they've been "hijacked by the same fascist faction driving the Bush administration".

You owe it yourself to spend an hour or so perusing LaRouche's "Executive Intelligence Review", which archives the writings of LaRouche and his team. For some of you this will be just an amusing lark through wacko land. For others, you may find some 20/20 insight into what is driving this administration and where they are taking us. Some highlights include:

• Rumsfeld as "Strangelove II"
  
• Stop Ashcroft's "Heinrich Himmler II" Bill -- While You Still Can
  
• U.S. Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strike Plan: It Keeps Getting Scarier and Scarier
  
• War, Hitler and Cheney
  
• LaRouche Demands Cheney's Resignation

As I noted above, I shelved my planned post, "The Executioners", despite having poured 3,000 words into its writing. One reason I shelved it was because the argument was weaker without the support of some of LaRouche's team, and I knew that bringing LaRouche into the argument would unleash a torrent of ridicule in this forum.

So rather than have "The Executioners" thread devolve into a war about the credibility of LaRouche, I'm going to turn it around and start with LaRouche. Let's thresh that out here.

Now, I know the favorite style of debaters here is character assassination. Rather than debate ideas, people tend to find whatever lowlife, explosive accusation they can make about a person, and thereby destroy that person's credibility. This art is one of the oldest arts of politics -- used recently to perfection in the destruction of Clinton's presidency over Monica Lewinsky.

My view, simply, is Balzac's: "Behind every great fortune lies a crime" -- everyone in power is a criminal. What's more, even among those not in power, "everyone has something to hide."

Obviously, if the Clinton/Lewinsky test were applied to all politicians in history, there would be no Jefferson -- and without Jefferson, we have no American democracy as we know it. For these reasons, I'm inclined to be skeptical when I hear about character assassinations in the media. As often as not, all I'm seeing is an enemy being knocked off by someone with the power to get him.

LaRouche served prison time for five years (1989 - 1994) for "mail fraud conspiracy, based on illegal and manipulative fund-raising practices, as well as tax evasion." LaRouche believes he was framed, and that the public has been systematically brainwashed by the media to view LaRouche as a marginal, criminal crackpot.

Here's my take: I know for a fact that the major media does all the heavy lifting in our "democracy" on the part of the people who actually have power over our country. I also know that almost everyone has something to hide, and that our government is master of selective prosecutions. So LaRouche's story has immediate credibility with me: either he was innocent and framed, or he was guilty and selectively prosecuted. I'm actually not all that interested in the details of the case, because I'm convinced you could take down at least 70% of major politicians and business leaders with various legal or moral attacks.

So there's the meaty bone tossed into the ring. Lyndon LaRouche: Is he right about the "Wolfowitz cabal"? Why is the mainstream media ignoring the "Clash of Civilizations" agenda of the Wolfowitz cabal? How has this group manage to pervert the legacy of Reagan and even claim him as their leader?

But here are the ground rules: no character attacks. Attack or support LaRouche, but do it on his political ideas as expressed in the last five years. That's the debate that's worth having.

[Tarhog]

D@mn ASF, here we go again. I'll take a couple hours and review the meat of what you've posted, but I'm not looking forward to it. I thought the idea of critical thinking was to view all of the facts available from as many angles as available, and then construct a theory? What separates truth from the conspiracy theories that so many seem to be in love with is that conspiracy theorists determine the truth FIRST, then seek out every shred of evidence supporting the theory, usually ignoring anything that doesn't fit their carefully constructed paradigm.

I don't know how you guys sleep at night....is there a hostile alien influence pulling the strings here as well (anyone got info on Wolfowitz' proximity to area 51 over the past decade??). Not trying to diss you ASF, I'm one of those that 'missed' you during your lengthy recent absence. I'll check out your 'theory' here, but on the surface it sounds pretty wacky.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Tarhog

I thought the idea of critical thinking was to view all of the facts available from as many angles as available, and then construct a theory? What separates truth from the conspiracy theories that so many seem to be in love with is that conspiracy theorists determine the truth FIRST, then seek out every shred of evidence supporting the theory, usually ignoring anything that doesn't fit their carefully constructed paradigm.

Tarhog, I agree with your generalization. But I've spent 1-1/2 years analyzing 9/11, its causes and after-effects -- and it may surprise you to know that I haven't come to a firm conclusion about 9/11 itself.

I do, however, have a number of facts at my disposal, some of which I included in the shelved post, "The Executioners". The problem is that while the facts are disturbing, they can fit more than one scenario.

What is undisputed in my mind is the presence of the Wolfowitz cabal (documented by The New York Times, no less, on October 12, 2001) and their agenda. Wolfowitz authored the new "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive military attack back in 1992. He's the driving administration force for a radical group of hardliners (Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Gingrich, etc.) that, in a secret two-day October 2001 meeting, reported by the Times, tried to frame Iraq for the 9/11 attacks, in order to trigger an American invasion of Iraq in the first wave of their planned "Clash of Civilizations".

Here's another fact: Osama bin Laden was long an American agent, and so were (and are) a number of other radical terrorist groups.

These are facts.

If you want to talk conspiracy theories, then you're moving beyond those facts. Such as:

• Whether members of the Wolfowitz group, or rogue elements of American intelligence, or rogue Israeli elements, in fact directed the 9/11 attacks to jumpstart our current military crusade
  
• Whether Cheney, Rumsfeld and/or Wolfowitz were specifically involved in 9/11
  
• Whether that Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz axis planned 9/11 even prior to Bush's election, making Bush the ultimate Manchurian Candidate
  
• Whether Bush Jr. himself was ever aware of the plan
  
• Whether Bush Sr. was ever aware of the plan
  

Now, those are conspiracy theories. It's not necessary to believe in any such conspiracy theories, to understand the agenda of the Wolfowitz faction *today*: namely, a brutal resumption of the Crusades, sold as defending American safety and freedom.

