Saddam Hussein - R.I.P.

So the Grand Poobah of all-that-was-evil has finally been executed after what must have seemed like interminable delays to the eager Bush administration.

Of course the big question is, "What to do now?"

Bringing back memories of Nicolae Ceausescu's sudden execution as the coup-de-grace of the Warsaw Pact's implosion, Saddam was turned over to Iraqi "authorities" after a US judge denied a stay of execution appeal, and was summarily strung up high without much further ado.

Now what?

The Bush Administration is undoubtedly breathing a sigh of relief right now, but not for the reasons most might expect. Saddam is dead, and ostensibly someone else did the dirty deed.

Wash your hands Mr. Pilate.

Like most successful Mafias, the extended criminal network surrounding the Bush Administration does its job best when people don't talk much. Especially people who, "know too much." Everyone's seen the Godfather movies where people get "rubbed out" before they can "talk."

Rings so "familiar" right now.

Saddam was ostensibly executed for the crime of ordering a reprisal against Shiites, resulting in the deaths of 148 people. He was also awaiting trial for the Nerve Gassing of a Kurdish village. The Bush administration really didn't want that trial to happen. What hasn't been widely discussed in the mass media, but is available all over the internet, is information that none other than Donald Rumsfeld SUPPLIED the deadly gas to Saddam, and arranged for payoffs and special favors for him so long as he DID gas the Kurds, so the CIA, etc. could see how the stuff really worked in combat.

Not only that, but now they had him marked as a super-bad brutal bastard, evil prince of darkness, swarthy mustachioed caricature of Public Enemy Number One, ready for deployment when necessary.

And soon to deploy him they were...

In 1989, Michael Gorbachev declined to support the suppression of demonstrators in East Germany by refusing to send Russian forces to help quell growing unrest. The head of the East German Secret Police then refused the President's order to shoot people demonstrating to open the Brandenburg Gate.

Then suddenly (on my 25th birthday no less) the Gates swung open wide and the Cold War was officially over as the newly freed multitudes roamed the Berlin streets, looking for a good discotheque.

It was "The End of History."

The "Peace Dividend" would wash over us all like a warm, gentle, breeze.

But noooooo....

A few people had other plans in mind...

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Kuwaitis had occupied some extremely oil-rich land that Iraq claimed vigorously was its own.

Soon the Kuwaitis started aggressively expanding on their practice of "slant drilling" even further into Iraq oilfields from platforms based on Kuwaiti soil.

Saddam emphatically protested this to the Kuwaitis, OPEC, and the US State Department, but to no avail.

April Glaspie, US Ambassador to Iraq, visited Saddam in August of 1989 and said that the US considered the border dispute an "internal matter" between the two countries, one in which the US would not intervene or choose a side.

Ha Ha... Fooled Ya!!!

Hussein took the bait and invaded Kuwait, and to have heard George Bush 41's outcry, you'd have thought he'd converted the entire population under age 12 into party-sized sausage links.

The massive propaganda machine sprung into action and before you could say "Open Sesame" we'd mustered half a million troops and a coalition of the fellow faux-indignant and the term "Peace Dividend" was officially dropped from polite conversation.

We HAD to invade, right? They were "killing babies", weren't they?

Well... maybe not.

Don't forget, fellow Americans, that you live in a country where Public Relations, Advertising, and Spin is the one thing that we do, and will probably always do, so far much better than the rest of the world that it's not even funny. That gun is actually pointed though, most of the time, at you. You're sold a fraudulent bill of goods so often that it's truly almost impossible to make clear sense of anything.

But try we must, so onward through this meandering eulogy (or should I say, obituary) we slog...

Compared to most rulers in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein was kind of a liberal.

Don't misunderstand what I mean. It's pretty clear that he was a paid CIA asset, much like Noriega of Panama, and a bloodthirsty and ruthless sonovabitch of the first order for pretty much all of his adult life. This clearly makes him someone you don't want sitting on your local school board. I also most assuredly wouldn't have wanted to be an administration-ripping sarcastic political journalist in Baghdad circa 1987 (or 1998), because I'm rather attached to my fingernails, and I only like my private parts touched with love, not electrodes.

But women in Baghdad could wear skirts. And pants. And walk around without headscarves. Women assumed prominent roles throughout layers of society that were unthinkable in most "conservative" Muslim countries. They also made up a significant percentage of university students on all levels and had successful careers in almost every profession.

Sunnis and Shiites and Christians and even Jews lived in relative peace and harmony, more or less worshipped as they chose, and largely minded their own business. Saddam was an avowed Secularist and Modernist, a relative rarity in the region. Oil revenues bought him a lot of friends and the Baath party was a very effective control mechanism that didn't resort to actual torture to enforce its will nearly as often as the popular imagination would have it. Certainly not the fifty plus bodies riddled with power drill holes that turn up on the streets each morning in today's sado-state.

Cross Saddam, and you were screwed. Otherwise, it wasn't so bad for a third-world Arab country, at least for most people.

I live in a relativist world, it's true. But I can hardly imagine that most Iraqis prefer the unholy carnage, social disintegration, environmental devastation and infrastructural paralysis that is today's grand orgy of violence in their country to the relative peace and tranquility of the Hussein Administration.

