Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Notes In The Margin

1. McCain's foreign advisor for Latin America is Otto "Death Squads" Reich. I kid you not. And he is busy comparing Hugo Chavez with Hitler and Mussolini.

2. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, America’s top military official, is making a hasty visit to Pakistan after Pakistan troops received orders to open fire on U.S. troops if they launch another air or ground raid across the Afghan border. Afghan ministers have staged a walkout in protest at the high civilian death rates inflicted by US-led forces.

3. McCain is calling for a 9-11-style commission into the Wall Street collapse. Joseph Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2001, compares the collapse of the GOP's patented "trickle-down" market fundamentalism with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Meanwhile, the US government is all but nationalising AIG by extending an 85-billion-dollar loan in exchange for a nearly 80-percent stake in the company, including all company assets.

4. Glennzilla today looks at the appalling anthrax testimony of FBI head Robert Mueller. My comments:
Welcome To The Crazy Conspiracy Theorists Club

This answer alone tells us all we need to know:
I don't know the answers to those questions as to how we eliminated Dugway and Battelle. I'll have to get back to you at some point.
Sorry? This is the cornerstone of the FBI's case! Mueller has had weeks - months - to prepare and he cannot even provide an answer to that central question? Not even a pretend answer to keep the press happy? In a sane world, that alone would be cause for dismissal.

Glenn, surely it is time to draw some conclusions? Unfortunately, they are downright scary.

And as soon as you say these things, your public credibility will be shot (in many people's eyes, anyway) and your words will be thrown back at you time and again as "proof" that you should not be taken seriously on any issue.

I know: I am one of the people who said, way back in March 2003, that Saddam had no WMDs and Iraq was only being invaded for the oil. I am one of the people who said the 911 Commission not only avoided difficult questions but was specifically designed to avoid those questions.

So are you ready to draw some conclusions here?

I mean, why would Mueller be lying? Why would they have chased the wrong guy for so many years? Why would they be so keen to close off a case with so many holes in it? Why has the corporate media given the FBI a free ride on this issue for so long? Why isn't Bush taking an interest on an issue of such critical importance? Why isn't Cheney warning the public that the anthrax killer might still be on the loose? Why aren't the Dems jumping up and down and screaming?

I'll tell you why.

This was Dick Cheney just five days after 911:
We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will. We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful. That's the world these folks operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.
It's not that the Dems are scared of being targetted with anthrax. It's that the Dems have actively co-conspired with Cheney and Bush to do a lot of bad things on "the dark side". Now they too are complicit in a host of crimes. And whenever Cheney says "Don't go there" they just wink and walk away.

Same thing with the media. Your patriotic D.C. journos just love walking away from big stories whenever "national security" is at stake. It makes them feel important.

And you can say all that without saying that either 911 or the anthrax attacks were a LIHOP or MIHOP operation. But with the anthrax attacks in particular, you are pushing credibility.

I mean, Bin Laden has been blamed for 911, and there's a strange-looking tape of him saying he did it, and even though the FBI has never built a case against him, maybe they are sitting on information that we'll never see. Who knows?

But Bruce Ivins? The guy is dead. He worked in a highly secured government lab. There's no reason not to release all the evidence they have. There's no reason for a cover-up. Unless...

Unless..????! Well, you tell me.

This shit has been driving me crazy for years. If there's a rational explanation, I'd love to hear it!
The Bush administration's failure to take this anthrax investigation seriously exposes (again) the fact they they actually do not really care all that much about the supposedly dire threat of terrorism.

Terrorism is a great excuse for spending money, launching wars, and repressing civil rights. It sells newspapers and can it makes a useful electioneering tool.

But when there's a potential killer still on the loose after seven years, it's nothing to worry about.

Is it because they don't really care about the well-being of the general population (see e.g. Katrina et al)?

Or it is because they know damned well who the real terrorists are?
I thought those comments might draw a few heated responses, but BushWorld seems to be stunned into silence today. Funny, that.

Finally, via Simon Jackman, here's a vid to cheer all you miserable Malditos Yanquis up: