On 2002-05-17 12:14, Xer of Evil wrote:

Does anyone know how this story finally leaked? My guess is that we still haven't heard the whole truth.

XoE

All these forewarnings have been reported and repeated in the foreign media since 911 (and possibly some earlier) and have been in plain black and white. The only people in the world who have been largely ignorant of the fact that the administration had forewarnings are the American people. Think about that. We supposedly have a hostile "liberal" media, one which I as a Rightist railed against for decades. But despite following all the foreign press reports and reading the same wire stories, this supposedly "hostile" and "liberal" press, indeed 85-90% of which consistently votes Democratic, never breathed a word of what the rest of the world was hearing. (Hell, nor did Democratic politicians, for that matter.)

Yes, there obviously is a whole lot more that our supposedly "hostile" and "liberal" media could report which they have not been reporting and you can simply go to foreign media sources and see for yourself (and this has been true since 911). If our supposedly hostile and liberal media will do nothing to challenge the Bush administration, then this sudden "leak" looks like a deliberate leak on the part of the administration intended as damage control. Either something even more embarrassing is about to come out and the administration is attempting to lessen its impact. Or the administration has calculated that enough people are knowledgeable about the forewarnings at this point (in spite of the American media's silence) that it must fess up to the forewarnings in some way to maintain any credibility. In the latter case, the timing of the leak would probably have been chosen deliberately and this may suggest that the administration knows that a new attack (bio or nuke) is imminent and they are counting on it to blot out the present commotion and their embarrassment over this leak. Let's hope to God this does not happen but do not be surprised if it does.

With respect to how this was leaked, that is described in Ruppert's column above. I will paste in the relevant portion:


FBI MEMOS TRIGGER WHITE HOUSE BACKSTEPPING

In ?traditional? hijackings the hijackers have no need or desire to learn how to fly.

As reported by the New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post (among others) the events leading to Fleischer?s statements were the recent disclosure of FBI memoranda originated by field agents in Arizona and Minnesota that warned of a possible hijack attempt by bin Laden?s followers. In both cases the suspects were taking flight lessons.

According to Newsweek and the New York Times, FBI agents in Phoenix submitted a classified memorandum in July naming Osama bin Laden and tracking the activities of possible Middle Eastern terrorist suspects who had enrolled in local flight schools. The memo, according to the Times, stated bin Laden?s followers ?could use the schools to train for terror operations.? The information in the Phoenix memo was not shared with FBI field agents in Minnesota who had uncovered other startling evidence.

Just days before the attacks in early- September, FBI agents in Minnesota wrote notes that subsequently became included in an internal FBI document warning that accused terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui ?might be planning on flying something into the World Trade Center.? A story from the May 20 issue of Newsweek by Michael Isikoff described how a local flight instructor had reported Moussaoui had ?showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer [and not land] large airliners?The [FBI] agents were ?in a frenzy, absolutely convinced he was planning to so something with a plane.??

A multitude of sources have reported the FBI agents requested a warrant to search Moussaoui?s personal computer but were denied by Attorney General John Ashcroft?s Justice Department. After the 9-11 attacks the computer was seized and found to contain information directly related to the World Trade Center attacks.

This apparent lack of support from within the administration is consistent with reports released last fall by the BBC?s Gregg Palast showing that in January 2001 the Bush Administration had issued direct orders to the FBI to curtail investigations of two of Osama bin Laden?s relatives, Omar and Abdullah bin Laden. The two bin Ladens had been connected to possible terrorist activities and were living in Falls Church, Va., near CIA headquarters.

Hot off the AP Wire...


MAY 17, 14:58 ET
<FONT SIZE="+1">1999 Report Warned of Suicide Hijack</FONT>

By JOHN SOLOMON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) ? Exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report warned the executive branch that Osama bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

``Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House,'' the September 1999 report said.

The report, entitled the ``Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?,'' described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al-Qaida might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.



Why do the Democrats now expect Bush to have done what neither President Clinton, nor they, did or would have done?

Furthermore, one can only imagine the outrage from the left with charges of inciting a panic, like they did when Bush warned the economy was faltering back in March, 2001.

What are you not being told. Quoth the raven. Yadda, yadda.

"What are you not being told. Quoth the raven. Yadda, yadda."

Oh, this is deep... penetrating. Especially the raven angle. Insightful. Very Woodward & Bernstein-like.