It's twisted when you think of it. We've gone in and FUBAR'ed the place so bad that Saddam Freakin' Hussein looks like a Professor Emeritus of Urban Planning. Between false flag covert ops and kick-in-the-door raids and the strafing and bombing of civilian targets and the raiding of hospitals we've completely destroyed any possible credibility we might have had in prosecuting Saddam for the many crimes of unspeakable cruelty he undoubtedly committed.

But I can count.

The Lancet estimated earlier this year that as many as six hundred and fifty thousand "surplus deaths" were caused by the effects of the war since the US invasion. This causal relationship is reinforced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of these surplus deaths were caused by gunshot wounds or other effects of combat or munitions. Even if the report is hugely overblown by a factor of five hundred percent, that still means that US actions in Iraq have directly caused the deaths of a hundred and thirty THOUSAND people, minimum.

People who didn't have to die so soon. People who wanted to live in their homes, raise their children, and pursue their dreams, no matter how hard that must have been in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

They didn't pick him. It was the CIA that picked Saddam to run Iraq for them. They're the ones who gave him the extra help he needed to hold that famous convocation of the Baath Party where he read off a list of names and those who were named were lead outside to holding cells. The party members who remained were told that the ones who had been escorted out were traitors, and the people remaining were the ones he knew were loyal to him. Then he said that those who were certified for the Saddam inner circle would get a chance to show their loyalty the next morning when they made up the firing squad for the guys now waiting outside the hall in cells.

Trust me, the CIA loved this guy. The more ruthless and brutal, the better. Especially in a country where the ground below contained the sweetest and easiest-to-get-at black gold on the planet.

So they waited, and helped, and worked with him, and made sure he had plenty of weapons, especially when he'd swap them for some Soviet models he'd managed to buy from the Russians. Saddam was their boy, and he served many useful functions for American empire, not all of them witting.

But sometimes you just outlive your usefulness. Saddam's role as cooperative thug morphed beautifully into his slayer-of-the-peace-dividend costume and then ultimately into schemer-to-nuke-us-all (or at least Israel). This ultimately was held up as the raison-de-etre for the current disaster we're quick-sanding down to the absolute nub.

Now what do we do?

Saddam Hussein is dead, along with another sixty six other Iraqis, six American GIs, and a Brit from the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment. And that's just today.

What do we do tomorrow?

I've got a suggestion...

Leave.


David Caputo
Editor and Publisher
TotallyFixed.com

President
Positronic Design
Holyoke, MA

Top Story on OpEdNews - Saddam Hussein Executed

Wow... My first big scoop.

I posted a QuickLink with commentary (article lead) on OpEdNews.com and it was selected as a Top Story of the Day for 12/29/06.

Who knew it would be Saddam who'd give me my first big break...

These are strange times...

Anyway, here's a cross-post of the story.

Saddam Hussein Executed - Hanged in the Green Zone

Saddam Hussein's been executed. No long, drawn-out appeals process in the "new" Iraq. Hang-em' High was the order of the day. Seems the former Iraqi president won't ever get a chance to tell what he knew about the current American president, and his friends, family and associates. Seems the US Government couldn't shuffle him off this mortal coil fast enough. Well George, you won't have Saddam to kick around any more. Good luck...

I was notified of the article's selection by Rob Kall, owner and editor-in-chief of OpEdNews who said:

Re: your article 'Saddam Hussein Executed - Hanged in the Green Zone' --

Just a note to let you know your article has been main headlined for the day. Thanks for posting a great article.

Ranking terminates after 24 hours or 24 hours after the article was posted, whichever comes first.

...so I'm psyched. Thanks for everyone's support.

I look forward to writing much more than ever in the upcoming year.

In these crazy times, make sure you hang on to your loved ones and tell them you care.

Happy New Year everyone.

David Caputo

Editor and Publisher
Totally Fixed and Rigged Magazine

Associate Editor
OpEdNews.com

President
Positronic Design
....

The Nation weakly trashes 9/11 skeptics

News and Commentary by David Caputo of Positronic Design

The Nation Magazine, one of my all time favorites and the very model for my own news magazine from "back in the day", is all-kinda squishy-washy about 9/11, and what really happened that day. They constantly rip the Bush administration a new one for all manner of the dreadful things they do, but they seem largely incapable of even QUESTIONING the official government line on 9/11 facts and figures, even when they blatantly contradict themselves.

Their most recent piece on this subject, Christopher Hayes' "9/11: The Roots of Paranoia" was typical of the genre, although politer than most. I offer my thoughts and commentary because I thought such a weak overall analysis should not stand unchallenged, especially by a long-time fan of The Nation.

-------------------------------

Dear Nation Editors,

While I am somewhat impressed (compared to recent efforts from Alexander Cockburn) at the reasonable tone and interesting theoretical arguments of Christopher Hayes' article "9/11: The Roots of Paranoia", his analysis, sadly, still comes up wanting in many ways.

The article opens by citing a July 2006 Scripps poll which shows that 33% of Americans believe either LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) or MIHOP (make it happen on purpose) theories of US governement complicity on 9/11.

He's disturbed by these findings (although unsurprised by them, which I'll discuss later) because he detects no ferment among the masses that would correspond to knowing that the country is being led by mass murderers. This ignores, of course, the fact that it is undeniable that our government IS being led by mass murderers, as 100k - 600k victims of unprovoked international violence would attest. The question, it seems, is whether or not our country is led by mass murderers of Americans. (Not counting, of course, the 3000+ fellow citizens who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the tens of thousands of permanently maimed, on both sides)

A later poll is more instructive, I think, and speaks to why he thinks the first phenomenon is unsurprising.

