Sixteen months is the same length of time since Fidel Castro has made a public appearance. The world was already sick and tired of being frightened by what the illegitimate, insane imbeciles holed up in the White House might do next. And, may I add, almost everyone on earth, including the most vehement war hawks, were fully aware Bush and Cheney had no genuine, real life reason to attack Iran, and didn't need an intelligence report to activate their bullshit detectors. We waited impatiently for the empirical data that would shoot it down, suspecting it to be in the NIE hidden under Deadeye's big ass.
• Then Monday came:
While many Democrats said they remain cautious about the National Intelligence Estimate's (NIE) conclusion that Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003, several said that Congress should investigate the discrepancy between the Bush administration's recent doomsday rhetoric on Iran and the NIE's judgments. [...]• Seymour Hersh tells CNN the White House has known for a year Iran halted its nuclear weapons program.
"There is absolutely no question that there should be oversight on this issue," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) who for years has been trying to push legislation that would ensure congressional authorization for any military action with Iran.
President Bush's "credibility is absolutely zero," McDermott said in an interview. "We are dealing with a president who has no shame. Anyone who can turn down $10 million for children's [health insurance] is not going to be turned off by a report," he added.
He said that even though the report's conclusion is not a victory he wants, it shows that the Democrats "told the American people the truth."
• After claiming ignorance all day, the White House finally admitted Bush lied when he claimed Iranian nuclear attacks were about to start World War III and nuclear war, because he knew the contents of the NIE in August:
On Tuesday, Bush said “nobody ever told me” to back down from his hawkish rhetoric on Iran. No, maybe not. But Bush knew Iran “may have suspended” its nuclear weapons program and that the intelligence community was in the process of “changing its assessment.”Now I see. None of this was Dickface's fault because someone told him to lie us into starting global nuclear obliteration. Learn to say no, Stupid, and say it often.
Do I need to go on with this discussion? I have at least a couple dozen hot links with interesting things to look at. This week I've read dozens and scores of stories about this—and you have to know I've been having one solid, deep, long gut-chuckle about it. Bush isn't exactly Kennedy And The Cuban Missile Crisis. Then, he goes on TV and tells us, "but they might restart their program any minute," like the NIE changes nothing. The animated Bushtoon™ in my head has been running full blast, with Saint King Monkeylips being hauled away in a straitjacket screaming, "their nostril hairs! They might be trimmed now, but THEY'LL GROW BACK! We have to launch our cruise missiles...!"
The very dubious claim is made that an NIE in 2005 suggested a weapons program was ongoing, but since this latest report is so different, it was time to make it public. Certain rightist blowholes insist it's a knife in the back for Bush from the CIA, that they're out to get him—begging the question, "so?" Is that a random guess or wishful thinking? Joseph Biden comments. "They were lying and knew it." Blah, blah, blah. Everyone else knew it, too.
Recall that those of us who (once again) got it right with Iran have been portrayed from the beginning to the present in the most negative terms, and rest assured there will be plenty more discussion of the topic which will not go well for America's screwball authoritarians, who are now clearly and unmistakenly revealed as liars, feebs and maniacal cuckoos.
Here lies the real problem: these people aren't smart, and they aren't sane, either. There is an astonishingly urgent need in the world to be able to HUMANELY identify and rehabilitate the mind which destroys and kills obsessively. That's currently a terrible problem in the American government's executive and legislative branches, not in the country at large—which brings us to another hot discussion in current events...
• HR 1955, aka S 1959, aka The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007—cool name, huh? I like the word "homegrown" thrown in. It makes me think The Nanny State® is going to pass out reefers to placate the masses.
