I have a bad feeling about tomorrow...

[Contrary1]

and it doesn't involve DC other than that all the attention is being focused on it.
Has anyone heard anything about extra security in other parts of the country, or
will most of those in charge of our protection be at the coronation?

[Borgnine]

1. I've had a long-standing nightmare...

...that tomorrow will be the day when Bush declares himself Emperor and declares martial law, based on his fradulent two percent "mandate."

[Benhurst]

5. I share your nightmare; but he doesn't need to declare himself

Emperor-- he IS Emperor. As for martial law, it's defacto already, thanks to the so-called "Patriot" Act.

We are no longer part of the "Free World," if there ever was such a thing.

[GRLMGC]

6. Emperor Bush

That would be funny if it wasn't so scary

[complain jane]

2. I still can't even wrap my head around the part where

the entertainers can't look at the Chimp.

[radwriter0555]

3. Luckily the real terrorists will be attending the inauguration, so there

really is nothing to fear.

BUSH and the PNAC whores, being the real terrorists, of course.

[catzies]

13. That's true. They're safe. We, however, are not.

:scared:

[stray cat]

4. Its a good time to hit somewhere else

I am concerned about another location as well.

[Ariana Celeste]

8. Definitely...

everyone knows how thick security will be AT the inaguaration. So what about everywhere else? Bush is only concerned for his own ass.

[imenja]

7. I wouldn't worry

Remember, Al Quaeda, if that is what is worrying you, has always operated on their own time table. We worry about significant American events, but their own sense of time and dates is entirely different.

[Dhalgren]

10. Also remember, that these days A-Q only attacks when it is

beneficial to Caligula's plans. If the Naked Emperor needs an A-Q attack tomorrow, one will come, but I'm not sure he has planned for one just now...

[imenja]

11. I don't even know what to say to this kind of thing

Is your hatred so blinding you are entirely unconcerned with evidence? It's this sort of thing that makes the left look such as unsound as the fringe Right.

[Dhalgren]

12. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass how "sound" the "left" looks.

And to whom does this appear? Never mind, I don't care. PNAC calls for a "Pearl Harbor" in order for the neocon takeover to commence - and, voila, 9/11. The Emperor declares his manly "WAR ON TERROR!" Then calls it off before Osama can be caught. Osama then dutifully makes a video in order to scare the lily-livered American public into clinging desperately to Caligula's skirts. The Madrid bombing back-fired - it's goal was to have the same affect upon the Spaniards as OBL's video had on Mom and Pop Beaudine, here in the US. Well, they are not infallible (luckily). When the duck is walking and the duck is quacking some folks still can only see the Emperor's brand new clothes; and my, my ain't they pretty?

[karlrschneider]

14. Exactly. We are NOT stupid, but the neocons will portray us as such

no matter what we say. There is nothing to be gained by 'making nice' and (at this point) nothing to lose by playing as nast as the bastards who have been shitting on us for years. FUKEM and FIGHT, I sez...

[imenja]

17. evidently not

but I would hope you would care about your own intellectual and moral integrity.

[Dhalgren]

20. You've been drinking the kool-aide again.

My morality and my intellectual integrity are my business; not your's, not some mythical "them", and not the US government's. If you want to say that I am full of shit, because what I say is untrue or stupid or even counter-productive, that's fine, we can argue that like adults. But when you try to scare me with what some other group or person might think about something I say or how it might make "us" look in the eyes of some judgmental "they", then keep it to yourself. And I know that the Emperor and his ass-kin want everyone to think that morality and integrity are things that the group or government or Republican party can control, but let me tell you - they aren't...

[imenja]

21. degradation of our political culture

What I really wanted to say is that you views appear just as delusional as those of the fringe right, but I tried to couch it in less confrontational terms, so I spoke of appearances. It bothers me a great deal that so many care so little for evidence in coming to conclusions about particular political issues. Truth has been replaced by that with which one agrees with. I frankly see no difference between your point of view and that of Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. Bush voters believed the president's lies on the war because they wanted to do so and ignored all evidence to the contrary. None of these positions are based on a rationale and intelligent view of evidence but instead come from hatred. Without critical thinking, our democracy has no chance. If you are ready to believe anything simply because it conveniences you to do so rather than based on a clear examination of evidence, you only contribute to the wall of noise that contributes to the continued degradation of our political culture. I demand more from my fellow citizens, especially those on the left.