Ever thought of becoming a journalist?

I was in the Senate TV gallery when I first heard about it. Barbara Boxer was clearly trying not to cry. Charles Schumer was clearly trying not to rant. Both were very outwardly calm and very fair and saying that yes, hard questions had to be asked but we don't know what this means yet and its important not to jump to conlusions. I was impressed by the way neither tried to make big political capital out of this.

There was nothing quite so surreal as going from the Senate to the Intergalactic Senate and a supposedly fantastical plot about a swarthy terrorist/assassin who's actions can ultimately be traced back to the presdient who we all know is also Darth Sideous, but who gets emergency powers so he can conduct the war unleashed by the ... well you get the picture. Surreal.

It's not that I think Bush is Darth Anybody. Nor should we judge this administration by it's resemblence to George Lucas's convoluted and mediocre action movie which was written maybe three years ago. But this I can say: this is *not* as the First Lady has suggested, partisan politicking by Democrats. As many Republicans have come forward with concerns as Democrats. And the emphasis at least in the Senate is, hold on, lets see what this does mean. And, as usual, Hollywood has it's finger on the pulse more than we give it credit.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2002-05-17 13:45 ]</font>

XoE, you're right, its not party v party. At the moment it is kind of Executive Branch v Legislative Branch. If you hear the spin that it's the Democrats or the media creating something out of nothing for political reasons, lemme tell you that's not the mood. The atmosphere in the press conference yesterday was a kind of miserable shock. Nobody around here wants the worst to be true, including Bush's opponants. The implications are too overwheming and awful.

Yet the only thing worse than it being true, IMHO is if its true and we don't investigate it at least as thoroughly as Whitewater and Monicagate. If Bush is to be cleared, by God, let's clear him for real. Because the alternative is a political poison that will make E2K look like a bake sale.

On 2002-05-17 13:44, angeli wrote:
There was nothing quite so surreal as going from the Senate to the Intergalactic Senate and a supposedly fantastical plot about a swarthy terrorist/assassin who's actions can ultimately be traced back to the presdient who we all know is also Darth Sideous, but who gets emergency powers so he can conduct the war unleashed by the ... well you get the picture. Surreal.

That would be a freaky coincidence!

"...its not party v party. At the moment it is kind of Executive Branch v Legislative Branch."

Perhaps our "journalist" might try and collar Senator Richard Shelby and direct the Gephardt "What did the president know, and when did he know it" question to him. Because Shelby said, on CNN, that the US Senate Committee on Intelligence of the "Legislative Branch" got the same terrorist warning the "Executive Branch" got at the same time, if not sooner!

So why didn't the "Legislative Branch" warn America when Bush supposedly decided not to, if they thought it so dire?

"I hope that we put at least as much effort into this investigation as we did into investigating Clinton's sex life. But then, it's more fun to make jokes about blowjobs isn't it?"

Sorry, lady, but this investigation will ultimately lead to blowjobs, Monicagate, bluestained dresses, and a president that went after Osama only to wag-the-dog.

I say three cheers for this investigation. Bring it on! Because it will eventually lead right to Clinton and Dick Morris, and the post-Embassy and Cole attack polls, that Clinton had Morris perform, that clearly showed that the American people wanted the U.S.A. to get those responsible.

But boy-Clinton didn't need to wag that dog anymore, so he didn't.


Yeah, let's investigate. :smile:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-05-17 14:32 ]</font>

Actually, if the Republicans were smart, they'd be calling for an investigation themselves, assuming that there really is nothing more than human error to be found. Instead they're trying to pin this on the Congress, the Democrats, the Press, and (for some odd reason) Mrs. Clinton. Which is only making it look worse for them. But that's not in the mentality of this White House. They're very guarded, rightly, wrongly or plaidly.

Ms. Peggy Noonan sees Dubya as a New Dealer. If the media covered up FDR's wheelchair; what is the equal of today? Is it the crippling lack of any curiosity about the wider world that hampers our version of "That Man"?


If Dubya was told about "hi-jacking" on one line of a memo would he ask a follow-up question about the point? Is there any evidence of intellectual or any other curiosity on the part of the President of the United States, moral clairvoyant though he might be?