I've read this loathsome bit of legislation which, thank heaven, isn't long, and you can read a fair dissection of it here, although I'm not sure how relevant the New World Order talk is. I kind of like this part, though:
This bill is completely insane. It literally allows the government to define any and all crimes including thought crime as violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Obviously, this legislation is unconstitutional on a number of levels and it is clear that all 404 representatives who voted in favor of this bill are traitors and should be removed from office immediately. The treason spans both political parties and it shows us all that there is no difference between them. The bill will go on to the Senate and will likely be passed and signed into the law by George W. Bush. Considering that draconian legislation like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act have already been passed, there seems little question that this one will get passed as well. This is more proof that our country has been completely sold out by a group of traitors at all levels of government.A scathing appraisal. I know there are more scholarly treatments, but I haven't gone looking for them because I want to give my own critique without the benefit of a more considered opinion. Many recent articles about this bill verge on yellow journalism, such as this one and this one. Sure, when the express language says it is for the stated purpose and for "other purposes" which are unstated, it could act as a first step toward making most anything a crime without naming the crime, and most anyone a criminal without entitling a person (as a rapist or burglar, for example).
We have become so velocitized by the currently fashionable, authoritarian executive and legislative branches which say one thing and mean, then do, another, that it's easy to think the real goal of legislation like this lies between the lines. Then we fail to read the words over and over and let their meaning sink in so as to understand at least what the express language is saying. I've done that and can tell you what it entails. This bill is not a statute aimed at prohibiting unwanted behavior. It creates a commission with a wild-eyed, haywire name which is essentially a blue-ribbon, fact-finding committee authorized to spend money like it's going out of style in pursuit of the age-old question of what motivates the suicide bomber and those of his ilk. Understanding this, the goal then would be to short-circuit this process and stop social, political and religious dissent which gets out of hand in the United States. That's the troublesome part.
The commission is required to meet, talk with experts and issue reports at six-month intervals, the final report being issued 18 months after the group first meets. Although the commission is required to hold public hearings, that is subject to executive review and the commission is encouraged to enlist employees, contractors and experts with active security clearances; so, it's possible that some, most or all of the commission's business could remain classified. That is troubling, too.
While appearing to be an important first step at labeling political dissent as homegrown terrorism, and dissenters as terrorists, what this bunch would end up deciding is anyone's guess, and limited only by the imagination. Under "Findings" you see the provocative statement, "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens." Really? Then, is censorship the object? We don't know, and they aren't saying, and as always, what constitutes "terrorist-related propaganda" is a matter of opinion.
Last year when I said we have passed the time when revolution is needed, is that what this gang wants to stifle? We can't know, but probably it is. Heaven knows the crown tried to stifle the states' move to autonomy in the late eighteenth century. If someone says Bush and Cheney have earned a smart rap across the bridge of the nose, delivered by every citizen of this country with a baseball bat while they are tied to a tree, is that an unprotected expression? By the language of this legislation, it is protected. They want to detain people who are making tangible plans to do such things, or so they say: while there is a difference between a stated message to a specific individual and a threat of imminent violence, which is clear today, tomorrow that line can be blurred, and I suspect that is the commission's aim, and in blurring the line create new categories of crimes as a prelude to imprisonment.
But some things slip through the cracks. When the U.S. military in Iraq, under Gen. David Petraeus's command, misplaced 190,000 rifles and pistols and tens of thousands of other pieces, allowing them to fall into the hands of "bad actors" and costing a tidy sum, did Petraeus commit a possible offense under this act? No prosecutor in this country would consider it a close call, in spite of the fact it conforms in many ways with what the act states it wants to control. Besides, the GOP has a very long, rich heritage of arming both sides of a dispute to prolong hostilities and profiteering, suggesting it was no simple act, omission or negligence but that he was under direct orders to do it; of course, that's just my opinion, having become jaded and cynical after years of the Bush administration's oppressive despotism.
