The Defeat of America By Terrorists

“And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” - George Bush Sept 14, 2001 in NYC (video)

Crowd roars, chanting: “USA.  USA.  USA.”

Killing Americans

A decade ago on 9-11, foreigners on American soil killed thousands of civilians in four horrific commercial airplane crashes.   Three days later New Yorkers rallied around the President as he promised to strike back at “the people who knocked these buildings down” and dared spill American blood.

Within weeks, the US government retaliated by invading Afghanistan.  Before the decade had ended, the US government, already expert in killing foreign civilians, had invaded two foreign countries and killed thousands more Afghan, Iraqi, Pakistani, and Yemeni civilians.  US troops still occupy Afghanistan and Iraq today, regularly attacking Pakistan and Yemen with drones: all in the name of “fighting terrorism” and “protecting our freedoms.”

Or so the US government would have us think.

The Terrified States of America

“Americans are asking ‘Why do they hate us?’

“They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” - Then-President Bush in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, explaining why terrorists attacked Americans. 

After 9-11, there was little talk of federal regulations that prevented airlines and citizens from defending themselves on airplanes and helped the attacks succeed.  Instead the federal government and the media terrorized citizens with public talk of WMD and mushroom clouds.  Playing on those fears, the US government justified limiting the very freedoms it pretends to defend with:

• the PATRIOT Act
• the TSA
• the Department of Homeland Security
• seemingly endless undeclared and therefore un-constitutional wars
• Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo
• torture
• extraordinary rendition
• assassination lists.

The federal government bureaucracy grew in response to 9-11 and most Americans sat back  as the federal government listened to their phone calls, opened their mail, frisked them in public places without probable cause of criminal activity, and forced them to show their identity papers while traveling.  Most Americans are still sitting back.

“Targeted Kill” Lists Under Bush

"I can assure you that no constitutional questions are raised here. There are authorities that the president can give to officials.  He's well within the balance of accepted practice and the letter of his constitutional authority." - Then-national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice November 2002, after Bush administration killed US citizen Kamal Derwish with a Predator drone.[1]

Less than a week after 9-11, on Sept. 17, 2001, President Bush signed a classified directive authorizing the CIA to kill or capture suspected al-Qaida members and create detention facilities where suspects could be interrogated and tortured.[2]  The directive didn’t distinguish between foreigners and US citizens.  If the US government thinks a US citizen is a “terrorist threat” to the US, the government will imprison or execute that person without due process, despite their precious freedoms Bush would outline three days later in his September 20th address to Congress.  Bush also authorized a “kill list” of terrorist leaders to be executed by the CIA.   

One year after 9-11 in November 2002, the US government killed American terror suspect Kamal Derwish with a Predator drone in Yemen as “collateral damage” when it was targeting another person on the “kill list.”  Most Americans let their government kill an American without due process and without complaint.

“Targeted Kill” Lists Under Obama

"And he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda." – President Obama on the assassination of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki

Our “constitutional scholar,” President Obama is no better than Bush when it comes to killing US citizens without due process.  Obama’s Director of National Intelligence in 2010, Dennis Blair, acknowledged that the US government would execute US citizens without due process in court if they were involved in terrorism.

In June 2010, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under the Obama administration wrote a secret 50-page memorandum to rationalize its planned execution of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.[3][4]  And on September 30, 2011, the Obama administration announced the US had killed two American citizens in Yemen: Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan.[5][6]  Unlike Derwish, a US citizen killed during the Bush administration, the Obama administration intended to execute Awlaki, also a US citizen. 

Obama’s Press Secretary, Jay Carney, speaking of Awlaki’s execution, assured Americans that it was all legal (video), but repeatedly refused to state whether the Obama administration would supply any evidence even after the fact:

Carney: He was obviously also an active recruiter of al Qaeda terrorists, so, I don’t think anybody in the field would dispute any of those assertions.

Tapper (reporter): You don’t think anybody else in the government would dispute those assertions…?

Carney: I wouldn’t know of any credible terrorist expert who would dispute the fact that he was a leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula and that he was operationally involved in terrorist attacks against American interests and citizens.

Tapper: Do you plan on bringing before the public any proof of these charges?

…

Tapper: Can you show us or the American people?  Has a judge been shown?

Carney: Again, Jake, I’m not going to go any further than what I’ve said about the circumstances of his death.  And the case against him which you’re linking.

…

Tapper: Is there going to be any evidence presented?

Carney: I don’t have anything for you on that.

After their deaths, when the two men could not defend themselves against government accusations, anonymous government sources detailed the accusations against them which President Obama echoed.[9]

“Awlaki was the leader of external operations for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In that role, he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans.” - President Obama [10]

According to Obama, Awlaki was an American “guilty of planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans.”  Doesn’t our system of government require that evidence must be given in a court of law before a final determination of guilt can be made? 

Assassination is not Due Process

“The precedent set by the killing of Awlaki establishes the frightening legal premise that any suspected enemy of the United States - even if they are a citizen - can be taken out on the President's say-so alone.  Part of the very concept of citizenship is the protection of due process and the rule of law.  The President wants to spread American values around the world but continues to do great damage to them here at home, appointing himself judge, jury, and executioner by presidential decree.” – Ron Paul writing in the NY Daily News, Oct 3, 2011

The fifth amendment was added to the US Constitution to protect individuals: no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”  The fifth amendment is one of ten in the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to protect Americans from a too-powerful government.  The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to explicitly limit the powers of the federal government.  Everything in the Constitution is based on a mistrust of government—an expectation that those in power will tend to abuse their power. 

Today the unrestrained executive branch fulfills the worst expectations of those who wrote the Constitution:

• It has created an assassination list, where individuals are executed without due process.[11]
• Moreover, the evidence against those on the list is classified—a case of the fox guarding the henhouse as the American people are forced to trust the government to determine whether the government is breaking the law.

Sadly, most Americans forgo their fifth amendment rights as they willingly relinquish their liberties and trust the government.  “This is war,” they tell themselves.  But how can this be war if no war has been declared per the Constitution?

If this really is war, why did the Obama administration go to the trouble to write a secret 50-page memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to attempt to justify its planned execution of Awlaki?

Ron Paul labeled the killings an assassination, warning Americans to beware of accepting government executions without due process.[12]  You didn’t have to search very long on your radio (45 minutes into this podcast) to find mouths that roared about “crazy Ron Paul” and how Awlaki was an “enemy combatant” and didn’t deserve any of his rights.  Would those same “mouths that roared” be calling Ron Paul crazy if he defended their first amendment right to freedom of expression if the government decided to take it away?

It’s a short step from accepting an undeclared, un-constitutional war, concentration camps, and government executions of American citizens without due process, to accepting the execution of Americans for other seemingly good and expedient reasons.[13]

Evidence of America’s Defeat

 

The evidence:

• submissive citizens in porno-scanners, hands up high, legs spread like prisoners, waiting for their jailers’ permission to move
• submissive parents standing by and watching as their children are molested by TSA agents
• the “land of the Free” as a surveillance state—if US troops overseas truly were fighting for our freedoms—and they’re not—they’d be losing the war[14][15][16]
• Americans cheering the murder of other Americans who oppose US government invasions and ignoring the murder of foreigners for the lies of the US government.