<center><FONT SIZE="-1">"It's not that I think Bush is Darth Anybody.
Nor should we judge this administration by it's resemblence to George Lucas's convoluted and mediocre action movie which was written maybe three years ago." --ms. angeli</FONT>

<FONT SIZE="-1">But this I can say: this is *not* as the First Lady has suggested, partisan politicking by Democrats. --ms. angeli</FONT>
</center>

On 2002-05-17 15:00, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

Ms. Peggy Noonan sees Dubya as a New Dealer. If the media covered up FDR's wheelchair; what is the equal of today? Is it the crippling lack of any curiosity about the wider world that hampers our version of "That Man"?


If Dubya was told about "hi-jacking" on one line of a memo would he ask a follow-up question about the point? Is there any evidence of intellectual or any other curiosity on the part of the President of the United States, moral clairvoyant though he might be?

I am glad that Ms. Noonan concedes that she is a big fan of FDR. It makes you wonder what exactly this political coalition of the Right has been for all these years. Worse yet, it makes you wonder why it took you so long to see the truth and bail out.

"Secretary of State Colin Powell's first reaction to the day of infamy was to pledge to "bring those responsible to justice." This is exactly wrong. Franklin Roosevelt did not respond to Pearl Harbor by pledging to bring the commander of Japanese naval aviation to justice. He pledged to bring Japan to its knees. You bring criminals to justice; you rain destruction on combatants." --Charles Krauthammer (Sept. 13, 2001)


"The reason is Franklin D. Roosevelt. The reason is that GWB is doing an FDR." --Peggy Noonan (May 17, 2002)


I'm just not buying it, Ms. Noonan. Granted that Osama did a pretty rotten, horrible thing last September, and granted this "Axis of evil" thing is pretty serious... but come on. Hell, General Arafat's gonna get a pretty good deal for all his terrorism. Who's zoomin' who here, Ms. Noonan?

And to sign a gazzillion dollar Farm Bill to get "one Senator" elected in a mid-term election? Oh, please, Ms. Noonan, the stars have done gone to your head, lady!

Sheesh.

Nah, go with Krauthammer and hedge your bet, GWB ain't no FDR, and this terrorist crap (even if they got a suitcase A-bomb set to go off now in LA) ain't the stuff of a fourth turn.

Now, ya'all just go back ta sleep, hear! :smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-05-17 15:39 ]</font>

Marc, I notice a curious thing on this thread.


You're pretty pissed at Dubyah these days, and take him to task any chance you get. Fair enough.


But why, then, as soon as someone to your port side does the same thing, do you defend him -- to the extent that blowing raspberries at his predecessor is a defense, which it isn't but obviously it's meant to be?


Is criticising Bush a privilege of conservatives, or can the rest of us play, too?

On 2002-05-17 15:14, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-05-17 15:00, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

Ms. Peggy Noonan sees Dubya as a New Dealer. If the media covered up FDR's wheelchair; what is the equal of today? Is it the crippling lack of any curiosity about the wider world that hampers our version of "That Man"?


If Dubya was told about "hi-jacking" on one line of a memo would he ask a follow-up question about the point? Is there any evidence of intellectual or any other curiosity on the part of the President of the United States, moral clairvoyant though he might be?

I am glad that Ms. Noonan concedes that she is a big fan of FDR. It makes you wonder what exactly this political coalition of the Right has been for all these years. Worse yet, it makes you wonder why it took you so long to see the truth and bail out.

I bailed out with the nomination of Mr. Bush in 1988 and the unfortunate choice of Mr. Quayle...it was a coalition after all. What "truth" are you discussing here, Mr. Patton?

Mr. Rush ponders,
"But why, then, as soon as someone to your port side does the same thing, do you defend him -- to the extent that blowing raspberries at his predecessor is a defense, which it isn't but obviously it's meant to be?"

The real question that should be asked is why are the Democrats throwing such huge stones at themselves while supposedly heaving them at Bush. First it crying foul when Bush question the economy early last year. Then it was Enron, when there own fingers were all over the mess. Then it was this supposed "shadow government" of whom they were actually a part of. Now it's "what did he know and we did he know it?" All the while they knew just what he did all along.

Are "they" getting any traction with you, Mr. Rush?

"Is criticising Bush a privilege of conservatives, or can the rest of us play, too?"

In these threads? :lol: Sorry, had to laugh. The real point, is the mistake both you, and Ms. Noonan et al are making about Bush: It ain't time for a GC, yet! Damn, Newt made this ridiculous mistake back in the mid-nineties. And now Bush seems to be falling into the same trap. Oh well.