----
Question: When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

..........................Oct. 2006 ...May 2002

Telling the truth..........16%.......21%

Hiding something........53%.......65%

Mostly lying................28%........8%

Not sure.....................3%........6%

Source: The New York Times / CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults,
conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.
----

Now this new poll reveals that 81% (!!) of Americans believe that Bush administration is covering up either something or everything about 9/11. Notably, the portion that thinks the administration is "mostly lying" is up 20% since 2002. That's almost double the amount that think the administration is actually telling the full truth.

Americans' complete lack of confidence in the "Truthiness" of this administration is reflected in these overwhelming numbers. It's almost like: Q: "How can you tell when Bush or Cheney are lying?" A: "Their lips are moving."

C'mon, more than 80% think they're not being straight with us about the single biggest crime ever to happen on American soil. A crime that's led us into not just one but two wars of mayhem and cruelty almost beyond description. A shocking event that's led to the ritualized disembowelment of democratic institutions and civil liberties as the public has largely watched mesmerized, like a frog enjoying the hot tub.

One reason for the expansion of interest in 9/11 Truth and related research is not just Loose Change, which he cites with look-down-his-nose contempt for its low-budget, 20-something approach to purported debunking, but C-Span, which has broadcast several 9/11 Truth events, much to the pleasure of their ratings manager. Videos of these events have collectively gotten as much play as Loose Change, which has never been broadcast on national TV, let alone repeatedly.

One paragraph gets to the core of his argument:

This pattern of deception has not only fed diffuse public cynicism but has provided an opening for alternate theories of 9/11 to flourish. As these theories--propounded by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement--seep toward the edges of the mainstream, they have raised the specter of the return (if it ever left) of what Richard Hofstadter famously described as "the paranoid style in American politics." But the real danger posed by the Truth Movement isn't paranoia. Rather, the danger is that it will discredit and deform the salutary skepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders.

OK, point by point.

1. Wouldn't it make sense for a "pattern of deception" to logically lead people to think that if they'd lie in order to send thousands of Americans to their deaths, and kill hundreds of thousands of others, that they just might lie about the event that led them to do this?

2. If you ever watched the excellent dissection of media fear projection featured in "Bowling for Columbine", you'd realize that "paranoia" has long been a central fixture of the American psyche. Paranoia about the Russians, the Communists, Anthrax (the mail), Snipers, Killer Bees and poisoned Halloween candy... you name it, we've been coached and coaxed to be paranoid about it. It's hardly the result of the burgeoning 9/11 Truth movement.

3. The main point. After dismissing the spectre of paranoia he has just summoned (for effect maybe?), he says that 9/11 skepticism will "discredit and deform" the otherwise laudable skepticism that Americans are only just now starting to show any real signs of. Discredit to whom? Deform how? He doesn't say. You'd think if this was the "real danger" (a highly alarmist phrase), he's at least cite ONE example of how this might be true. Nope. We are left to our own devices to imagine how.

Moving on to the "raising questions" paragraph. Mr. Hayes cites a small number of apparent (he says perceived) physical anomalies that have attracted 9/11 researchers' interest, but offers no direct refutation of any of them. He ignores certain key facts, like the tower's free-fall-speed collapse, the pools of molten steel in the basements that persisted for months, and the even-officially-unexplained collapse of WTC-7, to make it seem like carefully analyzed events were merely a collection of vaguely-informed hunches. He mixes scientific analysis with whacko/provocateur assertions to smear one with the other, without differientating between them at all.

When he brings up the Reichstag fire, he purports that the majority of historians now share his view (no doubt appreciated by Nazi sympathizers) the a lone anarchist was really the architect of the crime. This is despite the fact that the Nazi's DID stage an attack on a frontier radio station in order to falsely claim that Poland had done it and officially launch WWII. A review of available scholarship would easily conclude that historians have actually developed NO consensus on the subject, other than the fact that the Nazis were most likely involved in some way.

He also makes no mention of the legal mechanisms the Nazis used in conjunction with the Reichstag fire that have eerie and haunting resonance today. The Patriot Act, obviously prepared long before 9/11 and designed to rip the heart out of what we had always considered "normal" civil rights protections, is our modern day "Enabling Act", a fact to which he makes no reference.

His "strongest" argument for his confidence in the Bush administration's theories about the events of 9/11 is presented next, in a one-paragraph, three-sentence oblique sideswipe of the quite outdated and already thoroughly discredited March 2005 Popular Mechanics cover article. Read Jim Hoffman's systematic dismantling of this report on WTC7.net if you think this report has any scientific merit. Using this report as the central foundation for his rejection of 9/11 scholarship demonstrates the lack of depth with which he has actually pursued his investigation. "Superficial" would be charitable, I think.

Of course, he then goes on to describe the 9/11 Commission Report as "something of a whitewash", but blythely moves on as if an obvious coverup involving a major mass murder was nothing to be concerned about. He mentions that Bush was only interviewed by the Commission in the presence of Cheney, but he fails to mention that they were not under oath, or recorded, or videotaped. Or that no commissioners were allowed to take notes and that the entire panel and staff had only three hours to meet with them, both. Is this what you at the Nation call "investigative journalism"? Sounds like conspicuous ignorance of inconvenient facts to me. Or was it just edited out to copy-fit the print edition? Just how much of a "whitewash" was it? He doesn't go into much detail, and ignores David Ray Griffin's authoritative book and lectures on the subject, lest it detract from his overall argument.