Over ten years ago on the night of 9-11, then-President Bush addressed the nation and predicted the victory of justice and peace over terrorism:

“This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.”[17]

Bush was wrong.  In America, the terrorists won.

_______________________

[1] “Killing Americans: On uncharted ground in attack,” Matt Apuzzo, AP, Sept 30 2011, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9873878 on Oct 1, 2011).

[2] “Timeline: History Of Harsh Interrogation Techniques,”Corey Flintoff, Apr 22, 2009, NPR, (Accessed at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103376537 on Oct 7, 2011).

The existence of this directive was discovered by an ACLU FOIA request.

[3] “Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen,” By CHARLIE SAVAGE, NY Times, Oct 8, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all on Oct 9, 2011). 

[4] “Secret White House memo made case for legally killing Anwar al-Awlaki: Report,” BY Tina Moore, DAILY NEWS, Oct 8, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/10/08/2011-10-08_secret_white_house_memo_made_case_for_legally_killing_anwar_alawlaki_report.html on Oct 9, 2011).

[5] “Anwar al-Aulaqi, U.S.-born cleric linked to al-Qaeda, killed in Yemen,” By Sudarsan Raghavan, Sept 30, 2011, Washington Post, (Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/anwar-al-aulaqi-us-born-cleric-linked-to-al-qaeda-killed-yemen-says/2011/09/30/gIQAsoWO9K_story.html on Sept 30, 2011).

[6] “2nd American in Strike Waged Qaeda Media War,” By ROBBIE BROWN and KIM SEVERSON, NY Times, Sept 30, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/samir-khan-killed-by-drone-spun-out-of-the-american-middle-class.html on Oct 5, 2011).

[7] “Al Qaeda's Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen,” CBS/AP, Sept 30, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/501364/main20113732.shtml on Oct 7, 2011).

Government sources didn’t mention the Pentagon recruiting Awlaki when he dined at the Pentagon after 9-11 (video), nor his attendance at a prayer group for Muslims in Congress.[8][9]

[8] “EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11,” By Catherine Herridge, FoxNews, Oct 20, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/ on Oct 7, 2011).

[9] “Some Muslims Attending Capitol Hill Prayer Group Have Terror Ties, Probe Reveals,” By Jana Winter, FoxNews, Nov 11, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/11/congressional-muslim-prayer-group-terror-ties/ on Oct 7, 2011).

[10] “Remarks by the President at the "Change of Office" Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Ceremony at Fort Myer, Virginia,” Sept 30, 2011, ” (Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/30/remarks-president-change-office-chairman-joint-chiefs-staff-ceremony on Oct 1, 2011).

[11] “THREATS AND RESPONSES: HUNT FOR AL QAEDA; BUSH HAS WIDENED AUTHORITY OF C.I.A. TO KILL TERRORISTS,” By JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON, NY Times, Dec 15, 2002, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/world/threats-responses-hunt-for-al-qaeda-bush-has-widened-authority-cia-kill.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm on Oct 11, 2011).

[12] “Ron Paul on Anwar al-Awlaki’s Demise: ‘I Think It’s Sad’,” The State Column, Oct 01, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/ron-paul-on-anwar-al-awlakis-demise-i-think-its-sad/ on Oct 7, 2011).

[13] “Ron Paul: US could target journalists for killing,” By Philip Elliott, Associated Press, October 5, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/10/05/ron_paul_us_could_target_journalists_for_killing/  on Oct 7, 2011).

[14] “Post-9/11, NSA 'enemies' include us,” By James Bamford, Sept 8, 2011, (Accessed at http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CA0FDA14-61EA-4015-A80B-1F6D34C59183 on Oct 9, 2011).

[15] “Senate Approves Bill to Broaden Wiretap Powers,” By ERIC LICHTBLAU, NY Times, July 10, 2008, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washington/10fisa.html?pagewanted=all on Oct 9, 2011).

[16] “Coming soon to a trash bin near you: The FBI,” By David Morgan, CBS, June 13, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/13/national/main20070845.shtml on Oct 9, 2011).

[17] “President Bush Speaks to the Nation,” PBS, Sept 11, 2001, (Accessed at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/terrorism/july-dec01/bush_speech.html on Oct 7, 2011).

Remember

“We became the radical Islamist movement's most effective recruiting tool. We descended to its barbarity. We became terrorists too.” –Chris Hedges “A Decade After 9/11: We Are What We Loathe”

It’s the ten-year anniversary of the the horror of 9-11 and our federal government wants to be sure we remember.

World Trade Center September 11, 2001

But our federal government also wants to be sure we forget.

 

Victim of US Bombing

Our rulers want us to remember thousands dying in NYC, but hope we’ll forget our own federal government killing hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq with an embargo, thousands more in Iraq and Afghanistan with bombs and invading troops, hundreds of civilians in Libya (video) with bombs, and hundreds more in Yemen and Pakistan with unmanned drones.

Selective Memory

"There's a picture of the World Trade Centre hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my flak jacket. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback." –Spec. Michael Richardson, on duty with U.S. forces in Iraq

"Oh my God, they killed my kids...God may take revenge on them. They took everyone from me.” –Ata Mohammad, 60

Our rulers want us to remember the horror of 9-11.  They’re hoping you’ll think like Michael Richardson and Ata Mohammed, but ignore the fact that the US government killed Mohammad’s children.  Our leaders want us to support or at least forget:

• the un-Constitutional US invasion of Afghanistan, purportedly because the Taliban refused to extradite a former ally of the US against the USSR (video) [1][2]
• the un-Constitutional pre-emptive invasion of Iraq over a lie about WMD against a former ally of the US against Iran
• drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen
• torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib
• a concentration camp in Guantanamo
• the gruesome horror of war and what it does to innocent children who happen to be Moslems.

At home, our leaders want to keep us fearful so they can justify:

• unlawful imprisonment, torture, and abuse of American citizens by the federal government [3]
• extraordinary rendition of American citizens [4]
• the Department of Homeland Security (DHS): a bureaucracy of 22 agencies and nearly 200,000 employees, including the TSA, headed by Big Sis, that treats all Americans like criminals
• the USA PATRIOT Act, its continuing extension by Congress, and secret interpretations of the law by our government that citizens are not allowed to know about [5]
• the REAL ID Act requiring a national ID
• treating Americans like criminals to the point where travelers get their genitals groped at the airport
• requiring you to carry your papers when you travel
• roving bands of Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) who can rifle your bags at any time while you’re in an airport
• warrantless tracking of cell phones [6][7]
• banks, employers, and stores collecting even more information from, and about you, and reporting to the federal government
• the TSA checking you before you get on the bus or train.[8]

When America Was Freer

Our rulers want us to forget life before 9-11, a time when the federal government wouldn’t even consider doing what it now does with impunity.  Remember before 9-11:

• “Your papers please” was always said with a German accent in WWII movies as a reminder of the horrors of the militarism of Nazi Germany
• Torture was what the bad guys did.
• Spying on neighbors was something Hitler Youth did in Nazi Germany
• Your Fourth Amendment right to be secure in your person was still protected
• The federal government couldn’t listen in on your phone conversations without a warrant.
• The touching of a a child’s private parts by anyone but a licensed and practicing physician would have resulted in a punch to that person’s face by anyone within striking distance. 