I get some laughs along the way (otherwise I spit)... especially out of watching the Democrats go boom. But, as bad as Bush is today, I'm gonna go with H.L. Mencken on this GC thing. When the time comes... very few of the folks in the know are gonna be happy including the New York Times and the Washington Post. :smile:

The Big Mistake that GW is making today is... that he doesn't have to bend over for the liberals like he does (new tone b.s.). Actually, I would think you'd be loving the guy right now.


p.s. Stonewall Patton and his goofy "gestapo" antics are plain silly beyond words, Mr. Rush. I would hope that you don't qualify that as healthy criticism other than every crowd has one.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-05-18 06:59 ]</font>

On 2002-05-17 19:11, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

I bailed out with the nomination of Mr. Bush in 1988 and the unfortunate choice of Mr. Quayle...it was a coalition after all.

I went into a holding pattern in 1990 when Sr. offered me his "package" in exchange for a tax increase, and then I left for good in 1995 when the Republican Houses of Congress capitulated in the government shutdown. You obviously picked up on things much earlier than I.

What "truth" are you discussing here, Mr. Patton?

Truth does not require explanation. It is self-evident.

A good view of late unravelling Australia, maybe this can serve as a guide in answering the question has North Americia entered a 4T?

But are we better off?
By Shaun Carney
May 18 2002

With the exception of a few GST-affected months in late 2000, Australia's economy has been on a steady growth path now for close to nine years. They have been remarkable times. What are we doing with the proceeds?

Unemployment has fallen from 11 per cent to somewhere above 6 per cent, where Treasury expects it stay for another year. The nation still seems well short of full employment, which nowadays would be defined as 4.5 to 5 per cent.

We have low interest rates, which means that quite a few of us are buying homes that look, on paper, like gold mines, given the housing price bubble. Many of us who are on moderate to high incomes demonstrate our financial superiority by driving around in European cars or massive four-wheel drives that cost what a good two-bedroom home would have cost a dozen years ago.

More of us are also redirecting our children from government schools to the private sector. Why gamble with your kid's future, even if the private school costs 20 times as much?

In our entertainment, escapist or fantasy-based blockbuster movies and "reality" television, in which "real" people are seen to be conniving or spiteful or pathetic, are very popular. Most of us are connected, either through mobile phones or e-mail.

We do not like saving; we like borrowing and spending.

After many years of solid growth, these are some of the key elements of our society. We have much more - but are we better off? What is it all about?

In the general run of things it is not done to ask these sorts of questions, especially in a budget week. One is expected to nod knowingly at the wisdom of the political and economic orthodoxies contained in a budget - to perhaps tut-tut at the marginal electoral problems caused by this spending cut or to treat as ineluctable truth the 40-year projections on pharmaceutical costs of economists who cannot say for certain what will happen to the economy in even the next few months.

But the whiffs of insecurity and naked self-interest that pervaded Canberra this week did give pause for reflection: is this what we want from our political system? Putting ourselves into deficit so that we can keep out a few thousand boat people, dramatically boosting the size of the military, spending whatever it costs to keep as many of us as possible away from public schools and hospitals, and to burn up cheap petrol?

After seven years of Peter Costello budgets, it seems time to have a good look at the purpose of what might be called the Howard settlement, the type of Australia this government is helping to create.

It now seems clear that within the government, politics increasingly drives economic policy.

On Wednesday night, in an interview with Kerry O'Brien on ABC TV's 7.30 Report, John Howard told it like it is. When it was put to the Prime Minister that part of the government's motivation for spending so much money last year was to win the election, Howard replied: "Well, Kerry, there's not been a political leader alive who is honest that doesn't acknowledge that from time to time you take political considerations into account. If there happens to be . . ."

O'Brien: So it's not all virtuous?

Howard: So if it happens to be a gentle conjunction between, you know, political good and national good, well so be it. And let's be honest about it.

OK. That is as close to an admission as we'll ever get from the Coalition that it used public money to buy votes in the lead-up to its election victory six months ago.

Howard was right to point out that governments have done such things through the ages. But what a spend-up we've seen this time around; right now, the budget is in deficit. Harnessing the nation's finances to opinion polls, talkback radio feedback and fears of electoral mortality costs a hell of a lot of money.

What has come to be known as border protection receives an extra $0.5 billion. Because of the fear of terrorism, defence gets an extra $2.6 billion.