That's a fact. If you care about the slaughter of innocents in our name, and the future of civilization as we know it, you should sit up and pay attention.

[fansince62]

ok....so you lumped the hypothesis and fenced an expected line of attack all in one breathtaking sweep......as well as employing loaded jargon that obviously indicates the conclusions you have come to. ignoring for the moment that several ideas are mixed.......when you go about constructing the case, be sure to address a few issues...

1) will it take less than 8 years to win the "crusade against Islam"? or is it against militant Islam? or is it against the folks flying into buildings and blowing up dance halls? in any case, specify the target and make a plausable case for how it is to be executed given Presidential term limits.

2) the Congress that votes for this has to go along as well.....there are many ways other than overt resistance to undermine such an effort. you have to explain how everyone in a power position can be suborned, cajoled or bought off.

3) you have to exmine not only what you think is happening here, but the true threat. what is happening on the global stage? what are the larger historical currents in play? we obviously learned through the instructive episodes at the UN and on through the war that there are many, not necessarily noble, agendas in play. how does it all add up? it is in this context that one has to assess policy.

4) what will be the security posture of the United States 25 years from now? what demographic, economic and p[olicitcal currents are in play that argue for moving in such as direction or against it?

5) what of the folks who, as you suggest, do not agree with the "cabal" (your word not mine)? what is their true influence? how does the National Command Authority actually make decisions? how does this President actually receive information? how does he filter it?

6) oh, btw, does Lyndon LaRouche have a vested interest in arguiing along these lines? His acolytes positioned themselves outside several metro stops just prior to the war. an interesting lot indeed. ever seen that, je ne sais quoi, jehovas witness look in a person's gaze? I have. and the lucky Lyndies often have that same large pupil visage.

what is the end state? why Islam and not, say,communist China? what would be the practical consequences from a simple managment point-of-view? could it be done?

seems to me there's a lot more to be discussed. but, Father Berigan.........please press....none of us want to be dupes.....no matter who the prevaricator may happen to be.

[Tarhog]

As I've said ASF, I'll read everything you've posted and respond respectfully when I have. But the heart of conspiracy theorist is to put forth seemingly outlandish theories with the everpresent caveat 'I'm not saying theres any basis to....', and other such disclaimers. No doubt theres a hardcore aggressive group (of which Wolfiwitz certainly is a member) pulling some of the strings in the current administration, and there have no doubt been temptations and arguments for solving all manner of 'problems' in the name and wake of 9/11. But thats a far cry from an assertion that said hardliners 'created' the crisis to set the stage for achieving their goals. You haven't stated thats what occurred. But you've thrown it out there, and that in itself gives it an air of legitimacy that I'm highly doubtful it deserves, and which I view as dangerous. And the 'throwing it out there' approach is whats gotten you flamed so vehemently in the past, something I personally don't like to see and won't participate in. My first degree was an International Relations degree, so I'm familiar with some of the skeletons in the US foreign policy closet, and that our hands have not always been 'clean'. But this seems to take that reality to a far more sinister, tenuous level where the 'shadow government' spins a devious web in which we are all caught. I'll read, but I ain't buying.

[JimboDaMan]

ASF, I’ll agree that the Bush administration has been dominated – “hijacked”, in your terms – by a hardline faction whose goals and veracity are somewhat questionable. Had anyone claimed just after 9/11 that our adventures would expand from Osama to the Taliban to Iraq and very nearly to Syria, even the most hawkish among us would most likely have scoffed. Had someone predicted the encroachments on our civil rights so cynically named the “Patriot Act” would be hurried into law by a supposedly conservative administration, he would have been laughed at. And yes, even granting the despicable rush to question the patriotism of anyone who objects to these things, we in general have unaccountably reacted as a nation of sheep.

But to leap from there to even entertain the idea of complicity in the terrorist attacks, no, a thousand times no. Perhaps I’m a bit naïve. I believe that the deception and underhanded tactics practiced by both major parties are, to a large extent, simply “part of the game”. At times a very serious game, occasionally even a deadly game, but essentially waged between two combatants with a foundation, sometimes buried deep, of belief in the American system that would make such an act unthinkable. That is treason, and I despite my misgivings regarding many of our activities I don’t find treason to be a feasible explanation.

Regarding Larouche, he could be the sharpest knife in the drawer and I’d still not take him seriously. Its been years since I’ve seen his people, but fansince62 described their earnest witlessness perfectly. My life ain’t long enough to burn hours wading thru his proclamations.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Tarhog

No doubt theres a hardcore aggressive group (of which Wolfiwitz certainly is a member) pulling some of the strings in the current administration, and there have no doubt been temptations and arguments for solving all manner of 'problems' in the name and wake of 9/11. But thats a far cry from an assertion that said hardliners 'created' the crisis to set the stage for achieving their goals. You haven't stated thats what occurred. But you've thrown it out there, and that in itself gives it an air of legitimacy that I'm highly doubtful it deserves, and which I view as dangerous.

Tarhog, as you've noted, I'm not stating that this is what occurred. And I understand the danger of what you're referring to, which in fact was the primary reason I shelved "The Executioners" post in addition to the LaRouche problem. (The shelved post outlined the evidence leading toward the conspiracy theory, without actually proving it, which is a dangerous game.) Instead, I've tossed in the conspiracy theories as a counter-example to show that the facts in this post about the Wolfowitz agenda are just that: facts.

Let me ask you to think about 9/11 in a different way:

Most people do things for a reason, and that reason is almost always to their own benefit and self-interest. They can be misguided and stupid, of course, and actions can have unforseen effects. (This in fact is my #1 problem with the Wolfowitz cabal: understanding their objective, I think they will make problems worse for America, in addition to slaughtering innocents. In short, I expect their militant actions stemming from their fears to result in a self-fulfilling prophecy, driving Islamic militants to acquire WMDs and attempt to destroy us.)