Freedom Isn’t Free

“There would soon, however, be another reaction. Those of us who were close to the epicenters of the 9/11 attacks would primarily grieve and mourn. Those who had some distance would indulge in the growing nationalist cant and calls for blood that would soon triumph over reason and sanity. Nationalism was a disease I knew intimately as a war correspondent. It is anti-thought. It is primarily about self-exaltation. The flip side of nationalism is always racism, the dehumanization of the enemy and all who appear to question the cause.”  –Chris Hedges “A Decade After 9/11: We Are What We Loathe”

Gung ho supporters of the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan love the “freedom isn’t free” slogan and its implication that someone else has paid for our liberty with their lives.  The slogan is not only ironic, but misguided.  US government soldiers do not fight for our freedom in foreign countries.  All the liberties we’ve lost this last decade at the hands of the federal government should make people realize that the enemy of our liberty is not overseas.

The real price we pay for our freedom is by bearing the responsibility to exercise it when our leaders seek to take our freedom away from us.  Ask yourself:

• If the war in Afghanistan did not stop Osama bin Laden, who is now dead, why are US troops still there?[9]
• If there were no WMD in Iraq, why did the US government really invade that nation?

Pay the price for freedom.  Remember.

_______________________________________

[1] “This war on terrorism is bogus,” by Michael Meacher, 6 Sept 2003, The Guardian, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq on Sept 11, 2011).

[2] “WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TALIBAN?” By Michael Rubin, Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol 6, No. 1, March 2002, (Accessed at http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue1/mrubin.pdf on Sept 11, 2011).

“The decision to arm the Afghan resistance came within two weeks of the Soviet invasion, and quickly gained momentum. In 1980, the Carter administration allocated only $30 million for the Afghan resistance, though under the Reagan administration this amount grew steadily. In 1985, Congress earmarked $250 million for Afghanistan, while Saudi Arabia contributed an equal amount. Two years later, with Saudi Arabia still reportedly matching contributions, annual American aid to the mujahidin reportedly reached $630 million.”

[3] “Analysis: Americans say mistreated by U.S., some courts listen,” By Basil Katz, Reuters, Sept 9, 2011, (Accessed at http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110909/us_nm/us_sept11_bivens on Sept 11, 2011).

[4] “Challenge to CIA renditions dismissed,” AP, Sept 8, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39067928/ns/us_news-security/#.Tm11o-xNLVo on Sept 11, 2011).

[5] “There’s a Secret Patriot Act, Senator Says,” By Spencer Ackerman, May 25, 2011, Wired, (Accessed at http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/ on Sept 11, 2011).

[6] “FOIA Victory Will Shed More Light on Warrantless Tracking of Cell Phones,” by Mark Rumold, Sept 10, 2011, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Accessed at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/09/eff-victory-forces-government-disclosure-court on Sept 11, 2011).

[7] “New Patriot Act Controversy: Is Washington Collecting Your Cell-Phone Data?” By Mark Benjamin, Time, June 24, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079666,00.html on Sept 11, 2011).

[8] “Surprise! TSA Is Searching Your Car, Subway, Ferry, Bus, AND Plane,” By Jen Quraishi, Jun. 20, 2011, (Accessed at http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly on Sept 11, 2011.

[9] “US 'planned attack on Taleban,” Sept 18, 2001, by George Arney, BBC, (Accessed at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm on Sept 11, 2011).

More questions are raised here and here.

Foregone Conclusion

Democracy: a system of government in which the cows think they pick who milks them.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (pdf) passed Congress and President Obama signed it, telling the American people:

“Congress has now approved a compromise to reduce the deficit and avert a default that would have devastated the economy.”

The noise about deal-making in Washington, D.C. over the increase in the federal government debt limit was pure political theater—a scripted performance for the American people.  The President and Congress pretended to debate and take political risks to fix the federal government’s finances, but the outcome was a foregone conclusion—increase the national debt limit.  Everything else was putting lipstick on a pig—a show for the rubes, whose price of admission is paying taxes and being prodded like cattle at airports and train stations. 

Despite the dramatic entrance of shooting victim Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) during the vote, arriving just in time to cast her vote for continued  spending of non-existent money, the conclusion was never in doubt.[1]  The votes to increase the debt limit in the House: 269-161, and the Senate: 76-24, weren’t even close. 

The only question was how much the limit would be raised.  Our political “leaders” agreed to the largest increase in the debt limit ever—a $2.4 trillion increase to the current national debt limit of $14.3 trillion.  The new $16.7 trillion limit is more than the entire economic output of everyone in the US—and the new limit is expected to be exceeded in two years.[2]  The $2.4 trillion increase is greater than the total national debt accumulated by the federal government from 1791 to 1987—the first 196 years of its existence.

Who Does the Dirty Job?

“It was a long and contentious debate.” –President Obama after signing the Budget Control Act of 2011

The congressional “debate” was mainly about how to sell the debt limit increase to the working people who pay the bills and vote to “pick” their rulers:

• Rs said they wanted no new taxes, spending cuts over the next 10 years, and a small increase to the debt limit so the next increase would come before the next Presidential election.
• President Obama and congressional Ds wanted tax increases, spending cuts over the next 10 years, and an increase to the debt limit over to $16 trillion so that with the current rate of deficit spending, the debt limit would not be exceeded until after the next Presidential election.

Leaders of both parties have never been averse to deficit spending or increasing the debt limit above the ridiculously high amount that already exists: since 1946 both parties have increased the debt limit 96 times.[3][4]  This time, both Ds and Rs wanted an agreement that let them keep spending money the government doesn’t have, but each wanted an agreement that made the other side look bad. 

In 2006, then-Senator Obama voted against increasing the debt limit when then-President Bush (R) was in office.  When asked about his 2006 senatorial  vote today(video), President Obama (D) acknowledged his vote was part of the same political game.[5]

Congressman Mike Doyle (D-Pa), expressed the true purpose of the exercise when he criticized Tea Party tactics during the negotiations:

“We have negotiated with terrorists.  This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”[6]

Default or Fearmongering?

“Default is a false threat. We take in over $220 billion in revenues every month and our debt service is only roughly $20 billion. The only way we will default is if the President of the United States makes the irresponsible choice not to pay our debts.” - Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots

Default is a false threat.  The US would not have defaulted on its debt.  The federal government takes in more than enough in tax revenues to pay interest on its debt and more.  That the US government would default was a lie—a lie to intimidate voters.

Citizens are always told this lie when their rulers want to increase spending.  Politicians scare taxpayers into agreeing with spending increases by threatening cuts to things taxpayers want.  Politicians never mention cutting out things taxpayers don’t want.