Thanks to an outcry over the temporary increase in the cost of petrol early last year - what Costello described rather coyly on Tuesday as "community concerns" - indexation on excise no longer exists. Hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue, rising to billions in a couple of years' time, have been lost.

Another $900 million has been spent in the past year on people over 55, with tax cuts, a $300 payment to age pensioners, and the handing-out of more seniors health cards. These measures brought the elderly back into the Coalition fold in time for the election. Populism has turned out to be expensive.

Ultimately, government is all about choices. Because of the vigorous policy approach of Costello and Howard in 1996-2000, with the overhaul of expenditure and then the remaking of the taxation system, the present financial regime is arguably the most accurate reflection of any government's world view since Federation.

Essentially, the objective of the government is to allow economic growth itself to determine the solutions of whatever problems beset the society and the economy.

If the economy is growing, there will be enough money for everybody - including the government - to look after themselves.

This approach assumes that self-interest and wealth accumulation are the paramount considerations of most people. The Prime Minister this week reflected the mind-set when he described an income of $60,000 a year as "a good income, but it's not the income in (the) Australia of today of a wealthy person".

It depends what you call wealthy. Sixty thousand dollars a year would put you in the top 20 per cent of the nation's wage earners.

Significantly, Howard later refined his comment, observing that "many people" do not regard $60,000 as the income of a wealthy person. This fits with Age columnist Ross Gittins' description of the much-touted aspirational voter as someone who believes the rich should be treated gently by government because that person expects to be rich himself one day. It's an attitude that has as its corollary, "I've looked after myself, so why can't they?"

The big idea of the Howard settlement, as it was laid out on Tuesday, is to devote a large proportion of the nation's prosperity to keeping out an enemy that is either unseen or unknown. So far, there is little to suggest that most of us, as we wait for our incomes to rise above $60,000, want it any other way.

Shaun Carney is an associate editor of The Age.

On 2002-05-17 15:36, Marc Lamb wrote:

"Secretary of State Colin Powell's first reaction to the day of infamy was to pledge to "bring those responsible to justice." This is exactly wrong. Franklin Roosevelt did not respond to Pearl Harbor by pledging to bring the commander of Japanese naval aviation to justice. He pledged to bring Japan to its knees. You bring criminals to justice; you rain destruction on combatants." --Charles Krauthammer (Sept. 13, 2001)


"The reason is Franklin D. Roosevelt. The reason is that GWB is doing an FDR." --Peggy Noonan (May 17, 2002)


I'm just not buying it, Ms. Noonan. Granted that Osama did a pretty rotten, horrible thing last September, and granted this "Axis of evil" thing is pretty serious... but come on. Hell, General Arafat's gonna get a pretty good deal for all his terrorism. Who's zoomin' who here, Ms. Noonan?

And to sign a gazzillion dollar Farm Bill to get "one Senator" elected in a mid-term election? Oh, please, Ms. Noonan, the stars have done gone to your head, lady!

Sheesh.

Nah, go with Krauthammer and hedge your bet, GWB ain't no FDR, and this terrorist crap (even if they got a suitcase A-bomb set to go off now in LA) ain't the stuff of a fourth turn.

Now, ya'all just go back ta sleep, hear! :smile:

Personally, I'd go with Mr. Krauthammer's assessment of the situation too. And it is possible that we aren't yet in a Fourth Turning, but if we aren't we are damn close. But if a suitcase bomb were to go off in L.A. tomorrow, the argument of whether we are 3T or 4T would surely be moot. The American public would demand to know why-- in the aftermath of 911-- our elected officials, intelligence services and military ALL dropped the ball and left us that vulnerable. And heads would roll, believe me, starting with the President of the United States himself, paving the way for a (Third Party?) Grey Champion to be elected in '04.

Marc:

The real question that should be asked is why are the Democrats throwing such huge stones at themselves while supposedly heaving them at Bush.

But they aren't, Marc. The only Democrat they're heaving any misaimed stones at is the one no longer in office. In the national-security state we've had throughout the MilSaec, the president holds all the cards on national-security and foreign-policy issues. The president also has unified decision-making ability while Congress does not.


What's more, Diane Feinstein among others DID try to bring this to the White House's attention some months before 9/11. So I'd say they don't live in a glass house.


Clinton is another matter, to be sure. He should have acted. Dang his hide. Let's vote him out of office!