Looking at 9/11, ask yourself who had the most to gain through the attacks. Obviously Osama bin Laden hated the United States and was supposedly behind some minor anti-U.S. terrorism over the years. But by comparison to 9/11, those previous efforts were more along the line of "rattle the cage" -- get the message to the U.S. administration that they need to get out of Saudi Arabia.

But the 9/11 attacks themselves were so over the top, such a dagger to the heart of America, that they were exceptionally stupid from an Islamic point of view. They were directly analogous to Pearl Harbor in their stupidity and their effect. Of course, Japan showed us that it's possible to be so stupid, but bin Laden had the benefit of that history and the presence of a far stronger superpower in America today.

Looking at this rationally, the obvious beneficiaries of 9/11 were pro-Israeli, anti-Islamic hawks, who could finally have the blank check to "go medieval" against Arab countries.

In this scenario, Osama bin Laden could even be directly involved, but as the patsy. He was a longstanding U.S. agent in the 1980s and undoubtedly had wide contacts within U.S. and Israeli intelligence.

(The possible presence of U.S. and/or Israeli intelligence can also be inferred from the sophistication of the attacks, which were wildly more ambitious and difficult to achieve than any other terrorist act in history, while also taking place thousands of miles from the Middle East.)

Unfortunately, that's where the trail goes cold. It's impossible to leap from "pro-Israeli, anti-Islamic hawks" to identify the controlling party. It could be rogue, low-level U.S. or Israeli agents, high-level U.S. or Israeli factions, or it could be a mind-blowing Bush Manchurian Candidacy long in the planning, with or without Bush's knowledge.

But just because you can't identify the controlling party, doesn't mean it's wrong to ask the question. I firmly believe that the greatest beneficiaries of 9/11 are pro-Israeli, anti-Islamic hawks -- and I think that was a predictable result of 9/11.

Sadly, the question is almost, but not quite, moot. By whatever agent, we have been thrown into that "Clash of Civilizations", and Wolfowitz & Co. are in the driver's seat, with the pedal to the floor.

[OrangeSkin]

ASF - You're teetering on insanity. Smoke a doobie and listen to some music or something. You're kind of freaking me out, not to mention boring me with all this ridiculous talk.

[Glenn X]

ASF, as always, you're an interesting cat. When you're around, you certainly manage to keep things lively up in here.

And as OS advised, be sure to chill out and :high:, if you haven't already.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

For the uninitiated, I want to add a word about how a faction in the U.S. and/or Israeli military/intelligence community could possibly be the mastermind of 9/11.

Suffice it to say that men in these arenas believe it is their patriotic duty to commit assassinations and killings on behalf of their country. As part of their missions, these men collaborate routinely with terrorist cells, some of whom are being duped as patsies.

The CIA has clearly been behind a number of assassinations, attempted assassinations, coups, invasions by proxy, and so on. Some of those killed include heads of state.

Israeli intelligence (such as Mossad) and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are similarly implicated, while also being implicated in a series of spying operations within the highest levels of the U.S. government. Yitzhak Rabin, himself an Israeli war hero, was awarded the Nobel Peace Price in 1994 for his Middle East peace efforts -- and was promptly assassinated the following year by a right-wing Israeli, who may have been acting on behalf of a coordinated right-wing Israeli conspiracy. There's even a credible argument that Ariel Sharon, that right-wing Israeli gunslinger, is himself vulnerable to assassination if he takes one step toward Middle East peace.

If you want to plan a highly sophisticated 9/11 attack spanning the simultaneous highjacking of four different U.S. jumbo jets, these are the guys who can do it. It's their job to do such attacks, and it's their job to leave a clean trail behind them.

If you want Islamic terrorism, you can go find some geniuses who will strap bombs to their body and blow up a cafe. That's terrorism. Stupid terrorism.

We've got the smart terrorists, and so does Israel. They've been doing jobs with the sophistication of 9/11, if not the impact, for decades. And they are loaded to the gills with hawks who have the motivation for 9/11: the motivation to start an American holy war against Arabia.

These guys ran the show -- I'm convinced of it. I just can't identify which country was involved, and how high it went. It could have been 10 spooks with access to a slush fund. Or it could have gone to the highest levels of either or both governments.

They're going to get away with it.

OrangeSkin: no doobie, but I'll have a cold one now.

[Johnny Punani2]

ASF,

I have a thesis for you to investigate since to like to think about off the wall topics. Here is it...

'The effects of U.S. geopolitics on Pro Wrestling'

You can actually prove this...

[phishhead]

I must say, some of this is crazy. But you know, its probably not that far off. And that my friends, is scary. Just don't get too involved with conspiracies, or you'll lose your mind. Of course maybe that isn't so bad?...

In any case, Thanks for the interesting reads ASF.

Its very good to see something different around here.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by phishhead

I must say, some of this is crazy. But you know, its probably not that far off. And that my friends, is scary. Just don't get too involved with conspiracies, or you'll lose your mind. Of course maybe that isn't so bad?...

I could tell you more than you'd ever want to know, until you'd beg me to stop. All of it true, all in the past.

This is the present, and it's our future and the world's future at stake. I want to believe that the truth could make a difference. But the truth is hard to find, and the people who know it will kill you to keep it. If you knew how many layers surround the truth, you wouldn't even begin to try to find it.

I feel an obligation to tell a little of what I know, for the record, for the chance that the spark might light a fire somehow, someday.

If there were a shot I could take to forget, I'd take it.

For now I need another country, and everything I'm doing is about getting there.