Ron Paul called it “fearmongering” (video).  When government says “default,” people become afraid.  They think they won’t be getting their checks any longer.  The fearmongering distracts the public from the real issue: that their dollars are worth less as a result of the increased debt.

Deficit Reduction

“This compromise guarantees more than two trillion dollars in deficit reduction.” – President Obama

The much ballyhooed spending cuts were not cuts to actual current spending.  They were cuts to proposed increases in spending for next year.  News stories about the agreement are filled with details on the elaborate spending cuts and savings inflated by Washington, D.C. political math:  

• The bill promises $917 billion (pdf) in spending cuts by putting caps on proposed increases in discretionary spending over the next 10 years.[7]
• The bill also promises $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, by including an allowance for interest savings, and requiring reductions in both discretionary and direct spending to make up for any shortfall in the targeted $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.
• The cuts are over ten years because it makes the amount of spending cuts seem larger when they’re multiplied by ten.
• While the doubtful future spending cuts take place over ten years, the newly increased $2.4 trillion debt limit is expected to be exceeded in less than two years.  So the federal government is still overspending by more than a trillion dollars a year.

Rs made certain that the spending cuts matched the amount of increase in the debt limit to give the appearance that they fought for reduced spending, but if the debt keeps rising, the federal government is still overspending. 

Ds pretended it was painful to vote for a bill that didn’t let them increase spending as much as planned—but D-leaders involved in the negotiations said they were able to keep the discretionary spending cuts to a minimum — just $7 billion in real terms in 2012, and an additional $3 billion in 2013.[8]

The real purpose of the bill was to let the federal government spend another $2.4 trillion it doesn’t have.  That’s why the politicians spent so much time talking about how they were cutting future spending—they didn’t want the average American thinking too much about their political rulers robbing them in plain sight today.

Cutting Increases in Future Spending

“There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles. It’s all spending cuts.”  – John Boehner

"In fact, this bill will never balance the budget.  Instead, it will add untold trillions of dollars to our deficit.  This also assumes the cuts are real cuts and not the same old Washington smoke and mirrors game of spending less than originally projected so you can claim the difference as a ‘cut.'”– Ron Paul

When politicians talk about  budget cuts they play by different rules than you or me.  For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011 talks about $917 billion in cuts over ten years.  Using real math that should be almost $92 billion in cuts the first year.  It would be if politicians used real math to plan their finances. 

But in Washington, D.C. our leaders have no respect for the intelligence of the American people.  According to their math, in the near term, the bill sets budget numbers for 2012 that would require a real cut of $7 billion in discretionary spending from 2011 levels.  But because that’s $25 billion less than projected spending would have been had it kept pace with inflation, our leaders are taking credit for $25 billion in savings.  In 2013 they estimate even higher inflation, so there are only $3 billion in real cuts for which they claim an even higher amount of savings.

So for the first two years of the ten year budget control plan, our leaders are making $10 billion in real spending cuts while taking credit for an average of $180 billion over two years, and claiming a total of $917 billion in spending cuts for the ten years from 2012 - 2021.

If Joe Sixpack could play by the same rules, instead of declaring bankruptcy when hopelessly in debt, he could ask a bank for a loan, explaining that he had decided not to buy his planned two new $90,000 Porsches every year for the next ten years—that instead he’d make a cut and buy just one new Porsche every year.  Using the same reasoning as our politicians in Washington, D.C., Joe Sixpack could multiply the cost of each new Porsche he will not purchase by 10, factor in savings for anticipated inflation on the money he isn’t spending, add savings on interest he is not paying on a loan he didn’t need to get for money he didn’t spend.  Joe could say he was saving a couple of million dollars in the next ten years, so could he please have a loan for two million dollars?

The difference between Joe Sixpack and the federal government is that after the bankers stopped laughing hysterically at Joe’s ridiculous plan, they’d give Joe the bum’s rush out the door.

Democracy: the Ideal Form of Government

“If the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives gives into establishment pressure by voting to increase the debt ceiling once again, you will know that the status quo has prevailed.” – Ron Paul, May 23, 2011

The debt limit has been increased many times in the past.  This time the mob was getting unruly, so our democratic system of government let the crowd blow off steam by voting for Tea Party candidates who talked a good game.  Despite all the rhetoric, the key point about the latest circus side show is an agreement that the debt limit will increase and the federal government gets two more years to spend money that doesn’t yet exist.  The status quo has prevailed.

That’s the beauty of our democratic system of government—it defuses riots and revolts by letting the cows think they have a say in who milks them.  Did you wake with all of the noise during this performance?  Your rulers want you to rest easy, go back to sleep—they’re taking good care of you.

_____________________

[1] Any who doubt Giffords’ mental capacities after she was shot in the head, can be assured that Giffords hasn’t forgotten that a congresswoman’s job is to keep the financial fraud going as long as possible.

[2]  “Gross Domestic Product: First Quarter 2011 (Third Estimate); Corporate Profits: First Quarter 2011 (Revised Estimate),” US Dept of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, June 24, 2011.

On June 24, 2011 the GDP was $15.1 trillion.

[3] GAO Letter to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, February 23, 1996 (pdf), (Accessed at http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/GAO-HISTORY%20OF%20DEBT%20LIMIT.pdf on Aug 3, 2011).

[4] “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,” (pdf), by Andrew Austin and Mindy Levit, Congressional Research Service, April 5, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/DEBT%20LIMIT%20HISTORY-CRS.pdf on Aug 3, 2011).

[5] Here is then-Senator Obama’s speech on March 16, 2006 opposing an increase in the debt limit.

[6] “Sources: Joe Biden likens tea partiers to terrorists,” by Jonathan Allen & John Bresnahan,  Politico.com, Aug 1, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html on Aug, 1, 2011).

[7] “Section-by-Section Analysis of the Budget Control Act of 2011 as Announced on July 31, 2011” (pdf), House Rules Committee, (Accessed at http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/731%20CBAsbs%20v2.pdf on Aug 3, 2011).

[8] “Debt deal: $32.4 billion per page,” Stephen Dinan, Aug 1, 2011, Washington Times, (Accessed at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/1/debt-deal-32-billion-page/ on Aug 3, 2011).

The Roman Eagle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gaius Marius (157 BC – 86 BC)—Roman leader who strengthened the connection between the people of Rome and their military by allowing all Roman citizens into the legion, regardless of social class.  This drew poorer citizens to military service with the prospect of owning land in conquered territory.  Marius decreed that the eagle standard of the Roman legion would be the symbol of the Senate and People of Rome (or Senatus Populusque Romanus SPQR).

Over two thousand years ago, Julius Caesar (100 BC – 44 BC), as Roman governor of Gaul, had almost completed Rome’s conquest of Gaul when Vercingetorix, a Gallic nobleman, organized a rebellion.  Using hit and run tactics against a superior Roman military force, Vercingetorix nearly succeeded.  Caesar defeated the Gallic rebel leader at the Siege of Alesia in 52 BC. 

Romans may have viewed the defeat of Vercingetorix as a good thing, but three years later, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon river and marched on Rome to start a five year civil war.  Caesar’s military success and eventual assumption of dictatorial powers was the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic.  Four years after defeating Vercingetorix, Caesar was appointed dictator, and he was appointed dictator-for-life shortly before his assassination.