[Dhalgren]

22. But you are neglecting a clear and persistent set of facts.

The Republicans will not allow the government nor the media to investigate any of the "coincidences" that any rational person would say needs to be investigated.

PNAC states plainly that it needs a "Pearl Harbor" and in Bush's first year in office (not his third or forth) he gets his "P.H."
(And the number of bizarre occurrences - Atta's passport found in WTC rubble, the Saudis spirited away days after 9/11, etc. is just iceberg nipple)

Bush's government already had war plans developed for Iraq prior to 9/11.

Bush calls off the hunt for Osamah before he can be caught.

Bush's government lied like hell and moved heaven and earth to invade Iraq - why? Why do you think they did this? Don't know? Me either - we are left to conjecture.

And that is the point. I, and those stupid enough to be like minded, aren't making up crap out of our feeble minds. These are real issues, real occurrences that the Bush administration will not allow anyone to investigate. Any time any government refuses to allow investigations into occurrences that any sane person would have to admit are suspicious, and that have caused such death and destruction around the globe, and that has such a clear-cut group of beneficiaries, then the sane will conjecture the worst. To equate the suspicions and reasoned conclusions brought by many on the "left" to the factual actions of this government with the ravings of "fringe" right-wingers over their hatred for anything liberal is a willful misunderstanding of the cases under consideration...

[imenja]

23. I have no dispute with you that Iraq was planned before 9/11

There is a great deal of evidence that makes that clear (Richard Clark and Paul O'Neill's books, for example). But to say Bush planned and implemented 9/11 and other terrorist attacks is not defensible by any existing evidence. There is no question they have used terrorism as an ideological justification for any number of atrocious policies, but that provides no evidence that they deliberately caused the attack. Following 9/11, Craig Unger makes clear the administration protected their Saudi cronies because of financial connections. I have no idea what your reference to Atta's passport is meant to prove. I assume he had it on him when the plane crashed. If you'll recall, immigration renewed his visa some months after he had died in the attacks. Evidence that does exist about the causes of the 9/11 attack shows that our government has been grossly incompetent. But to imagine George W Bush himself wages those attacks, with no evidence to suggest that is the case, reveals a level of hatred and prejudice on your part that defies all reason. I feel quite certain you are capable of much more sound analysis.

[Dhalgren]

26. How do you propose to acquire evidence

when investigations are forbidden? Atta's passport was found in the rubble of the collapsed WTC buildings, unburned and undamaged - laying out in plain sight, but there must be some logical explanation for that, right?. What I implied before is that there is some sort of collusion between Bush and OBL; the sequence of events at least make that a possibility. However, without permission to investigate, no one will ever know. The very idea that an investigation would require permission from the government aught to set off klaxons inside one's head, but then that is probably just "reverse-freeper" talk.

The point is that this administration, with its total control of American media, has made the very raising of questions a source of ridicule and censorship (and self-censorship among the very people who should be questioning the most). I will not look at the bloody, murderous mess that this criminal gang of blood-soaked crooks have made and say, "well, we just can't know for sure and we have no irrefutable proof, so I guess we have to accept whatever they say and hope no one thinks badly of us" I'm sorry, I'm through with all that wimp-shit.

[imenja]

27. so in the absence of evidence that suits you

you decide to indulge in a fantasy? I assume you have decided to disregard the entire 9/11 commission. There are, however, a number of published books on the intelligence and policy failures leading to 9/11. The media that you somehow think is best qualified to carry out investigations has published a number of stories on this subject. You can also read the leftist press, like _The Nation_, _Mother Jones_, and _The Progressive_ for alternative points of view. You might even see what some Marxist publications like _Monthly Review_ have to say on the subject. Most have been highly critical of the Bush administration's neglect of terrorism before 9/11 and efforts since to capitalize on it to promote his own insidious policies.
There have been some investigations by the the press into 9/11. The fact the results don't fit with you rather morbid view of the world does not mean they don't exist.

[Dhalgren]

28. Wow! You're right!

You'd have to be completely CRAZZZZZY to think that there might be more here than meets the eye! Wheeeew! Now I can sleep at night! Thanks loads!!!