Then it was Enron, when there own fingers were all over the mess.

Yep. Gotta agree here, but then again, if it forces everyone to clean their acts up -- good deal. Corruption in government is bipartisan.

The real point, is the mistake both you, and Ms. Noonan et al are making about Bush: It ain't time for a GC, yet!

Oh, yes it is. But that's a position that has to be earned. It was time for a GC in 1930, was it not? But we didn't have one, did we? Or at least, we didn't have one in the White House.


No, the mistake Bush may be making is to think that the country will automatically rally around the leader in Crisis time regardless of what he does. That is, I think, a misreading of the nature of a Crisis by Strauss and Howe themselves. A Crisis is not a time of unity, but of sharp and angry divisions, simplification of conflicts, focus on real issues and discarding of obsessive trivia. There are real-issue conflicts in this country that will only heat up, not quiet down, as the Crisis intensifies, until they are resolved. Bush may also be also confusing this Crisis with the final years of the last one. The situation nowadays in not so simple. Unthinking patriotism cannot be our guide when our own policies are so largely responsible for our vulnerability and the hostility of the world.


Bush cannot be an FDR, because he does not have a luckless predecessor to take the fall for the Crisis. Depending on how he performs, he is in the position of either Lincoln or Hoover. As of right now, I'd put my money on his being Hoover. Though for a while there I thought he might just barely pull off Lincoln.

The Big Mistake that GW is making today is... that he doesn't have to bend over for the liberals like he does (new tone b.s.). Actually, I would think you'd be loving the guy right now.

That's because, again, you confuse party with ideology. I'm a liberal, not a Democrat. Actually, it's hard to be a liberal and a Democrat both without blinding yourself to the facts.


Besides, why do you think Bush is bending over backwards? Other than signing CFR, I don't see thing one that he's done that doesn't fit with his personal politics. The farm bill? Big corporate welfare that boosts the profits of fat cats? Why would he be against that?

Stonewall Patton and his goofy "gestapo" antics are plain silly beyond words, Mr. Rush. I would hope that you don't qualify that as healthy criticism other than every crowd has one.

I think Stonewall goes over the edge on occasion, but that Bush is trampling on civil liberties is quite obvious. As far as Bush knowing in detail about the WTC attack and allowing it to justify dictatorship -- I'm not prepared to jump on board that one yet. We'll see what comes out in the wash.

On 2002-05-18 09:09, Brian Rush wrote:

Marc wrote:

Stonewall Patton and his goofy "gestapo" antics are plain silly beyond words, Mr. Rush. I would hope that you don't qualify that as healthy criticism other than every crowd has one.

I think Stonewall goes over the edge on occasion, but that Bush is trampling on civil liberties is quite obvious. As far as Bush knowing in detail about the WTC attack and allowing it to justify dictatorship -- I'm not prepared to jump on board that one yet. We'll see what comes out in the wash.

First of all, I am not quite certain how I became a part of yours and Marc's discussion here. I participated in this discussion only to the extent of answering a factual question from XoE and I bowed out when Marc began throwing a fit at Angeli's and XoE's criticisms of the administration.

But for clarification, Brian, I do not believe that the Bush administration is using 911 to justify dictatorship. I do however believe that the Bush administration is using 911 to justify taking control of the oil-rich Caspian Basin. An unfortunate consequence of this level of avarice is a willingness, even desire, to consolidate power and control so as to ensure that they get what they covet. However this will never result in actual dictatorship with the Bush people. It will always be more of a ruling oligarchy sporting a front man for aesthetic and PR purposes. For actual dictatorship, look to John McCain so long as he is backed by neocons. We already discussed this.

On 2002-05-18 00:02, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
...And it is possible that we aren't yet in a Fourth Turning, but if we aren't we are damn close. But if a suitcase bomb were to go off in L.A. tomorrow, the argument of whether we are 3T or 4T would surely be moot. The American public would demand to know why-- in the aftermath of 911-- our elected officials, intelligence services and military ALL dropped the ball and left us that vulnerable. And heads would roll, believe me, starting with the President of the United States himself, paving the way for a (Third Party?) Grey Champion to be elected in '04.