The tyrant had four celebratory triumphs in Rome to boast of his military prowess.  The Roman mob, accustomed to crucifixions and other brutal displays of state power, were treated to the public strangulation of Vercingetorix six years after his surrender.  Vercingetorix was no longer a threat, but his execution was a useful reminder to the mob of the fate for those who dared to oppose the oligarchy.  Most Romans probably figured Vercingetorix was a bad man—after all, he didn’t want to be ruled by Rome. 

US and “Afpak”

Today’s Rome and Gaul are the US and the Afghanistan-Pakistan region (Afpak in now obsolete government-speak), and the US treats the Middle East as ancient Rome treated its conquered territories: as sources of commodities.[1]  And today’s Vercingetorix is Osama bin Laden.  But Americans pretend they’re unique in history, so they can’t see the parallels between American militarism and Roman imperialism.

The US does differ from ancient Rome in that Americans are a video culture isolated from reality.  Instead of a public execution of Osama bin Laden to demonstrate the brutal power of the state as Caesar did with Vercingetorix, pictures sufficed.  Michelle Bachmann and a handful of lawyer/legislators, isolated from what happens to real people, got to look at photos of the executed opponent of the US federal government.  “Our representatives” were convinced bin Laden was dead, just as an earlier hoax photograph on the Internet convinced Senator Scott Brown (R).[2] 

Today’s mob is so well-trained it was convinced by the word of its leaders without even seeing pictures.  Perhaps pictures were not released because it occurred to our rulers that pictures might cause some of the mob to have second thoughts about executing an unarmed opponent. 

Rome of Caesar’s day didn’t hesitate to shed blood to remind the populace that the state was a ruthless parent and infanticide was widely practiced.  Today, the US pretends to be a gentle Big Brother with only the people’s welfare as its concern.  Beneath the pretense, the US government is just as brutal to those who refuse to submit to its power.

The most recent version of the story of bin Laden’s death released by the US government was that bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed.[3]  Stories also said bin Laden’s wives were held for questioning.  But why murder bin Laden when he could have been taken prisoner?  If bin Laden was still a threat, wouldn’t he be more useful alive?  Why pretend to ask his wives what he was thinking after he was executed?  Unless you don’t really care about the answers?  Or unless the US still isn’t telling the truth? 

President Obama (D) told Americans that he had conferred with former President George W. Bush (R) after the execution.   Bush, interviewed later about his reaction to the news of the death of an enemy to the state, praised the fighting spirit of US government warriors, just as Julius Caesar had when writing of his soldiers who fought for booty in the Gallic Wars.[4] [5]  Bush, obviously pleased by the SEALs’ attitude, related a conversation he’d had with a SEAL Team Six warrior:

"I met SEAL Team Six in Afghanistan. They are awesome, skilled, talented and brave," he added. "I said, 'I hope you have everything you need. One guy said, 'We need your permission to go into Pakistan and kick ass.'" 

That’s just how our leaders like it: warriors completely loyal to our dog pack and completely oblivious to the US Constitution.

Standing behind a podium with the symbol of Rome, the golden eagle, prominently displayed upon it, President Obama announced bin Laden’s execution to the cheering mob (video and video).[6]

Of course Obama is no Caesar, no dictator for life.  Today’s news cycles are much shorter.  But even if Obama doesn’t win re-election, he’ll have been in control longer and with much more power than “tyrant-for-life” Julius Caesar.[7]  As the US government continues down a path similar to that of the Roman Republic, so too does the American mob, as it continues to embrace the power of the military.

__________________________________

[1] “Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago by US and Pakistan,” Declan Walsh, May 9, 2011, The Guardian, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal on May 23, 2011).

A former US official explains US-Pakistan relations (keep your people in line or we will):

“The former US official said that impetus for the co-operation, much like the Bin Laden deal, was driven by the US. "It didn't come from Musharraf's desire. On the Predators, we made it very clear to them that if they weren't going to prosecute these targets, we were, and there was nothing they could do to stop us taking unilateral action.

“’We told them, over and again: “We'll stop the Predators if you take these targets out yourselves.”’”

[2] “Bachmann, other lawmakers see bin Laden photos; convinced ‘we got our man’,”  Dan Farber, Lucy Madison, CBS News, May 12, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20062269-503544.html May 23, 2011).

[3] “SEAL helmet cams recorded entire bin Laden raid,” By David Martin, May 12, 2011, CBS News, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/12/eveningnews/main20062410.shtml on May 23, 2011).

[4] “George W. Bush Gives First Public Reaction to Osama Bin Laden Death,” By DEVIN DWYER, May 13, 2011, (Accessed at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-reacts-publicly-osama-bin-laden-death/story?id=13592860 on May 22, 2011).

[5] Julius Caesar related similar sympathies in his troops during a siege in Gaul (from Commentaries on the war in Gaul, book 7, chapters 14-31):

“Things were so serious, in fact, that for several days the men had no grain at all and managed to avoid starvation only by bringing in cattle from distant villages.

“But even so, no one uttered a word that was unworthy of the greatness of Rome or of the victories they had already won. Indeed, when I went round and spoke to the men of each legion as they worked, saying that I would raise the siege if they were finding their privations too much to bear, every man of them begged me not to. They had now served under me, they said, for many years without ever losing their good name or anywhere abandoning a task they had once begun. They would be disgraced if they gave up the siege they had started, and they would rather endure any hardship than fail to avenge the Roman citizens who had been killed at Orleans through the treachery of the Gauls. They made these same feelings known to the centurions and military tribunes, with requests that they should pass them on to me.”

Caesar’s rewarded his soldiers with slaves, plunder, booty, and bonuses in addition to their regular pay.

[6] At a bipartisan Congressional Dinner the day after his announcement, Obama decries the loss of the unity that was experienced immediately after 9-11.  Having a common enemy is a useful distraction for the mob and the oligarchs who rule them:

“I know that that unity that we felt on 9/11 has frayed a little bit over the years, and I have no illusions about the difficulties of the debates that we’ll have to be engaged in, in the weeks and months to come…And so tonight, it is my fervent hope that we can harness some of that unity and some of that pride to confront the many challenges that we still face.”

[7] Caesar was assassinated one month after he was declared “dictator for life.”

April Fools

“American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger…” George W. Bush March 19, 2003 [1]

“Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world...” Barack Obama March 19, 2011 [2]

April Fools’ is a special day for practical jokes on the gullible.  In America, where American politicians prey on the gullible every day, April Fools’ Day is just like every other day. 

Are there still Americans who believe their vote for Obama-Biden in 2008  made a difference in US foreign policy?

Unconstitutional Wars and “Humanitarian Raids”

When Barack Obama ran for President, he pledged to restore morality to American foreign policy.  He promised to end the war in Iraq, end torture, and close down Guantanamo.  Both Obama and Biden were harsh critics of the unconstitutional invasion of Iraq during the Bush administration. 

