Questions which continue to tormet the American soul.

[wcepler]

Questions which continue to torment the American soul.

*********************************************************************
(1.) What American political party BENEFITED from 9/11?

(2.) Which Middle Eastern countries BENEFITED from preemptively invading Iraq?

(3.) Which Middle Eastern countries would BENEFIT from preemptively invading Iran?

(4.) How did the neocon lobby get absolute control of American's foreign policy since this lobby is not lobbying and never has lobbied for the well being and national security of the United States of America?

(5.) How and why did 9/11 happen in the first place, since mountains of intelligence available to everyone but dogs and cats knew it was inevitable?

(6.) Why did the Bush Administration bury the investigation into why only high profile Democrats received anthrax in the mail?

(7.) Why did the Bush Administration bury the investigation into the possible (probable?) assassination of Senator Wellstone?

(8.) What's the big picture about the fact that Prescott Bush (George's grandfather) had open, repeated, and remunerative financial connections with the Nazi Party?

(9.) What's the big picture about the fact that Pope Benedict XVI recently cited a 14th century Byzantine Emperor that Muhammad was evil, setting back Muslin/Christian relations 200 years? Also, lots of loose ends about fascist connections in his past are still dangling . . .

(10.) Why are we still accepting presidential elections which the international standard for determining election fraud (i.e. significant discrepancies between exit polls and tallied results) conclusively PROVES were fraudulent? Said differently, the scientifically validated President of the United States is Al Gore.

(11.) Why are we allowing Texas energy corporations to permanently foul the nest of the human species?

(12.) Why are we allowing a barely toilet trained president to regress American science back into the Dark Ages.

(13.) Why are we allowing duh-brained, death-wishing Armageddon religious fanatics who actually expect the Earth to go boom in the next week or two (!), to clog the institutional dynamics of our Democratic Republic with the sludge of raw stupidity?

(14.) Why do we not acknowledge once and for all that our country is a textbook Dictatorship of the Rich and that corporate fascism is hard wired into the social/political games rules for EVERYTHING?

(15.) Ironically, most of us already know the answers to these questions; however silence here is denial. Only by OPENLY and continuously networking about these "answers" can we hope to save ourselves. This is called publicly staying in touch with reality and the alternative is the certain death of America and the biosphere of the Earth.
**********************************************************************
W. Christopher Epler (Bill)

<http://theliberationofrealism.blogspot.com/>

[ixion]

1. good questions

some reality-based answers would be very nice.

[blm]

2. Democrats DO have to get a grip and deal with how it got to this point -

Thankyou SO much for being a CITIZEN asking the RIGHT questions. Rare sight in this increasingly overly personality driven media world of politics.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html


Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!

By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.
>>>>>>>>>
Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”
>>>>>>>

MUCH MORE AT LINK.
BTW - Parry allows full reposting of his article with proper attribution, but for bandwidth's sake I'm posting about 1/4 of it.

[wcepler]

6. more facts -- thanks

Very informative.

Thanks,

Bill

[blm]

3. KandR. A citizen with the guts to ask the REAL QUESTIONS should be heard.

.

[Grandrose]

4. K&R

I am afraid those questions answered would show...America has lost it's soul and we are in big trouble!
:yoiks: :kick:

[wcepler]

5. solidarity

It does feel that way, doesn't it? The very soul of America is fighting for its life. But we do have the internet (the fascists & fundamentalists didn't plan for that) and the polls clearly show the great majority of Americans want to swing back to progressive/liberal values and policies, so if we can just hold on until 08 . . .

solidarity, Bill