Of this I agree. If we aren't in a 4T yet, then anything can start it at this moment. Being an election year, the Boomer psyche is starting to dominate. I suspect that we are probably in a very late 3T after reading more of T4T. The psyche and behavior of each generation matches the "Into the New Millennium" section of 3T, and the national mood as a whole is very reminiscent of "Towards the Fourth Turning". So basically, society is ready. Since the collapse of Bush's solid post 9/11 support, political leadership has never been mpre pathetic. In fact, I think that our congress and President do a great disservice to the nation. There is still an extreme amount of fragmentation, even though things are polarizing.

Already, many pundits have asked whether or not we are still a nation. This happens very late into a 3T. "...institutions will seem hypercomplex at the periphery but empty at the core". I've also heard pundits mention this, that there was no soul or spirit in the national institutions. Every person now knows that the Unraveling Era's "empowered individual" survives on the flimsiest foundations. People feel that (as the book says) with just one tsunami, society could fall into social chaos. The better the economy forms, the more people will feel they have to lose, and the worse will be the national case of nerves. This is also very observable.

"People young and old will puzzle over what it felt like for their parents and grandparents, in a distantly remembered era, to have lived in a society that felt like one national community. They will yearn to recreate this, to put America back together again. But no one will know how."

This is also very easily observable.

Are the Silent deeply anguished? Think about Jimmy Carter's recent trip to Cuba. Is Colin Powell anguished? Kinda hard to tell.

Are Boomers brooding over their institutional powerlessness to impose a cleansing agenda? Obviously yes. Many, many Boomers speak of powerlessness in the nation. It is also very obvious that Boomers want to impose a cleansing agenda. AVOT is one indication of this. But read just about any commentary from Boomers, and you will definitely see this.

"Broken into shards, [Xers] will privately find ways of making small things work in disordered environments. Is this obvious? Yes. I only need to look at my older sister, and look at the older people at my college.

The first Millies will come of age amid the adulation of elders to whom they will embody the hopes for civic renewal. Is this happening yet? Yes.

Turn to page 255, which states that the Fourth Turning passes the nadir of public order right at its beginning. I think that we are nearing the nadir.

Like Kevin says, if a suitcase bomb goes off, then we WILL be in 4T. However, at this point, things need not be as dramatic. Any terrorist attack committed on US soil will throw America into 4T, as like Kevin says, heads will roll. The fact that there were some warnings has the public on edge. Are we able to trust the government? Do we trust them to protect us? What do some of the nations on the Axis have to do with terrorism? Rep. Cynthia McKinney would likely become a GC.

Of course, there are many other ways. Another Enron style collapse can easily spark a 4T. Already, very few people have real faith in the economy, and most people suspect that most companies may have some of the same problems as Enron. Basically there is practically no trust. Sometime earlier this year, I came across an article with someone trying to sue Disney for having the same financial problems as Enron, and lying about it. Of course, this is a rumor at this moment, but Disney is now undergoing an audit by the IRS. What if it is found out that they were cheating? Enron was bad enough, as was Global Crossing. And there are still rumors that some other companies, such as GE, might be facing some of the same problems. If another famous company goes down, then it is very possible for there to be calls for a "witchhunt" of corporations. People might start demanding for there to be an inquisition of corporations. This could easily lead to a downward spiral in the economy. No one will trust any of the corporations. Such a thing raises the possibility of a financial panic.

Uh, Stonewall. I haven't criticized the administration as such, and I'm sorry if what I said sounded like it.

Now that's not to say there's nothing to criticize. The main thing that bothers me(how Xer of me) that I have a problem with is they don't say the tough true things that would earn my respect: "Yeah, we knew stuff, but were unable to get our ducks in a row and prevent the attacks because of the way the CIA and FBI does things. Right after 911, we had to unite the country, prevent reprisals on Muslim citizens, organize a military campaign, and get the economy moving again. At that time we thought releasing this information would be counterproductive to the country's morale. But we're taking steps to ensure that nothing like that will ever happen again. Let's move on."

Instead they chose to have this tantrum about how dare you Democrats criticize the administration. (Underreported clue: There are plenty of Republicans criticizing the administration right now.)

I really don't understand it. They're just making it worse.

Mr Patton charges,
"...I bowed out when Marc began throwing a fit at Angeli's and XoE's criticisms of the administration."

I would challenge the poster to find one single word of which I wrote concerning either's posted "criticisms" that could even remotely be considered on the level of a "fit" in response.

Otherwise, I consider this charge just one more ridiculous attempt at self-flattery.