On Dec 20, 2007, in response to a Boston Globe survey question about when the president would have constitutional authority to bomb another country without congressional approval, then-candidate for President and constitutional scholar Obama stated:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”[3]

On “Hardball with Chris Matthews” in 2007, then-candidate for Vice President Joe Biden had this to say about the Bush administration invasion of Iraq (video):

“The President has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we’re about to be attacked.”

On March 18th, 2011, now-President Obama must have changed his mind.  He unilaterally authorized US airstrikes in Libya.  Was there any “actual or imminent threat to the nation”?  Obviously not, as Obama euphemistically described US attacks  as part of a noble-sounding mission to provide “humanitarian assistance” for the people of Libya:

“Now, here is why this matters to us.  Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people.  Many thousands could die.  A humanitarian crisis would ensue.  The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners. ” (4:48 in video)

Past examples of US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan caused the very things President Obama says he wants to prevent from occurring in Libya:

• Many thousands have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• A humanitarian crisis ensued after the US invasion.
• The entire region is destabilized so that the US has moved the fight to Yemen and Pakistan—and now to Libya.

Starting another unconstitutional war by attacking Libya guarantees the same results for Libya.

President Obama says US military support was necessary to prevent protesting Libyans from being murdered by their government, but:

• On February 18th, government shooters slaughtered peaceful protestors in Bahrain.  By March 14th, over 1000 Saudi troops and 500 UAE police entered Bahrain to stifle protests.[4][5]  The US did nothing—the Saudis are US allies. 
• The day before Obama announced US plans to attack Libya to prevent "unspeakable atrocities," security police of Yemen's President Saleh, slaughtered dozens of protesters in Yemen.[6]  The US did not intervene—the Yemen dictatorship helps the US in its “war on terror.”
• Three days after Obama’s announcement, on March 22nd, the Syrian government killed six protesters, dozens more by the end of the week, and at least a dozen more on April 1st by sniper fire.[7] [8]  Syria is not a US ally—John McCain and Joe Lieberman issued a joint statement calling on the Obama administration to threaten Syria.

Restoring US “Moral Stature”

“I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am President, it is the first thing I will do.  I will get out troops home.  We will bring an end to this war.  You can take that to the bank.”  Then-Senator Barack Obama speaking about Iraq war in October 27, 2007 (video)

“I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture.  Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world.”   President-elect Obama November 2008 on 60 minutes (11:10 in video)

After his election, President Obama said he wanted to “regain America’s moral stature in the world.”  Since Obama has been in office, the US government has:

• Maintained US troops in Iraq.
• Kept Guantanamo open.
• Not ended the extraordinary rendition of prisoners.
• Increased troop levels in Afghanistan.  Twelve US soldiers are undergoing court martial for murdering Afghan civilians in 2010 for fun.  Concerned about the effect on “America’s moral stature in the world,” the US spent 100 days in talks with Afghan government officials and Vice President Biden apologized to Afghan President Hamid Karzai.[9]
• Targeted US citizens for assassination.
• Continues drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen killing thousands—mostly civilians.
• Attacked Libya with cruise missiles to support a rebellion against dictator Qaddafi—another war without congressional approval.  But don’t worry, the UN said it was ok.  Western attacks on Tripoli killed at least 40 civilians.[10]  Among the rebels supported by US attacks are members of al-Qaeda.[11]
• Let NATO lead the strikes in Libya after criticism of airstrikes killing children by the Vatican.[12][13]
• Kept CIA operatives in Libya for weeks despite Obama’s March 18th statement: “The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya.”[14] 

Thus far, the Obama administration has continued the Bush record of killing and murdering civilians, violating the rights of Americans and foreigners, and destabilizing a half dozen countries.  That probably won’t improve the “moral stature” of the US around the world.

Who Is the Fool?

Would voting for McCain for President in 2008 have made any difference?  Not likely: “conservative” Arizona Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain have no problem with unconstitutional wars.  They both criticized the Obama administration for waiting so long to intervene in Libya (McCain video).  According to Kyl:

"I agree with Senator McCain that we lost the opportunity two weeks ago to in effect freeze the situation on the ground after the rebels in Libya had taken over all of the country except just the internal part of Tripoli."[15]

When the US lessened its operations in Libya, McCain, who has never seen an unconstitutional war he didn’t like, criticized Defense Secretary Gates, saying:

"Your timing is exquisite, withdrawing our unique offensive capabilities at this time sends the exact wrong signal both to our coalition partners as well as to the Kadhafi regime, especially to those Libyan officials whom we are trying to compel to break with Kadhafi."

If you’re still gullible enough to believe a vote for an Obama or a McCain makes a difference, the joke is on you all year round, not just on April Fools’ Day.

_____________________________________

[1] “PRESIDENT BUSH'S STATEMENT,” Mar 19, 2003, PBS, (Accessed at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/bush_3-19.html on April 1, 2011).

[2] “Remarks by the President on Libya," Mar 20, 2011, The White House Blog, (Accessed at http://m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/20/remarks-president-libya-today-we-are-part-broad-coalition-we-are-answering-calls-thron April 1, 2011).

[3] “Barack Obama's Q&A,” By Charlie Savage, Globe, December 20, 2007, (Accessed at http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/ on Mar 23, 2011).

[4] “Feb. 18: Updates on Middle East Protests,” By ROBERT MACKEY, Feb 18, 2011, NY Times Blog, (Accessed at http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/latest-updates-on-middle-east-protests-5/?partner=rss&emc=rss on April 1, 2011).

[5] “Ahmadi-Nejad condemns foreign troops in Bahrain,” By Robin Wigglesworth in Manama and Simeon Kerr in Dubai, Financial Times, Mar 14, 2011 (Accessed at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5754805a-4e44-11e0-a9fa-00144feab49a.html#axzz1IPEUE5Gg on April 1, 2011).

[6] “Dozens of Protesters Are Killed in Yemen,” By LAURA KASINOF and ROBERT F. WORTH, NY Times, Mar 18, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/middleeast/19yemen.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=yemen%20and%20protesters%20and%20killed&st=cse on April 1, 2011).

[7] “Deaths as Syrian forces fire on protesters,” Al Jazeera, 26 Mar 2011, (Accessed at http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/2011325145817688433.html on April 1, 2011).

[8] “At least 12 killed in anti-government rallies in Syria,” April 1, 2011, Deutsche-Presse Agentur, (Accessed at http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1630193.php/At-least-12-killed-in-anti-government-rallies-in-Syria on April 1, 2011).

[9] “ US Army Apologizes for Horrific Photos from Afghanistan,” By Matthias Gebauer and Hasnain Kazim, Speigel, Mar 21, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752310,00.html on April 1, 2011).

[10] “At least 40 civilians dead in Tripoli strikes: Vatican official,” Mar 31, 2011, Reuters, (Accessed at http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/9113812/at-least-40-civilians-dead-in-tripoli-strikes-vatican-official/ on April 1, 2011).

[11] “Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links,”  By Praveen Swami, Nick Squires and Duncan Gardham, 25 Mar 2011, Telegraph,  (Accessed at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html on April 1, 2011).