It galls me this bill was sponsored by a democrat, California's Rep. Jane Harmon. This is a perfect example of why I said the terms liberal and conservative are inapplicable. Party affiliation may be no indicator of an individual's temperament and predisposition; still, I don't expect an extremely authoritarian program to be launched by a member of the democratic party. It just shows you can't make that assumption, because here it is. It's clear Rep. Harmon stands behind her hard line to feed prisons with people doing who knows what, but certainly things that aren't criminal offenses now, from this letter to the ACLU she shares on her website:
November 28, 2007The act and this letter demonstrate Jane's not much of a thinker or author, she just likes oppressive authoritarianism and is a risk-taker. I'd like to see the ACLU's letter and response to this! It must be a blistering assault, or Jane would share it, in that she went to the trouble to post her letter. Let's write our own letter to Jane. You can e-mail through her website here or contact her by mail, phone or fax by looking here; contact members of the senate democratic caucus here; contact the entire senate here:
Ms. Caroline Fredrickson
Director, Washington Legislative Office
American Civil Liberties Union
915 15th Street NW, 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Dear Ms. Fredrickson:
I have read your letter of November 21, and find it confusing. At the same time you discuss the ACLU’s efforts to express concern about HR 1955, and attach suggested revisions (some of which we believe would improve the legislation) you also state that, even if your changes are accepted, it is unlikely the ACLU will support the bill because it focuses on speech and belief.
This makes me wonder why you took the time to suggest changes (which are in addition to changes you proposed and that were largely incorporated into HR 1955 in March) – and, frankly, whether anything I and Committee members have been saying for months is being heard. HR 1955 is not about interfering with speech or belief – the hearing record makes that abundantly clear. Radical speech, as I have said repeatedly, is protected under our Constitution.
I have always admired the ACLU’s efforts to protect free speech, even when that is unpopular – and my voting record over seven terms in Congress reflects how strongly I agree with you. But ideologically based violence is not a protected act – it is a crime. Our bill would establish a diverse, well-qualified, nonpartisan, short-term commission to make recommendations to Congress so it can better understand and hopefully take responsible steps to prevent ideologically based violence. This is not the “thought police” and surely it is not censorship. 404 members of the House agreed just weeks ago.
Because the House has passed HR 1955, the focus now shifts to the Senate. But regardless of which chamber is involved, it seems counterproductive to invest more time in further meetings or negotiations when you have announced your steadfast opposition in advance.
Are you in fact interested in working with us and the Senate on the bill?
Sincerely,
JANE HARMAN
The Honorable Rep. Jane Harmon
2400 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Jane,
The universally humiliating, withering criticism of HR 1955 proves people don't want to see new legislation aimed at creating draconian, authoritarian prohibitions of nonexistent crimes. If it was your intention, and that of an overwhelming House majority, to prevent terrorist acts which don't happen in the United States, it is an ingenuine intention which will only swell our prison population at a time when we need to be finding ways to decrease that population.
I don't live in California, but as a lifetime democrat I feel compelled to help you and your colleagues who have adopted the right's "tough on terrorism" framing which is nonsense when the United States doesn't even have a problem with terrorism; at least, it doesn't have a terrorism problem with the population at large. And, as a democrat, I feel the need to help you and Congress generally because it is clear you have absolutely no idea what you are doing, and have lost your grip on reality.
Jane, do you remember back in the 1960s when The Anarchist's Cookbook was published? It was highly criticized, and there was a lot of talk and alarm about how this "irresponsible" book would certainly create a nation of homemade bomb makers. But, 40 years later, you see that didn't happen. Why do you suppose that is? I'm no expert, but I can tell you that the reason people aren't blowing up police stations, churches, mosques and themselves in the United States is, despite what problems our country has, we remain a relatively free, open and prosperous society. That has a LOT more to do with preventing discontent than focusing on topics of dissent and people who whine and complain, stifling the sale of the possible tools of weapon-making and undermining the first amendment's guarantees of freedom of expression. Indeed, The Anarchist's Cookbook was never intended to be a homegrown terrorist's handbook of horror; it was intended to test the first amendment's guarantees. As a kid in public school, I understood that.