The rest of Mr. Hayes' article is pretty much a plaintive beseeching of the establishment media to take a more active role in resisting the tendency to print whatever the administration tells them, even when they know it to be a lie, cause "the people" are on to something and if they (the media) don't wise up they'll get the rabble all fired up and suspicious of everyone.

He posits two world-views, one credulous, one paranoid. I posit a third: thoughtful. Thoughtful as in imaginative, creative, intelligent, discerning, investigative, and wise. The 9/11 Truth Movement is not a "rabbit hole of delusion" as he would suggest. Indeed, those of us who insist that physics and chemistry follow strict laws, and that standard law enforcement investigative techniques and rules of evidence preservation should be used in all murder cases, and democratic openness and conflict-of-interest transparency should be the rule of the day in all major government operations would say that far from a "rabbit hole", the 9/11 Truth Movement is the most genuine example of citizen challenge to the forces of destruction around us.

Why is it that so many liberal/progressive publications and columnists have such a hard time seeing that?

Phillip Agee wrote in "Inside the Company" that the CIA had paid or blackmailed assets in almost every major news organization in almost every country in the world. For 25 years Lane Kirkland, head of the AFL/CIO, was actually a paid CIA asset. Is this what's going on here? Is someone on the company payroll? Does someone have some juicy dirt on y'all and is holding it over your heads?

That would at least make sense. This systematic failure to even look closely at the carefully reviewed and vetted research and the casting of insults and negative aspersions is more commonly the province of drug-addled right wingers like Rush Limbaugh. I bet it's the one thing that Rush and the Nation agree on, that 9/11 Truth folks are whacky kooks.

It's hard to understand all of this, but I'm standing my ground.

Come up with some better arguments or seriously investigate the reputable facts and research on 9/11 and see if you've actually been wrong on this one. The weak arguments presented just make the Nation look silly, and stupid. Far from 9/11 research "discrediting the left", it's just this kind of weak, unsupported blather that makes us all look like confused morons. Aren't you guys better than that?

I look forward to your reply,

David Caputo
Positronic Design

http://www.PositronicDesign.com

http://TotallyFixed.blogspot.com

Add to Technorati Favorites

Gatekeeper Chimp? - Say it isn't true...

News and Commentary by David Caputo of Positronic Design

------
THIS JUST IN - The Chimp has deleted my account and this article. So much for freedom of the press, eh?
------

Here I was, all excited.

I had just cross-posted my first "real" article, American Thinker says 9/11 skepticism "extremely dangerous" on SmirkingChimp.com and saw it get lots of views (700+) and good votes and positive comments and spend some time in the "most emailed" list and then suddenly... comments and votes were suddenly shut down. (Before I could get the ten votes required to be on the "most recommended" list.)

My commentary was in reaction to an article in American Thinker that essentially suggested that 9/11 skeptics were a dangerous and potentially treasonous lot, sapping the martial spirit of our nation's youth with theories of sinister government activities.

I thought it was a good article, and so did many others, and it was not profane or venomous or deigning to claim anything in particular about 9/11 other than that the "official" investigation was, in my opinion, completely inadequate.

So... I wrote to Jeff "Smirky" Tiedrich, chimp-in-chief, and asked him why this shutdown had occurred.

I got the following, unpersonalized, unsigned, terse reply. (I am glad he at least did that)

Smirking Chimp is not a conspiracy site. Discussions such as yours, which present speculation as fact, are a distraction. I presume you are not a long-time reader of my site, or else you wouldn't need to ask why your article was closed to comments.

Well... excuuuusseeee meeee....

If he thinks my article was tough to swallow, he should check out this one from Michael Keefer called: Into the Ring with Counterpunch on 9/11: How Alexander Cockburn, Otherwise So Bright, Blanks Out on 9/11 Evidence

Now that's a well written and reasoned article if I ever saw one. Bravo Mike!

I'd also refer the reader to a similar article I wrote for TotallyFixed back when Alex had first come out with his fusillade.

So anyway, I re-read my article a couple of times and for the life of me, I just couldn't figure out what he was referring to. I also have a pet peeve with anyone who says that "this is not a conspiracy site" about a site that deals with all kinds of conspiracies every day. Conspiracy to ignore Global Warming, conspiracy to suppress voter turnout in Black districts, conspiracy to rig elections through electronic voting, conspiracy to let Black people rot in New Orleans 'cause they're Democrats (and poor, and black)... and I'm just getting started!

It seems like he is conflating "conspiracy" with "government aided or executed conspiracy to bring about 9/11 to advance authoritarian and imperialistic objectives". This is a very strange abuse of the English language, as the Webster's definition of "conspiracy" is much broader:

1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators
synonym see PLOT

Notice it doesn't mention any particular plot. It just has to be a plot to be a conspiracy. Any garden-variety scam or other malfeasance will do just fine to satisfy the definition, for the dictionary at least. Not so it seems some liberal bloggers... Only one particular conspiracy makes the grade sufficiently to be named as such.