[12] “US to pull out warplanes, missiles from Libya mission,” By Dan De Luce, AFP, April 1, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hJs2nfL5q5ZB2nqbzWqcCX9k0-rw?docId=CNG.3bf4105ffa63410f8b0d2165e00d15f5.721 on April 1, 2011).

[13] “Vatican: Airstrikes killed 40 civilians in Tripoli,” REUTERS, 03/31/2011, (Accessed at http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=214560 on April 1, 2011).

[14] “C.I.A. Agents in Libya Aid Airstrikes and Meet Rebels,” By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT, NY Times, Mar 30, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2 on April 1, 2011).

[15] “Arizona Senators complain about Libya action,” Fox11AZ,  (Accessed at http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/Arizona-Senators-complain-about-Libya-action-118442769.html on April 1, 2011).

Misplaced Trust

“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” - Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution

A founding tradition in America is the belief that the purpose of  government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of citizens.[1]  Most today would have a difficult time explaining how our fraudulent US financial system protects the property of anyone but bankers and the well-connected.[2]  Yet despite a growing mistrust of the federal government, whenever Big Brother talks about threats to our safety, “free” people are still reduced to pet-like obedience: willingly submitting to virtual strip searches and TSA pat-downs to check their private parts, and supporting military invasions overseas.

Most Americans never question how their safety is protected by a US government that slaughters tens of thousands of foreign people who are no threat to the US.  Instead they trust the words of their leaders.  Nor do most Americans make the connection that a government that lies about money matters will also lie about safety. 

Memoirs

For example, former Bush administration Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld started hawking his recently published memoir, Known and Unknown, two months after former President George W. Bush made the rounds selling his own version of recent history: Decision Points.  Both books rationalize the preemptive US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 for possession of fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). 

Before the invasion, both men pretended that they knew Saddam Hussein had WMD and both told the world that Hussein was a danger because of his WMD.  Were they telling the truth? 

Rumsfeld’s memoir corroborates former Bush terrorism adviser Richard Clarke’s statements that the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11.[3][4]  In Rumsfeld’s memoir, he describes the Bush administration’s fixation on attacking Iraq:

• In July 2001, months before 9/11, Rumsfeld sent a memo to Cheney, Powell and Rice asking “that we hold a principals committee meeting to discuss Iraq.” Rumsfeld “argued that we would be better off developing a policy well ahead of events that could overtake us.”[5]
• “Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” wrote Rumsfeld, but Bush insisted on new military plans for Iraq. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’”[6]

Rumsfeld’s memoir also corroborates a 2002 CBS News story that despite Iraq playing no part in the events of 9/11, the Bush administration was targeting Iraq:

“…barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.”[7]

Selling the War

The Bush administration wanted to remove Saddam Hussein from power.  They planned to invade Iraq, but they had to convince Americans that Iraq was dangerous enough to justify a preemptive invasion.[8]  They had to sell the war to the American public.

On 23 July 2002, the head of British MI6 wrote the Downing Street Memo (leaked in 2005 after the invasion) after his visit to Washington, D.C. for a US briefing on plans to invade Iraq.  The memo discussed Bush administration plans to sell an invasion of Iraq to the American public.[9]

“It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.” - Downing Street Memo, July 23, 2002

Mushroom Clouds and Mobile Labs

“The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” – Then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, September 2002

For over a year before the invasion, the Bush administration made statements and leaked documents to the news media about the threat of Iraqi WMD.

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” – Then-Vice President Richard Cheney, Aug 26, 2002

In Sept 2002, Iraq was reported to be acquiring high strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium.  US experts didn’t believe the story.[10]

In 2002 the US government disseminated known forged documents stating that Iraq tried to procure Niger Yellowcake.  The CIA knew the information was false in March 2002.[11]

But George Bush publicly repeated both lies in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union speech.

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.” – Then-President George W. Bush in State of the Union speech January 28, 2003

Finally, on February 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell lent his credibility to the fraud planned by the Bush administration since before 9/11—convincing Americans and the world that Iraq possessed WMD and that Hussein should be removed from power.  Powell’s UN speech was the final step in the plan to get public backing for a preemptive US invasion of Iraq.

“We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities.” – Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

“One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents.” – Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003

On March 20, 2003, the US government preemptively invaded Iraq claiming it was a threat to the US despite the following:

• The US had not been attacked by Iraq. 
• The US had been bombing Iraq since 1991 after the Gulf War. 
• The US under the auspices of the UN had embargoed Iraq since 1990.
• There was no evidence Iraq possessed WMD.

Rewriting History

After the 2003 invasion, with Hussein no longer in power, Bush’s mission was accomplished.  But the lie of WMD was still fresh in everyone’s minds.  The US-led Iraq Survey Group (ISG) was unable to find any WMD in Iraq.  Its September 2004 Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had no WMD. 

Then-President Bush established the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction to “investigate” what went wrong in the Intelligence community assessment of Iraqi WMD capabilities.  Unlikely to blame the President who created the commission, in its day-before-April Fools’ Day 2005 report, the Commission blamed the intelligence community.[12]

Today, “limited government” Tea Partiers and state worshippers alike both conveniently forget that US troops in Iraq are not fighting for “our freedoms,” but instead fight for a lie.  Eight years later:

• It’s forgotten that Iraq had no WMD and that the Bush administration lied to the American people to support its agenda of removing Hussein from power.
• The Iraq invasion is remembered as Operation Iraqi Freedom, and its purpose to liberate the Iraqi people.  We hear about elections in Iraq so people can believe the convenient fiction that the Iraq invasion was to bring democracy to Iraq.
• The Obama administration pretends that the war is over in Iraq by changing the mission name from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn.  Perhaps Americans will forget the US still has troops there.

Curveball

“The source was an eyewitness, an Iraqi chemical engineer who supervised one of these facilities. He actually was present during biological agent production runs. He was also at the site when an accident occurred in 1998. Twelve technicians died from exposure to biological agents…His eyewitness account of these mobile production facilities has been corroborated by other sources.”- Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb 5, 2003 discussing Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi aka Curveball

On February 15, 2011, the Guardian published  an interview with Powell’s “eyewitness Iraqi chemical engineer.” Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, aka "Curveball" to US and German  intelligence services, admits that he lied about Iraqi WMD.[13]  Even Janabi’s nickname suggests intelligence agents knew he wasn’t a “straight shooter.”  Will Janabi’s admissions get the same media coverage that the Rumsfeld and Bush memoirs received?

Janabi says he has never met with a US official nor has he ever been interviewed by one.[14]  Janabi, the eyewitness whose testimony was used to justify an invasion, apparently wasn’t worth a face-to-face meeting with US officials to corroborate his testimony.  What would be the point?  The Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq, and Janabi supplied a reason. 

