Woodward's book confirms what John Dean's book has been warning us

[keithyboy]

about. IT'S THE SECRET GOVERNMENT THAT IS THE REAL ISSUE. What the public sees is a mirage of the real US government. And if the Congress and the people duck their heads in the sand then we deserve whatever comes our way.

The revelations about the SECRET govenment are really so astounding that even many here at DU don't want to admit it and will make up all kinds of excuses and use all kinds of diversions to keep from having to deal with the REAL problem.

[DeepModem Mom]

1. Interesting thought -- those two emerged from the same place...

at the same time, from different directions, and both played key roles in bringing Nixon down.

[freetobegay]

2. Both?

eom

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Dean, who testified as an insider, that a "cancer" was growing

in the White House; Woodward, who along with Bernstein, pursued and kept the story of that "cancer" ablaze in the Washington Post --

[freetobegay]

5. I must be losing it!

I thought you were talking about Kerry & Bush! :crazy:

Sorry.

[dbt]

3. Trouble is, Nixxon was a choirboy

compared to the bu$h regime! Tricky Dick smiles up from hell.

:freak:
dbt

[kcwayne]

6. Choirboy?

That choirboy authorized and presided over the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia. That in conjunction with the carpet bombing of North Vietnam and the destruction of thousands of farming villages throughout the countryside led to the deaths of well over a million civilians in those countries, and set up conditions of instability in Cambodia that led to the deaths of millions of Cambodians under Pol Pot.

As evil, morally decrepit, and ruthless as the BFEE is, they have not raised themselves to this level of misery... yet.

[rman]

8. well no, B* does it out in the open...

bomb and occupy Iraq. The fact that he doesn't do that in secret doesn't make it any better.

[kcwayne]

10. I am not saying Bush is better

I am saying Nixon was no choirboy, and Bush has about 1.7 million people to kill before he is competitive with Nixon on being a scumbag in this regard. Hopefully he will be stopped before it comes close to this for the sake of the world.

Bush is far worse than Nixon on matters of national policy as it pertains to our freedoms, leadership, lying, and corruption.

[rman]

7. same thing others have warned about...

1933 - US President Franklin D. Roosevelt:
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American President."

(What about Jackson? - 1829:
"You (the Bankers) are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the eternal God, I will rout you out."...
"If Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given to be used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.")

1954 - US Senator William Jenner:
"...We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureacratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded and is sure that it is the winning side. All the strange developments in foreign policy agreements may be traced to this group who are going to make us over to suit their pleasure. This political action group has its own local political support organizations, its own pressure groups, its own vested interests, its foothold within our government, and its own propaganda apparatus."


"Constitution is outmoded" - does that sound familiar? Seems the neocons have been at it for quite some time. And does "strange developments in foreign policy agreements" ring a bell? Rumsfeld selling WMDs to Saddam, perhaps?


Some about the propaganda apparatus:

"Manufacturing Consent" - Noam Chomsky
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html
http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/chomsky.home.html

Framing the issues
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
Why do conservatives appear to be so much better at framing?
Because they've put billions of dollars into it. Over the last 30 years their think tanks have made a heavy investment in ideas and in language. In 1970, Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that.

[leetrisck]

9. In line with "House of Bush, House of Saud"

bush & gang have sold us to bin laden and the Saudi's

[bryant69]

11. IN for a penny in for a pound, eh?

The false choice.

Either you accept that there is a secret government who wanted September 11th to happen so they could enact their fascist like agenda, or else you accept President Bush as a great president (snicker snicker).

But that's a false choice, isn't it? There are all sorts of inbetween states.

For example, I believe that neo-conservative hardliners within the organization (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) and without (the neo-conservative commentators) have a very specific and negative agenda that they want to pursue; President Bush is largely following their line on foreign affairs, so in that sense, they are a secret government. Thus we need to elminate this cabal of neo-conservative crooks.

But getting from there to the idea that there are monied interests that are basically going to pursue the same agenda no matter who gets in power, so we may as well give up and not vote, well, that's a step further than I think the facts warrent.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com