A roadmap: if it costs a lot of money to produce what you're reading, watching or hearing, it's probably lies or a sideshow.

Religion is war.

Capitalism is war.

This is a clash of civilizations, but it didn't have to be.

We're the greatest dupes in history. Ultimately we're dying and killing people because we're too stupid to see the truth.

Dying and killing people for stupid reasons is old news on this planet. Nice species. Too bad we missed the chance to stop.

[Art]

I don't believe I have the strength or energy to even play in this one. Maybe in the morning I'll feel more energetic . ASF, you've had too long a break. You're too fresh. .

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Art

ASF, you've had too long a break. You're too fresh. .

I missed you, too, Art.

No matter how dark the day, there's always the Redskins and the season to come.

[Art]

I just finished reading that opening post ASF. I had a little flicker of interest. You might just get me to play patty cakes with you tomorrow afterall.

But, first, can you tell me what your key issues are with the Patriot Act, first in terms of the people you know, no matter how removed, who've been affected by it as well as the hypothetical danger it leads you to concern yourself over?

I only ask this because I've so long ignored the plaintive whailing of people against the bill I haven't actually bothered to figure out what the repeated fuss is. Fill me in .

[Catullus]

Originally posted by 56Arrington56

ASF,

I have a thesis for you to investigate since to like to think about off the wall topics. Here is it...

'The effects of U.S. geopolitics on Pro Wrestling'

You can actually prove this...

You won't believe this, and I can't believe I'm admitting it, but I actually wrote a serious article on this for a uni paper a couple of years ago. Going back to the glory days of the mid-to-late 80s WWF. There were the late Cold War glory years of the Evil Empire (supervillain: Nikolai Volkov, who used to wave a Soviet flag and sing the Soviet national anthem before every match) and the Ayatollah (supervillain 2: the Iron Sheikh). There was the post-Cold War, X-Files/Vast Government Conspiracy/searching for a role and looking inward period (supervillain: Irwin R. Shyster, "I.R.S" - the wrestling government tax bureaucrat who used to read out poetry about filing your tax return early, and who had a little "Tax Tips" section, in which he advised 12 year-olds to declare their lawn-mowing money to the government). With the WWF/WCW split, the WCW took their supervillains as the New World Order, whose power was demonstrated by their ability to suborn previous all-American icon Hulk Hogan; the WWF moved on, after the Government Conspiracy period, to feature The Corporation as the big bad, with ordinary everyman Stone Cold Steve Austin as the hero, and corporate skullduggery within the WWF as the lead storyline (remember when Linda McMahon, to punish Vince for allowing the (botched) human sacrifice of their daughter Stephanie, appointed Stone Cold as new WWF President? Outstanding). Haven't followed it much since Chyna turned up in WCW, because it moved channels out here and we don't get it anymore.

Of course, all this ignores resurrections, inbreeding, massive pythons, Mr T, bagpipes, The Missing Link, GI Joe cross-overs, people changing personality after being struck by lightning, hair-dressing matches, Elvis impersonators, Oddjob from James Bond, human sacrifices, "But I never knew I had a brother!", steel-cages, drag queens, housework challenges, Andre the Giant and the Really, Really Cunning Plans of the finest malevolent manager in history, Bobby "The Brain" Heenan. Who all the kids *knew* was bad, because he cheated in the Halloween apple-bob.

(Won't even *mention* the future Governor of Minnesota. Though he did look exceptionally fetching in his pink tights and feather boas, and did a mean line with Gorilla Monsoon in commentary.)

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Art

But, first, can you tell me what your key issues are with the Patriot Act, first in terms of the people you know, no matter how removed, who've been affected by it as well as the hypothetical danger it leads you to concern yourself over?

Art, this path gets dark pretty fast, so I need to watch what I write.

First, no I don't know anyone who's been directl.y affected. But that doesn't mean much, because I make it a practice not to associate with people who would be affected.

As to the more significant issue:

Think of the Patriot Act (and its successor being drafted) as a blank check for a police state. It authorizes unlimited wiretaps (any technology -- phones, voicemail, Internet, computer keyloggers, etc.) without court order, along with extensive powers to detain noncitizens indefinitely without charge. Here’s an analysis of the original act and the draft sequel act (aka Patriot Act II).

The wiretap provisions are a clear violation of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. This isn’t an interpretation: the Fourth Amendment explicitly requires a court order based on probable cause, prior to any search or seizure:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Patriot Acts also authorize the indefinite detention of any noncitizen, without terrorism-related charge, and without even identifying who has been held. The sequel act even enables the stripping of citizenship from U.S. citizens, who are then subject to indefinite detention or deportation.

The Bill of Rights makes no distinction between citizens and noncitizens; in practice, noncitizens have the same rights as citizens when it comes to the Bill of Rights. The Patriot Acts now create an underclass of people (noncitizens) who can be denied these rights, and provides a mechanism to transfer actual citizens to this underclass.

The obvious retort here is that the government will surely only exercise these powers against actual terrorists and their supporters. But the truth is, we already have no idea how the Patriot Act powers are being exercised. Ashcroft has already refused any and all Congressional oversight of this and other aspects of Patriot Act activities. Let me repeat this: our Congress has been refused oversight of the execution of its own law.

In addition to the USA Patriot Acts, a related and severe problem has been the creation of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, where some 650 "enemy combatants" have been held prisoner, without charge, and without access to legal counsel. Conditions are such that some have apparently attempted suicide. They are in a bizarre legal limbo, as the BBC notes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art10.shtml

The US government says that the 600 men it has exiled to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation are neither traditional prisoners of war (POWs) nor criminals.

If they were recognised as POWS, then the Third Geneva Convention, which outlines the rights and protections entitled to prisoners of war, would apply.