If we are forgiving and say he was just using "conspiracy" as shorthand for "conspiracy theory", it again seems a bit narrow, considering Webster's:

: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

Now there is also here no mention of a specific event, just ANY event, that can be explained by means of a secret plot by more than one person. If you look about the pages of SmirkingChimp, you'll see that secret plots by powerful actors are plentiful. It doesn't matter the specifics. 9/11 is just the Big Enchilada of secret plots. But SmirkingChimp is all about secret plots. A quick survey found that at least 30% of the articles I read in a random sample had secret (or at least secretive) plots by two or more persons as their central or secondary theme.

You also seem to have no problem with people who TRASH 9/11 truth researchers and writers, allowing Matt Taibbi's ludicrous article to stay up and active to this day. That's not a distraction? Do you merely have a problem with people who defend 9/11 researchers. People who think they shouldn't all be thrown in jail for sedition.

It's a a very small step from jailing them to jailing you and your other writers, don't forget. Isn't more "progressive solidarity" in order here? For our own survival? After all, habeas corpus is now officially suspended. No one is truly safe in their homes, persons, and papers anymore.

This is also a good time to point out that ALL theories of what happened on 9/11/01 are "conspiracy" theories, since there is to my knowledge no possible "lone gunman" scenario for this one.

Putting aside abuses of common word meanings for a moment, the next part of his statement was what really stuck in my craw:

Discussions such as yours, which present speculation as fact, are a distraction.

"Present speculation as fact."?!?!? Where do I do that? I was confused...

And a "distraction" you say. A distraction from what? The business of opposing the Bush administration and their catalog of depredations against the world and its people? How does defending a class of people (9/11 skeptics) from a columnist that comes just short of calling for us all to be immediately arrested approach the "distraction" line. Isn't this what the Chimp is all about anyways? A place where people of like minds can gather and read and write and debate and try to make some sense of the craziness all around us. That's what I thought it was...

Not being satisfied with this response, and having now more questions than I had before, I wrote him the following reply to his reply. To date I have not received a response to this letter.

jeff tiedrich wrote: Smirking Chimp is not a conspiracy site. Discussions such as yours, which present speculation as fact, are a distraction. I presume you are not a long-time reader of my site, or else you wouldn't need to ask why your article was closed to comments.

--- and I replied ---

Dear Jeff,

Ok... Not a "conspiracy" site, eh?

If you'd like I could spend about an hour or so and come up with dozens of conspiracies (unrelated to 9/11) that are actively and vigorously discussed on your site. Most notably the ones where the oil companies or the Israelis are maneuvering behind the scenes to manipulate US foreign and military policy.

Is this not a conspiracy of some sort??

And by the way... I AM a long time reader of your site. At least a year or so. Isn't that "long time" enough? I have notified dozens (at least) of others about its presence as well and encouraged them to read it.

My article was rated very highly and commented upon very favorably by those who read it.

How is this "a distraction"?

And where, pray tell, did I present speculation as "fact" in my article?

I'll gladly eat crow and publish a written retraction if that is the case.

The article was mainly a comment about the American Thinker article bordering on calling 9/11 skeptics dangerous traitors. This made my skin crawl, so I chose your most excellent (or so I thought) web site to cross-post my article on as I figured it would interest your audience, many of whom, you might be surprised to discover, are quite vigorous 9/11 skeptics.

I thought that "opinion" was somewhat broadly protected on a criticize-the-sitting-president site such as yours.

Especially since your site's title is a reference to him looking like an animal.

Sounds pretty opinionated to me.

I don't consider humor like that to be a "distraction" from the larger issues of who is actually breaking things and hurting people with US taxpayer dollars (especially under false pretenses).

Was there no "conspiracy" to deceive the American people (and the world, although they didn't buy it) that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 (even if obliquely) and that he was spending his nights dreaming of ways to Nuke Peoria?

How can dozens of articles in your site discuss conspiracies such as these and your site not be a "conspiracy" site? What about discussing the conspiracy that allegedly took place between Osama Bin Laden and his associates to hijack planes, slit the stewardesses' throats, and precision-fly them into significant landmarks? Is that off-limits too?

Perhaps you should have an explicit "Don't discuss 9/11" warning label on your site terms and conditions. It's only the central organizing principle and rallying cry of the neo-con march for global dominance, so there really isn't any particular relevance to the subject, eh? And false flag terror operations and staged war provocations are merely the stuff of fantasy, right? (Gulf of Tonkin, anyone)

I must say I'm shocked and disappointed.

I thought the Chimp was a much more open forum, especially for a sane and moderate article such as mine.

Please read it again and tell me where I represent speculation as fact. That really stung.

Thank you for your time.

David Caputo
PositronicDave

ref: http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/3624

---------------

So that's the situation. A promising post was cut short and it seems like the Chimp is indeed smirking at me. It's as if the promise of a free and open communication forum with like minded progressive folks was really only an illusion, and I'm the Chump who bought the line. Is that what brings a Smirk to the Chimp's face?

It's almost as if they're saying:

"How dare you tromp into our genteel salon discussion of left-topical microslices with your 'big picture, they're covering up a huge crime, so they should all be in jail" bull-in-a-china-shop ranting and raving."

How dare I, indeed.

I'm sorry, I feel I have no other choice.

The stakes are much too high. The readers of this site understand the stakes are high, otherwise they'd be reading something else.