[imenja]

29. two questions

1) Why automatically assume Bush was responsible for 9/11? I find that difficult to understand. What purpose does that serve you? 2) what about the fact that Bin Laden has taken responsibility for the attacks in more than one video and audio recording?

I have no doubt there is much more to the story than we know now. There always is. And at some point in the future (25 plus years from now), when Freedom of Information Act requests are submitted, we will find out more. Historians will then be able to analyze more fully the causes and consequences of 9/11. I see no reason to assume, however, in the absence of evidence, that our own government would deliberately murder over 3000 of it's citizens and deal a very serious blow to the financial center of the nation. Our government has committed many nefarious actions in its foreign policy. It has overthrown democratically elected governments and imposed dictatorships in their stead. Many State Department and CIA documents detailed these actions are available online through the National Security Archives, and even the CIA and State Department websites--since they have been compelled to disclose them by law. As horrendous and unjustifiable as these actions were, they fit in with our government's sense of American interests, generally understood mistakenly as essential battles in the Cold War. 9/11 serves no such national interest. In fact, it threatened American interests. Bush has capitalized on the situation to impose his awful policies abroad. But as much as I dislike him, even though I know him to be the worst president in American history, I see no reason to assume he willfully killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. Especially since Bin Laden has claimed responsibility. I don't understand what purpose it serves you to assume Bush was behind this when you have admitted you have no evidence to support your claims.

[Dhalgren]

31. Well, for what it is worth, I'll give it a go.

"Follow the money". Another way of saying this is "who profits". There has never been any rock solid evidence (that would stand in court) that Hitler was ultimately responsible for the Reichstags Fire. But it was the callous, immediate use he put to the tragedy that has always since convinced historians that he was ultimately responsible. There can be any number of coincidences that occur, but when they occur in such frequency, proximity, and with a single direction of benefit, one begins to wonder. It's like the fact that 99.99% of the election "glitches", errors, and irregularities were in Bush's favor. Now you can say that since we do not have hard evidence of criminal activity, we can't assume fraud. And the fact that no serious investigations are being conducted by any group with power, is just not pertinent. But, to me those numbers scream "fraud".
The "9/11" Commission was much more of a "cover up" and "whitewash" than a real, legitimate investigation - at least that is my opinion, your's may be different. I think (again MO) that to overlook the distinct possibility of Bush gang collusion (in one form or another) in all the events surrounding the facilitation of their hard purpose of invading and conquering Iraq, is just a little naive. Trust me, I have spent all of my spare time reading everything I could get my hands on regarding Bush, his gang, and the events unfolding since the fall of 2000.
I come back to the question: why did the Bush gang invade Iraq? If it was for criminal reasons (which I think it was) then to simply believe that all of the unusual circumstances that brought about their ability to carry out their criminal enterprise was just serendipitous is, I think, a classic case of "turning a blind-eye". Now you can bring forth whatever evidence you wish to present, but unless it is the product of a legitimate investigation, it is no more acceptable than Al Capone's alibis and stories surrounding the "Saint Valentine's Day Massacre".
The Bush gang has stolen two presidential elections, lied to the US public about practically every program or policy that they have pushed through, they control the media and will not allow investigations into any of their activities (remember Cheney's secret energy task force), and the worst of all, they have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in their plunder and rape of Iraq - and they are still at it; maybe Iran next. When such obvious criminals are involved, then I trust nothing they say and assume the worst.
You trust the Bush gang's word and I don't, why can't we just leave it at that.

[imenja]

33. I don't trust them at all

Far from it. Bush likes to use 9/11 as an excuse for entering Iraq, but the Democrats have done our best to point out there is no connection. You now use his actions in Iraq as an indication he planned 9/11.
Obviously we disagree on the issue, and I can leave that as such. I do not, however, appreciate your assertion that since I seek evidence as a basis of making political decisions that somehow means I support or trust Bush. I have been actively protesting against this war for months before it broke out. I continue to oppose it, and the war was my fundamental motivation in working hundreds of hours for the Kerry campaign.

Your concerns with the war and election fraud are well placed. None of this, however, proves Bush involvement in planning 9/11. An analogy might be appropriate here: You know a local criminal is responsible for two robberies of a convenience store. When a murder occurs in a private residence on the other side of town, is it right to assume the local robber is responsible? Even if another criminal has confessed to the crime (Bin Laden).