On the other hand, if they were recognised as criminals, they would be entitled to the standard due process rights granted to ordinary citizens in the United States.

All this would be bad enough if we could trust the government that it is using its Patriot Act and Guantanemo Bay powers in a just manner against true terrorists. But we have no basis for that trust, since we have no oversight of the government's actions.

What's more, beyond the government's official actions, there is substantial risk that information gathered via Patriot Act powers will be exposed to DOJ employees, who may make malicious use of that information on their own. The powers of universal surveillance combined with salacious or malicious curiosity on the part of employees are a sinister brew.

This is all the more true because the U.S. intelligence agencies are reportedly riddled with Israeli spies, thus opening the door to even greater Israeli power in the U.S. via Israeli spying, blackmail and reprisals. (One reason there is no anti-Israeli voice in the U.S., aside from fringe white supremacy groups, is because Israel and its pressure groups have crushed dissent in the U.S. via smear campaigns and political sabotage, silencing anyone in their path.)

Even worse, since one theory (advanced here) for the 9/11 attacks is that they were masterminded by a radical pro-Israeli faction in U.S. or Israeli intelligence circles, the worst possible situation would be for such factions to have direct surveillance powers over anyone who might suspect their involvement. Obviously in this situation, they would have the power to detect and eliminate any opponent before they became a serious threat.

Incredibly, even when an FBI agent detected and reported foreign moles in the FBI, it is the whistleblower who was fired by the FBI. The following June 2002 Washington Post story tells the story of the whisteblower (Sibel Edmonds), omitting the nationality of the "Middle East" mole (probably Israel):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A7829-2002Jun18&notFound=true

In separate cases, two new FBI whistle-blowers are alleging mismanagement and lax security -- and in one case possible espionage -- among those who translate and oversee some of the FBI's most sensitive, top-secret wiretaps in counterintelligence and counterterrorist investigations.

The allegations of one of the whistle-blowers have prompted two key senators -- Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) -- to pose critical questions about the FBI division working on the front line of gathering and analyzing wiretaps.

That whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds, 32, a former wiretap translator in the Washington field office, raised suspicions about a co-worker's connections to a group under surveillance.

Under pressure, FBI officials have investigated and verified the veracity of parts of Edmonds's story, according to documents and people familiar with an FBI briefing of congressional staff. Leahy and Grassley summoned the FBI to Capitol Hill on Monday for a private explanation, people familiar with the briefing said.

The FBI confirmed that Edmonds's co-worker had been part of an organization that was a target of top-secret surveillance and that the same co-worker had "unreported contacts" with a foreign government official subject to the surveillance, according to a letter from the two senators to the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General. In addition, the linguist failed to translate two communications from the targeted foreign government official, the letter said.....

The FBI said it was unable to corroborate an allegation by Edmonds that she was approached to join the targeted group. Edmonds said she told Dennis Saccher, a special agent in the Washington field office who was conducting the surveillance, about the co-worker's actions and Saccher replied, "It looks like espionage to me." Saccher declined to comment when contacted by a reporter.

Edmonds was fired in March after she reported her concerns. Government officials said the FBI fired her because her "disruptiveness" hurt her on-the-job "performance." Edmonds said she believes she was fired in retaliation for reporting on her co-worker.

Edmonds began working at the FBI in late September. In an interview, she said she became particularly alarmed when she discovered that a recently hired FBI translator was saying that she belonged to the Middle Eastern organization whose taped conversations she had been translating for FBI counterintelligence agents. Officials asked that the name of the target group not be revealed for national security reasons.

A Washington Post reporter discovered Edmonds's name in her whistle-blowing letters to federal and congressional officials and approached her for an interview.

Edmonds said that on several occasions, the translator tried to recruit her to join the targeted foreign group. "This person told us she worked for our target organization," Edmonds said in an interview. "These are the people we are targeting, monitoring."

Edmonds would not identify the other translator, but The Post has learned from other sources that she is a 33-year-old U.S. citizen whose native country is home to the target group. Both Edmonds and the other translator are U.S. citizens who trace their ethnicity to the same Middle Eastern country. Reached by telephone last week, the woman, who works under contract for the FBI's Washington field office, declined to comment.

In December, Edmonds said the woman and her husband, a U.S. military officer, suggested during a hastily arranged visit to Edmonds's Northern Virginia home on a Sunday morning that Edmonds join the group.

"He said, 'Are you a member of the particular organization?' " Edmonds recalled the woman's husband saying. "[He said,] 'It's a very good place to be a member. There are a lot of advantages of being with this organization and doing things together' -- this is our targeted organization -- 'and one of the greatest things about it is you can have an early, an unexpected, early retirement. And you will be totally set if you go to that specific country.' "

Edmonds also said the woman's husband told her she would be admitted to the group, especially if she said she worked for the FBI.

Later, Edmonds said, the woman approached her with a list dividing up individuals whose phone lines were being secretly tapped: Under the plan, the woman would translate conversations of her former co-workers in the target organization, and Edmonds would handle other phone calls. Edmonds said she refused and that the woman told her that her lack of cooperation could put her family in danger.

Edmonds said she also brought her concerns to her supervisor and other FBI officials in the Washington field office. When no action was taken, she said, she reported her concerns to the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, then to Justice's inspector general.

"Investigations are being compromised," Edmonds wrote to the inspector general's office in March. "Incorrect or misleading translations are being sent to agents in the field. Translations are being blocked and circumvented."

