What could they possibly be thinking . . .

The aide (a senior advisor to President Bush) said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernable reality” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” — as reported by Ron Suskind, in the New York Times Magazine, 10-17-2004 –Geov Parrish, History ignored, President’s men rebrand ‘War on Terror’ as World War III, WorkingForChange.com, 09.12.06

[White House Press Sec.] Tony [Snow]: No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself. –In which Tony Snow laughs at me (but the last laugh is on Tony), BTC News, 9/22/2006

They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we’re getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says “I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate.” –‘A Coup Has Occurred,’ Daniel Ellsberg (who leaked the secret Vietnam War “Pentagon Papers”), Sep. 20, 2007

[Film maker George] Lucas’ own geopolitics can sound pretty bleak: “All democracies turn into dictatorshipship, but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it’s Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea “ Dark Victory -April 23, 2002, 12:40:03

14 thoughts on “What could they possibly be thinking . . .”

    1. jomama,

      I agree – I think few people are aware. I hold a slim hope for a miracle, but the history of the past seven years is frightful to consider. The people who have been either elected or “placed” in charge of the government of the U.S. have completely sold out to the effort by the neocons to undo the constitution. One of the sad aspects of this is that there will be no consequences for any of them. Do Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Gonzales, et al deserve punishment for their crimes? Of course. They are, every one of them traitors and murderers of the worst sort.

      But will anything happen to them? Of course not. The U.S. no longer has the will to fight for itself. Even people I admire – Amy Goodman and Thom Hartmann to name two, shy away from bringing to light the murderous start to this regime – the demolition of the WTC. IMO this is the one last possibility for any hope to bring a smattering of truth to the public.

      Following the words of the Serenity Prayer, I see that I need to accept that which I cannot change. This doesn’t mean I’ll cease my efforts to get 9/11 truth public. I’ll do that no matter what. What I accept that I cannot change is that those in political power are going to do nothing to substantively resolve the present situation. I hope, still following the serenity prayer, that I have been wise enough to know the difference. It is sad and hard to accept this, but short of some sort of miracle (which I always hold out hope for) any change that is going to occur is going to take a long, long time.

      The neocons brought this slashing attack on our constitution and on the people of the world with the implementation of their own “Pearl Harbor.” A “Reverse Pearl Harbor,” where their complicity and guilt is revealed to all is probably the only way to have a chance to reverse their sordid deeds.


      1. The last seven years are easily comparable to the eight under Clinton. It might be time to drop the political parties and make those that support this administration and the ones before it act to your actions.

      2. Amen, Donilo. And nicely put, too.
        I take it Amy Goodman and Thom Hartman are surrogates for present company and practically all the rest of alternative media. Two and a half cheers for these “intrepid” sites that are in constant righteous turmoil over random imperial crimes rumored to have happened on distant continents but fear to print an honest sentence about what transpired under their noses on 911. Might as well agonize over a sty in your eye when you are in the terminal throes of brain cancer. Or better, sit back and parody the whole charade from a safe vantage point, as Lucas seems to do. Ciao, efr

    2. I hadn’t heard the comment, but am not surprised he said it. Lucas has always been on the right side. He helped to form my ideas on morality and politics.

    3. It’s something all the greco-roman historians and political philosophers were aware of. Start with Aristotle’s _Politics_.

      Zhu Bajie

  1. They’re right – the antiwar people are “reality-based” – and thus have a big problem acknowledging that we can’t stop them from doing a war in Iran.

    Gabriel Kolko demonstrates this with his denial that a war in Iran is possible.

    The antiwar crowd is divided into two camps: the ones who knew the Iraq war would be bad and who know the Iran war will be bad – and the ones who discovered the Iraq war is bad and can’t believe anybody would start yet another war.

    For the latter, the cognitive dissonance of just how powerless the antiwar movement is is disheartening. It’s why Abby Hoffman committed suicide – after decades of activism, what did he end up with? Ronald Reagan.

    Meanwhile Bush and Cheney just keep right on moving on.

    Folks, the Iran war is a done deal. Now how are we going to deal with that?

  2. So, the great experiment with “Democracy” did not work – again…

    Our time is the time when great social experiments collapse – “communism” in Russia, now “democracy” in the US… long live the King.

  3. Try the Indian way of politics based on the British Parliamentary system. Colin Powell once is reported to have said that the problem with India was that it had too much of democracy – meaning that everyone and everyone has a chance to say what they want. Powell did not like that he would have liked everyone to be subservient to the man at the helm as he was subservient to Bush.
    People here do not fight to defend the constitution. However, if they don’t get what they want they vote the government out. Two instances are good examples. Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency – a form of dictatotorship that was unequalled even in neighbouring Pakistan. Bowing to world pressure , she decided to hold elections at a time when her vast intelligence network told her that she would win. The people threw her out ruthlessly.
    The BJP – the Hindu Nationalist party – were also very sure that they would win. The actually put out a publicity campaign called “India shining”. The world thought that they would win but the Indian people threw them out.

  4. All -isms suck.

    It's never the system, it is the people who think they run it.

    With any luck, Bush and his minions and handlers may yet find there is a point beyond which the military will not go. Or, just as likely, the economy will prove out as fiscally as bankrupt as Bush & co are morally.

    But don't suggest that to the Foxaganda crowd.

    1. I think though that the problem with “democracy” in the US is the inability of american population to make a good judgement on the policy issues. The quality of the electorate is going down over the last 50 years.
      Speaking of Indian influence – a lot of immigrants from India would be internally, culturally biased against Islam, thus the policy in the Middle East is less driven by the interests of the US, but more by “genetic level” emotions. Same true about jewish immigrants and Israel lobby.

      And immigration from not-so-democratic countries once again biases electorate towards having a blind eye on the collapse of the balance of power system.

      True democracies always evolve into dictatorships (very ancient Aristotel’s opinion) – sooner or later. I would say that only having the 4th power – namely Monarchy branch should make it stable – like the UK, like other older European countries.

      On top of that the bigger the country – the worse democracy works. US evolution towards World Empire therefore is also to blame, but that’s apparent – Empire and democracy simply don’t fit.

      These are the root causes – electorate and “Pax Americana” – everything else is just pretty talk.

  5. Most Americans are too busy trying to earn a living to pay much attention to politics. I was.

    Zhu Bajie

  6. I contend that Democracy always leads to Dictatorship. It is an unavoidable consequence of 534 sociopaths offering something to everyone. You end up with a system that is spending almost 3 billion dollars a day more than it earns.

    The answer no one wants to hear except the very rare honest man who is willing to look into his own heart, is to return funding of the central government to the States and shrink the Central Government to it's Constitutional size. This is of course what most do not want, even as the system hurtles itself into Oblivion. Man has learned to pull democracy's slot machine handle like an addicted rat who gets pleasure via implanted brain electrodes without the slightest concern that payment will be presented to his grandchildren and beyond.

    Were States and Counties providing 98% of Government, there is not a single issue that could escape the attention of a few hundred activists at each State Legislature, hence policy would be properly "Parented" and Better law would result.


    I see a world where 90% or more you do for yourself, perhaps 8% is State and County, 2% Central under the control of the Confederated States.

    Here is a deep question:

    Ask yourself why we let Government get away with things we would not allow a 4 yr. old to do?

Comments are closed.