My approach to politics, and most everything actually, is as a skeptic. My tendency is to disbelieve something until I see compelling evidence that prompts me to make up my mind. I don't create a position and then look for evidence that suits that point of view while disregarding the rest. I am always open to new idea and information, but they must be established through a solid evidentially foundation. My training as a historian prompts me to critically question everything and feel unsatisfied with an explanation until I find compelling evidence.

You and I think differently on this issue, which is fine. But please do not mistake my skepticism for an argument unsupported by evidence as any sort of trust in Bush. I know he is capable of doing many nefarious acts. Most, I believe, will be carried out abroad, perhaps soon in Iran. Unless I see evidence that tells me otherwise I see no reason to conclude he murdered 3000 American civilians on 9/11, despite the fact that I intensely dislike everything about his government.

[Dhalgren]

35. Absolutely fair enough.

I think that what "set me off" initially is the idea that to make assumptions based on the best evidence available is somehow equal to fringe rightists hatred of everything liberal to the point of some actually advocating internment for those of the liberal persuasion. I realize that you will not allow yourself to "jump to conclusions" about sequential and related events without documented evidence. I accept that, but do not, in this political climate and with these particular thugs in power, necessarily agree with your reticence.

I would just point out (to continue our discussion) that the analogy you used is not quite accurate; if you found that the "confessed" killer had been benefited by the robberies, you might want to find those robbers and try to connect the two cases. I think that when you are dealing with crimes of the magnitude and heinousness (?) of the 2001 to current crime spree of the Bush gang you have to take a more "prosecutorial" approach. Can the crimes be linked? Yes. Then the investigation should ensue until the facts are known - one way or the other.

If I impugned you integrity, I apologize. But in my defense, it was in my defense.

[imenja]

36. no apology is necessary

but I appreciate it nonetheless.

[imenja]

30. a source you might find useful

_Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001_
by Steve Coll
Penguin, 695 pp., $29.95

A review by Ahmed Rashid published in the _New York Review of Books_ is available here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17114

[illflem]

9. I read where security is being beefed up in LA and Seattle

tomorrow. At least two cities have the smarts to think out of the box.

[NeoTraitors]

15. Why is the burden of proof on us?

PNAC docs are a matter of public record. How are we kookie if we would like a little explanation for what appears very suspicious. We are talking about the security of our nation!

I don't know for sure that 9/11 was LIHOP or MIHOP and that is the damn problem. Isn't it troubling that these possibilities exist? If they could clear it up why the hell haven't they?

Plenty of evidence exists to point to these possibilities. I think it is kookie to not be shocked and appalled by PNAC.

[RBHam]

16. Don't Worry...

Osama won't do anything to disrupt his best business partner's day in the sun...

[Edgewater_Joe]

18. Me, Too, To Be Honest

It would be just like Dear Leader to not have a heightened color alert, all that extra DC security -- only to see Disneyland or someplace in Texas get hit instead.

My only question: would they finally cancel the balls if something bad happened? I wonder with these a-holes.

[KansDem]

25. "...would they finally cancel the balls if something bad happened?"

It would be difficult for Andrew Card to whisper in Bush's ear, "we are under attack," while Bush is waltzing with Laura...

[Greylyn58]

19. I don't know if anything will happen

tomorrow, but like you I've had some weird vibes about Thursday for over a week now.

Not sure if it's just me being depressed about the damn coronation of the shrub or....

:shrug:

[BeTheChange]

24. Outside of sacramento, they've cranked up the body bag plant..

or so I hear.. just like that mass order of bbs that was placed just prior to 9/11.

Sometimes I even feel crazy, but I just "know" that time is running out.
It's just something I feel. And Ive been having the most horrible dreams lately, even though, until today.. for the last few weeks Ive tried my damnedest to not read the news and to stay away from DU. Sometimes it feels like when Im constantly reading the news or DU I sink so far into all of the depression and evil that is currently going on in the world, that I lose perspective.

I can understand the sheeple who are completely oblivious and like it that way. Sometimes I wish I was made that way.

[Taxloss]

32. Well, nothing's happened.

Guess you can relax a bit.

[RBHam]

34. See Post 16...

Any attack on the USA has to be cleared through the neo-con braintrust and their bought and paid for degenerate planners at the Pentagon...