Government officials familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified said that both Edmonds and the woman were given polygraph examinations by the FBI and that both passed.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Catullus

You won't believe this, and I can't believe I'm admitting it, but I actually wrote a serious article on this for a uni paper a couple of years ago. Going back to the glory days of the mid-to-late 80s WWF. There were the late Cold War glory years of the Evil Empire (supervillain: Nikolai Volkov, who used to wave a Soviet flag and sing the Soviet national anthem before every match) and the Ayatollah (supervillain 2: the Iron Sheikh). There was the post-Cold War, X-Files/Vast Government Conspiracy/searching for a role and looking inward period (supervillain: Irwin R. Shyster, "I.R.S" - the wrestling government tax bureaucrat who used to read out poetry about filing your tax return early, and who had a little "Tax Tips" section, in which he advised 12 year-olds to declare their lawn-mowing money to the government). With the WWF/WCW split, the WCW took their supervillains as the New World Order, whose power was demonstrated by their ability to suborn previous all-American icon Hulk Hogan; the WWF moved on, after the Government Conspiracy period, to feature The Corporation as the big bad, with ordinary everyman Stone Cold Steve Austin as the hero, and corporate skullduggery within the WWF as the lead storyline (remember when Linda McMahon, to punish Vince for allowing the (botched) human sacrifice of their daughter Stephanie, appointed Stone Cold as new WWF President? Outstanding). Haven't followed it much since Chyna turned up in WCW, because it moved channels out here and we don't get it anymore.

Of course, all this ignores resurrections, inbreeding, massive pythons, Mr T, bagpipes, The Missing Link, GI Joe cross-overs, people changing personality after being struck by lightning, hair-dressing matches, Elvis impersonators, Oddjob from James Bond, human sacrifices, "But I never knew I had a brother!", steel-cages, drag queens, housework challenges, Andre the Giant and the Really, Really Cunning Plans of the finest malevolent manager in history, Bobby "The Brain" Heenan. Who all the kids *knew* was bad, because he cheated in the Halloween apple-bob.

(Won't even *mention* the future Governor of Minnesota. Though he did look exceptionally fetching in his pink tights and feather boas, and did a mean line with Gorilla Monsoon in commentary.)

OMG!! That is hilarious!! I knew someone would have the balls to write a paper on that. My boss and I were talking about the war on terrorism/Iraq and he mentioned that if you didn't know who the enemies of the U.S. were all you had to do was watch Pro Wrestling to find out. In the 50's there were Japanese and German villains. Later, that changed to Russian and Iranian villains because of the Cold war and the Iranian Hostage situation. You also had Allies represented like the British and the Poles. I haven't watched Pro Wrestling in a long time but I'm sure there has to be a set of villains who represent America's new enemies. I'd love to bring this up in a class on US foreign policy. It would be an interesting conversation to say the least. :laugh: :laugh:

[fansince62]

ASF.....please....you're not examing your hypotheses from the pov of the contrapositive.....if you accept your assertions, then they have to square with other behaviour....for instance

1) let's see....the Israeli's are ubermen who can plot incredibly sophisticated assasinations, coordinate multi-threaded attacks, penetrate every nook and cranny of government....but they can't seal their borders, they can't find & assassinate terrorist leadership permanently, they can't stop Yassar Arafat........

2) if we know anythng from recent events, it is that collecting, correlating, fusing and distributing information is where the action is at..........what makes you so sure our own government....let alone the Israeli's is so superhumanly/technically efficient at this? what is your insider information on how intelligence and law enforcement really works and how adept they are with new technologies (let alone older, tried & true processes such as humint)? areb there historical events that give you pause to consider?

3) are you sure that there aren't also oversight processes established in statute? best you review all the law my friend....

4) why does pursuing one policy branch equate to the "fascism" you and others have heavy handedly suggested is a possibility?

5) are you deadly sure that just because a policy is published that it is actually followed? in my own little world I have seen policies routinely promulgated that are not followed cuz the money aint there to make it happen.

where are the no-kidding facts? not conjecture and speculation (tinged with possible anti-semetic hyperventilating), but real, no kidding "I was a spy for the Israelis who bought influence with Richard Perl or Paul Wolfowitz, or Candy Rice.........and on).

the problem is how do you generalize from isolated cases to the larger "truth" you are advancing. having been inside the belly of the beast, I don't doubt for a moment that there are competing and powerful forces who exercise disproportionate influence. but I also haven't seen, over the course of 30 odd years, the sort of concentrated, cynical, wildly anti-democratic thrusts you seem to believe have robbed the Republic and its citizens.

[Art]

Allow me to briefly reply to your bullet points.

You began by saying no one you know, no matter how removed, has actually been effected by the application of the Patriot Act. You then followed this by saying that such an admission is meaningless because you make it practice not to associate with the type of people who would be affected.

Clearly this sentence clearly represents two things. First, that the danger of the Patriot Act isn't far-reaching because second, you recognize that a type of person is affected by it and you don't let yourself know them. I'll open the question up further to the board. Who here knows anyone, no matter how removed, who has been affected by the Patriot Act.

My guess is no one here. My guess is that each of us knows hundreds of people. Not one story has filtered back to us that anyone they know, or know about has been impacted. The criticism of the Patiot Act, therefore, seems a lot like hysterical liberalism creating the worst possible outcome for anything they don't like. They did this about the war in Iraq. They did this about the war in Afghanistan. They do it all the time. I've yet to see them be correct about it.

In terms of the wiretap provisions, let's just say, you and I don't agree on how such would be in violation of the Fourth Amendment. I think we've briefly touched on the fact that information like this travels over data lines that are either owned or regulated by the government. If you are dumb enough to use a cell phone, or transmit terroristic plans over public lines that any hacker can access, the government probably should be able to monitor the same however they wish. I don't know that it's unreasonable. Remember, the data is being captured outside of one's home. I don't see in the fourth Amendment that the spoken or written word trasmitted out of one's home is protected. I see where the government can't come in and take papers or search home computers. I just don't see where that extends beyond the foundation of their homes. Once they send a message beyond those walls, to another computer, or telephone, over lines regulated or owned by the government, you get into what is at least an area where the clear violation of the Fourth Amendment statement you made should be couched a little.