This year I have been required to show my drivers license, and my name put on an offender database, when I purchased Class III pharmaceuticals, pseudoephedrine, lighter fluid and rubbing alcohol, with the dubious, express purpose of subverting terrorism. I resent the assumption I am a criminal offender because I want to control my overactive sinuses, clean surfaces and fuel my lighter. I can purchase gallons of far more dangerous, terror-useful gasoline with no questions asked. I'm reminded that recent events force one to choose whether he will think and live as a free person, and be a bulwark against the kind of discontent which leads to acts of terrorism, or give in to fear and think and live as an authoritarian, giving rise to the kind of injustice and oppression which sow the seeds of that discontent. It is incumbent upon all of us to make the proper choice, and upon you and others in Congress as lawmakers in particular to understand a free and prosperous society, dedicated to justice and the rule of law, does everything needed to promote contentment and the public peace. Apparently, too many lawmakers in Washington and nationwide can't grasp this concept and want to go in the opposite direction, when thousands of years of human history prove again and again it is a grievous error. I am saddened and disheartened that this is the choice you so willingly make.
Things can go wrong in a hurry, Jane. Why would you want to subvert public discourse with novel, wild notions like "ideological radicalization" in an era when the whole world can be destroyed in a single day? Just for fun, let's consider a hypothetical example, since HR 1955 deals with suppositive flights of the imagination.
What if there were an election in which the country selected one candidate for president, but the Supreme Court threw a coup and installed the other candidate? I know that seems farfetched, but it could happen, even though that isn't how elections are supposed to work. And what if the adminstration were returned for a second term because of massive poll irregularities, and Congress refused to address the issue? It sounds fantastic, but we're just pretending. What if this rogue, unelected executive usurped Congress's authority to declare war and launched the first pre-emptive wars in the country's history based on selling lies to Americans, Congress and the world? Then, what it they wanted to launch a new war based on more lies and this time planned a nuclear attack which would kill millions of people in that country and millions more caught in the fallout field? And, Jane, what if Congress refused to intervene to stop it, and wouldn't consider impeaching these obviously lying, feeble-minded maniacs? I know it's an extreme departure from reality, and you probably think nothing like that could ever happen—but I assure you, it can happen, because there is no mechanism to screen out of public service the kind of feeble-minded, maniacal liars who might do it.
Wouldn't you say that is a far more serious and urgent matter than trying to stop suicide bombers who don't even exist? Wouldn't you do everything you could think to do so as not go down in history as a part of the Congress that sat back and did nothing to stop it? You'd think you would. You'd think anyone would, and that it would be self-evident. But this is not the choice you and your colleagues have made. You don't care about keeping America and the world safe and at peace, and I can see you no longer want your Washington career.
As a citizen, shouldn't I be able to say that I am opposed to the actions of that illegitimate regime? Shouldn't I be able to do whatever I can to stop what can only be described as a bunch of crazy people from blowing up the whole world? You'd think that I should. But HR 1955, now S 1959, wants me and everyone else to shut up, and say and do nothing.
How could you possibly be the author of that? How could anyone in Congress support it? I don't understand. And Jane, you have failed to provide a single argument which enlists my understanding, and I predict neither you nor anyone else ever will. I guess you'll be retiring from Congress after this term. I wish you good fortune in your future endeavors, and if you can't apply your thought process better than this surely you will need it.
To those in the Senate, if you pass this loathsome, oppressive act, make sure you take it in a different direction. There is indeed a need in the world to stop those who cause destruction, injury and death without conscience, whether or not they are in government. A good place to start would be the article by Gene Bylinsky, "New Clues To The Causes Of Violence," published in Fortune in 1973, which you can read at http://www.violence.de/bylinsky/article.html. I had hoped this research would bear fruit, and that we wouldn't have war and more and more prisons by this time. If you can figure out a way to identify and cure those people who cannot control their violent urges which is humane and protects their civil liberties, you will have risen to this challenge and done something miraculous.
Your friend, «—U®Anu§—»
cc: Everyone in the U.S. Senate
If you decide to send such a letter, you may want to sign by acronym in order to avoid extraordinary rendition.