Does the Chimp really want to play this role? Is discussion of the central crime / justification for the militaristic orgy of violence and degradation we now sit amidst with no reasonable hope of escape REALLY a "distraction"?

Read Michael Keefer's article, it's a sober, eye-opening look at the systematic attack by "left gatekeepers" (like Alex Cockburn) on other leftists for wanting to discuss 9/11 and whodunnit.

I challenge any reader to contradict Michael's analysis.

I want there to be a vigorous debate/discussion of 9/11 points and counterpoints so that we can sort through all the lies and propaganda and evidence destruction and red herrings and gather enough proof to eventually GET A CONVICTION.

I think someone is actually going to go to jail for this, maybe several someones, perhaps for a very long time.

Mass murder is in fact, a crime. Not investigating a mass murder like it WAS a mass murder, is also a crime.

No matter who did the first deed, it's provable that the second was committed, and by whom.

You want the undoing of the Bush administration and their dastardly deeds, there's your ticket.

So, Gatekeeper Chimp. What's your stand on this?

Don't you think we can at least bust them on the cover up??

Don't you want to??

Are you for real??

Please advise.

David Caputo
Positronic Design

TotallyFixed.blogspot.com
----

Add to Technorati Favorites

A Keith Olberman Classic ...and some commentary by Dave

With thanks to Deka from SmirkingChimp

This is a classic Olbermann. An excellent piece. Links added by Dave.

Plus some commentary by Dave at the end that I originally posted on the Chimp.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15147009/

By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown' MSNBC
Updated: 8:19 a.m. PT Oct 6, 2006

While the leadership in Congress has self-destructed over the revelations of an unmatched, and unrelieved, march through a cesspool ...

While the leadership inside the White House has self-destructed over the revelations of a book with a glowing red cover ...

The president of the United States — unbowed, undeterred and unconnected to reality — has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: the Democrats.

Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, quote, “177 of the opposition party said, ‘You know, we don’t think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.’”

The hell they did.

One hundred seventy-seven Democrats opposed the president’s seizure of another part of the Constitution.

Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn’t be listening to the conversations of terrorists.

President Bush hears what he wants.

Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said, “Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we’re attacked again before we respond.”

Mr. Bush fabricated that, too.

And evidently he has begun to fancy himself as a mind reader.

“If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party,” the president said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, “it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is — wait until we’re attacked again.”

The president doesn’t just hear what he wants.

He hears things that only he can hear.

It defies belief that this president and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow.

Yet they do.

It is startling enough that such things could be said out loud by any president of this nation.

Rhetorically, it is about an inch short of Mr. Bush accusing Democratic leaders, Democrats, the majority of Americans who disagree with his policies of treason.

But it is the context that truly makes the head spin.

Just 25 days ago, on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this same man spoke to this nation and insisted, “We must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us.”

Mr. Bush, this is a test you have already failed.

If your commitment to “put aside differences and work together” is replaced in the span of just three weeks by claiming your political opponents prefer to wait to see this country attacked again, and by spewing fabrications about what they’ve said, then the questions your critics need to be asking are no longer about your policies.

They are, instead, solemn and even terrible questions, about your fitness to fulfill the responsibilities of your office.

No Democrat, sir, has ever said anything approaching the suggestion that the best means of self-defense is to “wait until we’re attacked again.”

No critic, no commentator, no reluctant Republican in the Senate has ever said anything that any responsible person could even have exaggerated into the slander you spoke in Nevada on Monday night, nor the slander you spoke in California on Tuesday, nor the slander you spoke in Arizona on Wednesday ... nor whatever is next.

You have dishonored your party, sir; you have dishonored your supporters; you have dishonored yourself.

But tonight the stark question we must face is — why?

Why has the ferocity of your venom against the Democrats now exceeded the ferocity of your venom against the terrorists?

Why have you chosen to go down in history as the president who made things up?

In less than one month you have gone from a flawed call to unity to this clarion call to hatred of Americans, by Americans.

If this is not simply the most shameless example of the rhetoric of political hackery, then it would have to be the cry of a leader crumbling under the weight of his own lies.

We have, of course, survived all manner of political hackery, of every shape, size and party. We will have to suffer it, for as long as the Republic stands.

But the premise of a president who comes across as a compulsive liar is nothing less than terrifying.

A president who since 9/11 will not listen, is not listening — and thanks to Bob Woodward’s most recent account — evidently has never listened.

A president who since 9/11 so hates or fears other Americans that he accuses them of advocating deliberate inaction in the face of the enemy.

A president who since 9/11 has savaged the very freedoms he claims to be protecting from attack — attack by terrorists, or by Democrats, or by both — it is now impossible to find a consistent thread of logic as to who Mr. Bush believes the enemy is.

But if we know one thing for certain about Mr. Bush, it is this: This president — in his bullying of the Senate last month and in his slandering of the Democrats this month — has shown us that he believes whoever the enemies are, they are hiding themselves inside a dangerous cloak called the Constitution of the United States of America.

How often do we find priceless truth in the unlikeliest of places?

I tonight quote not Jefferson nor Voltaire, but Cigar Aficionado Magazine.

On Sept. 11th, 2003, the editor of that publication interviewed General Tommy Franks, at that point, just retired from his post as commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command — of Cent-Com.

And amid his quaint defenses of the then-nagging absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or the continuing freedom of Osama bin Laden, General Franks said some of the most profound words of this generation.