German intelligence didn’t consider him a reliable source, but that didn’t stop the Bush administration from using Janabi’s lies to justify invading Iraq.[15]  Janabi admits lying about Iraqi WMD capability, but claims his remarks were discredited by German intelligence well before Powell's February 5, 2003 speech to the UN.  Colin Powell doesn’t dispute this, demanding:

“…to know why it had not been made clear to him that Curveball was totally unreliable before false information was put into the key intelligence assessment, or NIE, put before Congress, into the president's state of the union address two months before the war, and into his own speech to the UN.”[16]

Betrayal of a Misplaced Trust

“And Iraq has a history of lying about everything. This is not a regime that can be trusted.” - Then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in 2002

"For people to say Bush lied, Colin Powell lied and Condi Rice lied or Cheney lied or Rumsfeld lied -- it's just not true." - Rumsfeld to Fox News' Sean Hannity February 2011[17]

The US government preemptively invaded Iraq under false pretenses—lying to the American people by pretending that Iraq had WMD.  Whatever the real reason the Bush administration wanted to remove Saddam Hussein from power, it was not because he had WMDs—there were none.

What is certain is hundreds of thousands have been killed or injured and  hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent: all on a massive fraud.  Fraud is a betrayal of trust to defraud someone out of something of value.  When it invaded Iraq, the US government betrayed the foolish trust of Americans who believe that the US government exists to protect their life, liberty, and property, and that it accomplishes this by slaughtering foreign people.  By invading Iraq, the US government defrauded the American people of their blood and treasure.

Tea Partiers Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are outraged by the dishonesty of Obamacare as a symptom of a corrupt federal government.  Where is their outrage over a government that lied to preemptively invade another country?[18]

Instead of outrage as widows and orphans mourn their loved ones: Rumsfeld and Bush pitch their memoirs, neo-conservative and would-be President Sarah Palin advocates expanding the conflict to Iran, Michelle Bachmann votes to extend provisions of the Patriot Act, Obama continues to move the war to Pakistan, and US troops continue to occupy Iraq—and continue to die there.

________________________________

[1] See also the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

[2] Fiat money is not honest money.  The massive creation of fiat money in the recent bailouts of failed institutions is a fraud that robs the purchasing power of all with savings:

• Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout of 2008
• Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) bailout of 2009
• Stimulus Act of 2009
• Fed Quantitative Easing 2 (QE2) announcement November 3, 2010 of plans to purchase $600 billion in US government bonds through June 2011 to stimulate the economy.[2a]

[2a] “Fed Fires $600 Billion Stimulus Shot,” Jon Hilsenrath, WSJ, Nov 4, 2010, (Accessed at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703506904575592471354774194.html on Feb 24, 2011).

“In essence, the Fed now will print money to buy as much as $900 billion in U.S. government bonds through June—an amount roughly equal to the government's total projected borrowing needs over that period.”

[3] “Clarke's Take On Terror,” Rebecca Leung, CBSNews, Mar 21, 2004, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml on Feb 18, 2011).

From the article:

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."
Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.
"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'
"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."
Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

About Bush administration bias against Iraq:

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'
"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

[4] “Rumsfeld Files Reveal Pre-9/11 Focus on Iraq,” Sharon Weinberger, Feb 8, 2011, AOLNews, (Accessed at http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/08/donald-rumsfeld-files-reveal-pre-9-11-focus-on-iraq/ on Feb 18, 2011).

“Rumsfeld wrote in a memo to Condoleezza Rice dated July 27, 2001, just weeks before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The same memo also suggested regime change might be a good option. ‘If Saddam's regime were ousted, we would have a much-improved position in the region and elsewhere,’ he wrote.”

[5] “Rumsfeld’s Defense of Known Decisions,” By MICHIKO KAKUTANI, NY Times, Feb 3, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/books/04book.html?_r=1&ref=politics&pagewanted=all on Feb 19, 2011).

[6] “In Book, Rumsfeld Recalls Bush’s Early Iraq Focus,” By THOM SHANKER and CHARLIE SAVAGE, NY Times, Feb 2, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all on Feb 18, 2011).

[7] “Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11,” By Joel Roberts, Sept 4, 2002, CBS News, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml on Feb 18, 2011).

Rahm Emmanuel isn’t the only guy who doesn’t let a crisis go to waste:

“Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted ‘best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.’ – meaning Saddam Hussein – ‘at same time. Not only UBL’ – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
“Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.
‘Go massive,’ the notes quote him as saying. ‘Sweep it all up. Things related and not.’”

[8] “An Ex-C.I.A. Chief on Iraq and the Slam Dunk That Wasn’t,” By MICHIKO KAKUTANI, NY Times, Apr 28, 2007, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/books/28kaku.html?pagewanted=all on Feb 19, 2011).

“Mr. Tenet says he doubts that W.M.D.’s were the principal cause of the United States’ decision to go to war in Iraq in the first place, that it was just ‘he public face that was put on it.’ The real reason, he suggests, stemmed from ‘the administration’s largely unarticulated view that the democratic transformation of the Middle East through regime change in Iraq would be worth the price.’”

[9] “The Secret Downing Street Memo,” May 1, 2005, Times Online, (Accessed at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/elections/article387390.ece on Feb 20,2011).

“The two broad US options were:

“(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

“(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.”

“The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun ‘spikes of activity’ to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

“The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

“The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.”

[10] “The Man Who Knew,” Rebecca Leung, Feb 4, 2004, CBS News, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml on Feb 19, 2011).

“Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann’s office was working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.
‘The aluminum was exactly, I think, what the Iraqis wanted for artillery,’ recalls Thielmann, who says he sent that word up to the Secretary of State months before.”

“Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell’s office that they were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. Then, about a year later, when the administration was building a case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of The New York Times.”

[11] “White House 'warned over Iraq claim',” July 9, 2003, BBC News, (Accessed at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm on Mar 3, 2011).

[12] “Unclassified Version of the Report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Mar 31, 2005, US GPO, (Accessed at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmd/index.html on Feb 27, 2011).

From the report:

“…the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.  This was a major intelligence failure. Its principal causes were the Intelligence Community's inability to collect good information about Iraq's WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what information it could gather, and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was based on assumptions, rather than good evidence.”

[13] “Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war,” Martin Chulov and Helen Pidd in Karlsruhe, guardian.co.uk, 15 Feb 2011, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war on Feb 17, 2011).

[14] “Curveball: How US was duped by Iraqi fantasist looking to topple Saddam,” Martin Chulov and Helen Pidd in Karlsruhe, guardian.co.uk, 15 Feb 2011, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-iraqi-fantasist-cia-saddam on Feb 19, 2011).

[15] “Curveball doubts were shared with CIA, says ex-German foreign minister,” Helen Pidd, guardian.co.uk, 17 Feb 2011, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/curveball-doubts-cia-german-foreign on Feb 19, 2011).

[16] “Colin Powell demands answers over Curveball's WMD lies,” Ed Pilkington in New York, Helen Pidd in Berlin and Martin Chulov, guardian.co.uk, 16 Feb 2011, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/16/colin-powell-cia-curveball on Feb 19, 2011).

[17] “Rumsfeld Defends Iraq War Handling, Guantanamo in Fox News Interview,” Feb 08, 2011, FoxNews.com, (Accessed at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/08/rumsfeld-defends-iraq-war-policy-guantanamo-fox-news-interview/ on Feb 18, 2011).

[18] In 2008, Tea Party Caucus leader Michele Bachmann voted against investigating George Bush for lying about Iraq.