The next part of your thoughtful reply does bother me.

You wrote that the Patriot Act provides for the possible indefinite detention of non-citizens. You argue this is wrong because you said, "The Bill of Rights makes no distinction between citizens and noncitizens."

In fact, the Bill of Rights is part of the U.S. Constitution, is it not? If so, what does the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution state? Here's a reminder:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Clearly, and with no contrary statement on your part, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to the people of the United States. It was written by the people of the United States, for the people of the United States. We didn't establish the Constitution for the World of America. We established it for the United States. If you aren't a citizen OF the United States you can't possibly believe you have the rights OF a citizen of the United States. You don't and you never have. No one has seriously made the argument you've made if they'd simply read the Preamble to the Constitution.

The obvious retort is not at all that the government will only use the power against terrorists. The obvious retort is the government will use this power against any non-citizen it wishes and it will even abuse the power if it wants. And, that's just how it is, and none of us can say we can't, because we can, because non-citizens don't have the rights of citizens.

That you appear to be firmly in the Israel controls the U.S. and was responsible for 9/11 probably makes much by way of conversation difficult in the extreme with you, because not only would we have to buy into this insanity, but, we'd also have to agree that the U.S. knows it's true and is hiding it. We'd have to go this far because we know there's admission by Bin Laden of his role in the actions. The only way that isn't persuasive is if we doctored the tape and we'd only doctor the tape if we were in on it.

I know you've been watching a lot of 24 lately, and Sutherland is great in it, but, in the end, it's just a television show .

[Catullus]

Originally posted by 56Arrington56

OMG!! That is hilarious!! I knew someone would have the balls to write a paper on that. My boss and I were talking about the war on terrorism/Iraq and he mentioned that if you didn't know who the enemies of the U.S. were all you had to do was watch Pro Wrestling to find out. In the 50's there were Japanese and German villains. Later, that changed to Russian and Iranian villains because of the Cold war and the Iranian Hostage situation. You also had Allies represented like the British and the Poles. I haven't watched Pro Wrestling in a long time but I'm sure there has to be a set of villains who represent America's new enemies. I'd love to bring this up in a class on US foreign policy. It would be an interesting conversation to say the least. :laugh: :laugh:

I would love to see some old 50s-early Cold War wrestling going - it'd be wonderful stuff (though what on earth would the 50s Polish gimmicks be? ) As for today, you could do a beautifully arrogant, sneering Frenchman who periodically refuses to wrestle because he hasn't been consulted, he pulled out of the contract 40 years ago, and wrestling's a capitalist-imperialist American pig-dog construct, anyway...beyond that, Osama's just too *thin* to be credible (though you could do a marvellous line in grabbing him by the beard and swinging him over your head - great way to clear a 20-man Royal Rumble .)

The other idea, which had an even better reaction in one of my international relations classes, was that it seemed highly likely that there could only be a world government in the future if Earth were attacked by aliens - there'd have to be some massive, potentially continuous and probably military disaster which could only be responded to on a planetary scale, with a single planetary chain of command. Spurred a furious argument, and it then turned out that it's a moderately widely-held view. Helped that, as I later found out, the tutor was an old Star Trek fan - used to go to conventions. Hell of a class, in no uncertain terms .

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Art

You began by saying no one you know, no matter how removed, has actually been effected by the application of the Patriot Act. You then followed this by saying that such an admission is meaningless because you make it practice not to associate with the type of people who would be affected.

Clearly this sentence clearly represents two things. First, that the danger of the Patriot Act isn't far-reaching because second, you recognize that a type of person is affected by it and you don't let yourself know them.

Art, you may have interpreted my statement about not associating with those who might be affected to mean that I don't associate with terrorists. Well, obviously that's true, but I meant a broader circle of people. Namely, Muslims and people from countries with high Muslim populations, and also any vocal opponent of (any) federal government policies.

The reason I don't associate with Muslims and opponents of the federal government is because I don't care to make things worse than they are for me, in terms of reprisals from enemies or the government. This chilling effect on my actions is thus an actual effect of the Patriot Act, whether you care to admit it or not.

Also, you are missing the obvious: do you think the government really wants to inform the people it's spying on, that it's spying on them? You're missing the genius of the 1984-style police state. Winston didn't know he was being spied on until he was arrested.

In terms of the wiretap provisions, let's just say, you and I don't agree on how such would be in violation of the Fourth Amendment. I think we've briefly touched on the fact that information like this travels over data lines that are either owned or regulated by the government. If you are dumb enough to use a cell phone, or transmit terroristic plans over public lines that any hacker can access, the government probably should be able to monitor the same however they wish. I don't know that it's unreasonable. Remember, the data is being captured outside of one's home. I don't see in the fourth Amendment that the spoken or written word trasmitted out of one's home is protected. I see where the government can't come in and take papers or search home computers. I just don't see where that extends beyond the foundation of their homes. Once they send a message beyond those walls, to another computer, or telephone, over lines regulated or owned by the government, you get into what is at least an area where the clear violation of the Fourth Amendment statement you made should be couched a little.

We did argue about this some time ago. I'm too tired to do that again, but I recall more or less winning that argument. Now I realize you can't admit anyone wins arguments with you, so let's just leave it that "you understood my points."

The next part of your thoughtful reply does bother me.

You wrote that the Patriot Act provides for the possible indefinite detention of non-citizens. You argue this is wrong because you said, "The Bill of Rights makes no distinction between citizens and noncitizens."

In fact, the Bill of Rights is part of the U.S. Constitution, is it not? If so, what does the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution state?