He spoke of “the worst thing that can happen” to this country:

First, quoting, a “massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western World — it may be in the United States of America.”

Then, the general continued, “the Western World, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years, in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

It was this super-patriotic warrior’s fear that we would lose that most cherished liberty, because of another attack, one — again quoting General Franks — “that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution.”

And here we are, the fabric of our Constitution being unraveled, anyway.

Habeus corpus neutered; the rights of self-defense now as malleable and impermanent as clay; a president stifling all critics by every means available and, when he runs out of those, by simply lying about what they said or felt.

And all this, even without the dreaded attack.

General Franks, like all of us, loves this country, and believes not just in its values, but in its continuity.

He has been trained to look for threats to that continuity from without.

He has, perhaps been as naïve as the rest of us, in failing to keep close enough vigil on the threats to that continuity from within.

Secretary of State Rice first cannot remember urgent cautionary meetings with counterterrorism officials before 9/11. Then within hours of this lie, her spokesman confirms the meetings in question. Then she dismisses those meetings as nothing new — yet insists she wanted the same cautions expressed to Secretaries Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

Mr. Rumsfeld, meantime, has been unable to accept the most logical and simple influence of the most noble and neutral of advisers. He and his employer insist they rely on the “generals in the field.” But dozens of those generals have now come forward to say how their words, their experiences, have been ignored.

And, of course, inherent in the Pentagon’s war-making functions is the regulation of presidential war lust.

Enacting that regulation should include everything up to symbolically wrestling the Chief Executive to the floor.

Yet—and it is Pentagon transcripts that now tell us this—evidently Mr. Rumsfeld’s strongest check on Mr. Bush’s ambitions, was to get somebody to excise the phrase “Mission Accomplished” out of the infamous Air Force Carrier speech of May 1st, 2003, even while the same empty words hung on a banner over the President’s shoulder.

And the vice president is a chilling figure, still unable, it seems, to accept the conclusions of his own party’s leaders in the Senate, that the foundations of his public position, are made out of sand.

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But he still says so.

There was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida.

But he still says so.

And thus, gripping firmly these figments of his own imagination, Mr. Cheney lives on, in defiance, and spreads—around him and before him—darkness, like some contagion of fear.

They are never wrong, and they never regret -- admirable in a French torch singer, cataclysmic in an American leader.

Thus, the sickening attempt to blame the Foley scandal on the negligence of others or “the Clinton era”—even though the Foley scandal began before the Lewinsky scandal.

Thus, last month’s enraged attacks on this administration’s predecessors, about Osama bin Laden—a projection of their own negligence in the immediate months before 9/11.

Thus, the terrifying attempt to hamstring the fundament of our freedom—the Constitution—a triumph for al Qaida, for which the terrorists could not hope to achieve with a hundred 9/11’s.

And thus, worst of all perhaps, these newest lies by President Bush about Democrats choosing to await another attack and not listen to the conversations of terrorists.

It is the terror and the guilt within your own heart, Mr. Bush, that you redirect at others who simply wish for you to temper your certainty with counsel.

It is the failure and the incompetence within your own memory, Mr. Bush, that leads you to demonize those who might merely quote to you the pleadings of Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

It is not the Democrats whose inaction in the face of the enemy you fear, Sir.

It is your own—before 9/11 - and (and you alone know this), perhaps afterwards.

Mr. President, these new lies go to the heart of what it is that you truly wish to preserve.

It is not our freedom, nor our country—your actions against the Constitution give irrefutable proof of that.

You want to preserve a political party’s power. And obviously you’ll sell this country out, to do it.

These are lies about the Democrats -- piled atop lies about Iraq -- which were piled atop lies about your preparations for al Qaida.

To you, perhaps, they feel like the weight of a million centuries -- as crushing, as immovable.

They are not.

If you add more lies to them, you cannot free yourself, and us, from them.

But if you stop -- if you stop fabricating quotes, and building straw-men, and inspiring those around you to do the same -- you may yet liberate yourself and this nation.

Please, sir, do not throw this country’s principles away because your lies have made it such that you can no longer differentiate between the terrorists and the critics.

---
-----------------------------------------------------

And my commentary is thus...

Lying sack he is, but he's worse than that...

Dear Keith,

Another in your fantastic series of commentaries.

Bravo!

I almost thing you're being too charitable though.

Your central point misses the critical importance of the Bush / Cheney involvement with AT LEAST the COVERUP of 9/11, if not its perpetration.

How can it be that Bush and Cheney were only interviewed by the 9/11 Commission for about an hour, total, together, not under oath, with no video or audio recording for posterity, and NO NOTES even being allowed to be taken.

WTF mate?

In typical criminal investigations, involvement in a coverup and substantial motive generally require intensive scrutiny of such persons.

There is substantial evidence for both.

And I commented in my recent blog entry that the most vigorous counterattack has not been Bush against the Democrats but the media in general against all those who question if the official investigation was unbiased and thorough enough. No less a left icon as Alexander Cockburn has called us "racist nuts" while the American Thinker article I commented on in my post posits that all such persons are a "dangerous" influence.

Bet you like that kind of talk, eh?

Didn't think so...

These are valid questions. There are far too many unasked questions and contradictory conclusions for most thinking people who've reviewed the 9/11 Commission's report carefully to accept it at face value.

Ah... "the system" was to blame, not any individuals. Thank God for that. How bloody convenient, eh?

How is it possible that after the largest and most spectacular collapse of North American air defense in history that NO ONE was fired, demoted, reprimanded or even talked to sternly?

Sounds like a coverup to me. They couldn't blame anyone in particular, lest the whole ball of yarn start untangling as a result. So... nobody had to take the blame. Everyone got their designated payments, promotions, or other perks (read: Presidential Medal of Freedom) and we all just happily moved on like 9/11 was a tidy little problem that could be cured lickety-split with a little military adventurism.

This, as we both know, wasn't quite realistic.

So brother Keith, look into the 9/11 thing a bit more. You're a clear thinking person with an excellent nose for discernment.

I think you'd be able to determine which of the many story lines regarding 9/11 are relevant and seem credible, and which ones are not.

It will broadent and solidify your arguments against this criminal President, in my opinion. Check out the links in my post for more information.

Enjoy! ...and thanks again for such an excellent commentary and for so many similar commentaries you've done.

Be well.

David Caputo
Positronic Design

----

Add to Technorati Favorites

American Thinker says 9/11 skepticism "extremely dangerous"

This just in...

AmericanThinker.com's Michael Lopez-Calderon thinks that people who don't buy the government's line about 9/11 are "extremely dangerous" because they might "undermine our democratic nation's war against the theocratic forces of radical, Jihadi-driven Islam".

Ouch.

And here I was thinking I was being patriotic trying to expose the bald-faced lies and brazen evasions that have constituted the "official story" of 9/11 up to this point. After all, if the Bush administration and/or its cronies DID perpetrate or facilitate the crimes of that day, the central justification for the ongoing war(s) against our officially designated enemies would be undermined indeed.

But, that must surely be because I find comfort in conspiracy theories. As Mr. Lopez-Calderon put it, "Conspiracy theories offer explanatory models of complex events to large audiences of the unsophisticated and under-educated."

Ouch again...

The weak "attack the messenger as delusional but avoid directly criticizing any of their specific claims" methodology used by his article is all too familiar, but Lopez-Calderon expands upon this with a sinister twist. The main thrust of this twist is that 9/11 skeptics are a dangerous pathogen in the American body politic, infecting otherwise warlike and patriotic citizens, particularly the young, with a paralytic cynicism that weakens their resolve to lash out with sufficient ruthlessness at those irredeemable A-rabs who just can't wait to kill us. Seems we just don't realize how much being force-fed Lee Greenberg can fill those boys with blood-lust. (Blowback from cultural imperialism indeed...)

This, it seems, is the real question at hand.

Should these petit-Benedict-Arnolds still be allowed to roam freely and brazenly challenge (on the scandalously unregulated internet) our great and noble nation's declared world-view?? Perhaps they should all be rounded up and held incommunicado in internment camps until the threat from "radical, Jihadi-driven Islam" has safely passed. That should only be a couple of months, right? Seems like the only sure strategy to keep them from doing things that "may lead more Americans, particularly the young, to withdraw their allegiance to their country."

Sounds like a national freaking emergency to me, neh?

And about that intarweb thing...

Another culprit of course is the unregulated, often unaccountable Internet-blogosphere, where virtually unfettered free speech has produced a downside, namely, an opening for every conceivable crackpot writer. In the past, such writers and their theories often were relegated to coffeehouses, salons, and obscure, dilapidated radical bookstores commonly found in college towns and or near major university campuses. They were a fringe relegated to relative obscurity. Today, thanks to the Internet's incredible freedom as well as reach, no toiler is condemned to obscurity but on the contrary, with some talent, hard work, and catchy writing, he can reach audiences that may range in the millions. (links added)

Oh God I could only hope...

I've been getting so tired of those musty radical bookstores anyway. And millions you say... Sheesh... That'd be nice...

Used to be in the old days I'd spend all night spread out at the local Kinkos, pasting together the carefully typed-out articles from my ragged gaggle of scribes. Now it's just Type, Post, and watch the hit-counter spin like it's a slot machine in Atlantic City. To think I used to spend all my weekends dropping off copies at the local coffeehouses and bookstores...

But I digress...

In addition to Michael's denouncement of 9/11 skeptics as essentially traitors scheming to bare America's belly to the inevitable Scimitar of theological conquest, he links such scholars with Holocaust Deniers and Illuminati fans. He summarily dismisses ALL research, conclusions, and data that would suggest that A) the government's case is fatally flawed, and B) that many 9/11 skeptics have meticulously researched and vetted data and conclusions. He provides links to sites that support his claims, like this one, but never gives links to any of the 9/11 Truth web sites that he is supposedly criticizing.

Try digging a little deeper, Mike. You obviously don't have any problem with America's actions or agenda in the world so go ahead. It won't put you at risk of "cynicism", right? Watch a couple of David Ray Griffin videos and systematically debunk his points. Read Jim Hoffman's analysis on his WTC7 site. Show me exactly how their arguments are flawed.

I dare you.

I don't think you've actually got the gravitas to try.

A genuine critique of their points might be a bit much to ask.

Much easier to simply dismiss something out of hand and trash fellow columnists, no?

We shall see I guess...

Cross posted at http://SmirkingChimp.com/thread/3624 (but shut down because of verboten topic discussion policies)

----

Add to Technorati Favorites