Clearly, and with no contrary statement on your part, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to the people of the United States. It was written by the people of the United States, for the people of the United States. We didn't establish the Constitution for the World of America. We established it for the United States. If you aren't a citizen OF the United States you can't possibly believe you have the rights OF a citizen of the United States. You don't and you never have. No one has seriously made the argument you've made if they'd simply read the Preamble to the Constitution.

Art, I understand your points and even agree with them to some extent. As a battle-scarred veteran of the "illegal Mexican alien" thread last year, I'm obviously on record as not favoring the same rights for aliens as for ourselves, and I'm greatly in favor of securing our ridiculously porous borders against illegal immigration of all stripes.

However, it doesn't matter what you and I think. Case law has long held that aliens have the same rights under the Bill of Rights that we do:

http://www.vidaamericana.com/english/billofrights.html

"Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a 'person' .... Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as 'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."

-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Plyler v. Doe (1982)

On to your next point....

That you appear to be firmly in the Israel controls the U.S. and was responsible for 9/11 probably makes much by way of conversation difficult in the extreme with you, because not only would we have to buy into this insanity, but, we'd also have to agree that the U.S. knows it's true and is hiding it.

OK, you're leaping far ahead of my position.

I do happen to believe that Israel has disproportionate control of the U.S. government and media, but "was responsible for 9/11" is a cheap shot and you know it.

My position is that 9/11 was directed by anti-Islamic, pro-Israeli hawks in either U.S. or Israeli military/intelligence circles. This position does not at all require Israel's involvement at any high or low level. As I said before, it could be 10 spooks with access to a slush fund, and all 10 spooks could be U.S. citizens.

This is a pretty explosive issue, so please take care when exercising your usual "distort the other side" approach to rhetoric.

We'd have to go this far because we know there's admission by Bin Laden of his role in the actions. The only way that isn't persuasive is if we doctored the tape and we'd only doctor the tape if we were in on it.

OK, Art, I guess we were in on it. Apparently we did doctor the tape, or at least its translation.

You can't make this stuff up:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/01/Laden/tapes9_Monitor.html

Mistranslated Osama bin Laden Video - the German Press Investigates

by Craig Morris

ON December 20, 2001, German TV channel "Das Erste" broadcast its analysis of the White House's translation of the OBL video that George Bush has called a "confession of guilt". On the show Monitor, two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation not only to be inaccurate, but "manipulative".

Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini, one of the translators, states,

"I have carefully examined the Pentagon's translation. This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of Bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."

Whereas the White House would have us believe that OBL admits that "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy…", translator Dr. Murad Alami finds that:

"'In advance' is not said. The translation is wrong. At least when we look at the original Arabic, and there are no misunderstandings to allow us to read it into the original."

At another point, the White House translation reads: "We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day." Dr. Murad Alami:

"'Previous' is never said. The subsequent statement that this event would take place on that day cannot be heard in the original Arabic version."

The White House's version also included the sentence "we asked each of them to go to America", but Alami says the original formulation is in the passive along the lines of "they were required to go". He also say that the sentence afterwards - "they didn't know anything about the operation" - cannot be understood.

Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg sums it up:

"The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."

Meanwhile the US press has not picked up on this story at all, reporting instead that a new translation has revealed that OBL even mentions the names of some of those involved. But the item is all over the German press, from Germany's Channel One ("Das Erste" - the ones who broke the story, equivalent to NBC or the BBC) to ZDF (Channel Two) to Der Spiegel (the equivalent of Time or The Economist. More surprisingly, as I write the following site appears on Lycos in German: http://www.netzeitung.de/servlets/page?section=1109&item=172422 - but nothing under lycos.com in English.

Instead, we read in The Washington Post of Friday, December 21, 2001 (the day after the German TV show was broadcast) that a new translation done in the US

"also indicates bin Laden had even more knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon than was apparent in the original Defense Department translation.... Although the expanded version does not change the substance of what was released, it provides added details and color to what has been disclosed."

Art, it's depressing to think about, and I take no delight in this. But when you look closely at the Bush administration, you find that they have been lying continuously since 9/11. They are simply making up sh!t to get away with what they want to do.

They've tried to frame Iraq repeatedly -- for 9/11, for anthrax attacks, for a current and active WMD program. All lies.

They've offered us almost no actual information about 9/11, and what they've offered appears mostly to be lies. Meanwhile, they've set up a national spy network on all U.S residents, put 650 "bad guys" in legal outer space in Guantanemo Bay, wiped out Afghanistan and anyone who might have known about a 9/11 plot, wiped out Iraq, and alienated and intimidated our allies.

I really don't like contemplating the idea of organized deception and treason by high U.S. officials, but I'm also not stupid. It's a genuine possibility.

[Ax]

ASF

Like a lot of people, it's not that I can't make a compelling argument supported by unquestionable facts. {It's that sometimes I choose not to} It's not that I can't grasp the complexity of certain subjects. {Although sometimes I don't} It's not that I fear I can't write as skillfully as people like Art. {I know I can't. So there is no fear} And it's not like I'm not at all interested in conspiracy theories. {Some are very believable}

It's just I usually follow my first instincts about things and then let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm not. And in doing so it's easier for me to cut to the chase and condense all my opinions and feelings into a single thought that best exhibits a personal belief of not wasting much time debating subjects that appear to me to be based in fantasy.

So therefore, like a lot of people I'll resort to the use of one of those condensed thoughts.

You sir, are a WHACKO!

[phanatic]

Oh my! Could there be corruption in the White House? What are their goals? You know that every party has their own goals and most of the time BAD things happen to achieve them. Does this make them right or wrong? This is by no means an admition of guilt from either party.

Heres a link to HUNDREDS of articles on the corruption of the Clinton "regime". If you honestly think the current administration is corrupt then you must think the same of the prior. ENJOY!!!