Two stories from today's Utah.....the most Conservative Republican state in the U.S.... newspapers detailing rejections of Bush policy.



Panel Votes to Leave Ed plan Behind
In a bold step toward a declaration of war against President Bush's education reforms, legislators advanced a bill Thursday that turns Utah's back on No Child Left Behind and the $103 million-plus it brings to the state's revenue-starved schools.
The House Education Committee unanimously forwarded House Bill 43 to the floor, a move that has national implications and the potential to devastate more than 200 Utah schools that rely on federal dollars to improve achievement among disadvantaged students.


Utah Halts Secret Role in Database
Gov. Olene Walker pulled the plug Thursday -- at least temporarily -- on Utah's secret participation in a federal antiterrorism program that uses billions of government records on citizens to compile a quick-access database for law enforcement.


http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jan/t01302004.asp

If the Ed bill passes, it's definately a crisis for this state.

Originally Posted by David '47 Redux

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Today's papers report that the Medicare Bill, which will undoubtedly be a centerpiece of GWB's campaign ("They didn't lead. .. we did!"), will cost far more than anticipated. THEY ALSO REPORT THAT DURING THE DEBATE, IN WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION MOVED HEAVEN AND EARTH TO GET THE VOTES IT NEEDED, IT REFUSED TO RELEASE ITS OWN ESTIMATES OF WHAT THE BILL WAS GOING TO COST.

If that isn't a 3T--what is? The role of the Bush Administration will be to CREATE the crisis--not solve it.

David

It sure is beginning to look that way.

Which leaves the only remaining question: are we there yet or do we need another four years of unraveling to tip us over the edge? I think we're going to get those four years, like it or not, so make my day and tell me it's a good thing.

Four more years of a "Great Unraveling" Mr. Krugman?? :wink:

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"? Some have speculated that 911 may have been a set-up that Bush knew about in advance or even planned in order to get Americans scared enough to give up their civil rights and thereby be more easily controlled for whatever purposes he has in mind. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if something bad happened again and the Bush administation turned out to be masterminding it all.

What do others think? Do I sound like a paranoid nutcase or am I onto something here?

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"? Some have speculated that 911 may have been a set-up that Bush knew about in advance or even planned in order to get Americans scared enough to give up their civil rights and thereby be more easily controlled for whatever purposes he has in mind. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if something bad happened again and the Bush administation turned out to be masterminding it all.

What do others think? Do I sound like a paranoid nutcase or am I onto something here?

I think Karl Rove has the ability to bring out the worst in people, on a number of levels. Turning otherwise sensible people into paranoid nut cases may eventually be seen as his greatest talent.

Svengali indeed. :|

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs);

Do you recall those news reports a few months ago which alleged that the Bush people were going to claim that they had found Saddam's cache of "WMDs" in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon, allllllllll the way across Syria and next to Israel? I saw a report today that a conservative radio host (cannot remember which one) is claiming that he has the inside word that the Bush people are going to announce discovery of this bogus cache between Lebanon and Israel at some beneficial time before the election. The radio host could have been misquoted or he could be talking out his you-know-what but it is interesting to consider whether such a strategy would even work for the Bush people. In any case, the Bush people have routinely issued bogus "terror alerts" so this would not be the first one. Just ignore them.

or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

You attach too much credit to Junior. He just reads (actually stumbles through) the scripts they place in front of him. If you had such a plot, would YOU put Junior in the loop? Hell, no! You can bet your a** that whoever is pulling Junior's strings will do anything to stay in power, but the whole thing seems immediately implausible the moment you try to paint Junior as some sort of "criminal mastermind." Junior is plainly not even in the loop with regard to ANYTHING. Take the focus off him.

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"? Some have speculated that 911 may have been a set-up that Bush knew about in advance or even planned in order to get Americans scared enough to give up their civil rights and thereby be more easily controlled for whatever purposes he has in mind. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if something bad happened again and the Bush administation turned out to be masterminding it all.

What do others think? Do I sound like a paranoid nutcase or am I onto something here?

You could only be on to something if you took the responsibility away from Junior. He does not know a thing. He just reads the lines they put in front of him. No one is going to believe it so long as you paint Forrest Gump as the mastermind.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

You attach too much credit to Junior. He just reads (actually stumbles through) the scripts they place in front of him. If you had such a plot, would YOU put Junior in the loop? Hell, no! You can bet your a** that whoever is pulling Junior's strings will do anything to stay in power, but the whole thing seems immediately implausible the moment you try to paint Junior as some sort of "criminal mastermind." Junior is plainly not even in the loop with regard to ANYTHING. Take the focus off him..

You could only be on to something if you took the responsibility away from Junior. He does not know a thing. He just reads the lines they put in front of him. No one is going to believe it so long as you paint Forrest Gump as the mastermind.

You make a good point. Bush probably knows nothing; he lacks the intelligence to concoct something so sinister (unless he really is a genius and brilliantly pulls off a good Forrest Gump imitation). I think Cheney or Rumsfeld, who are obviously both extremely intelligent could be the ones pulling the strings. There's something soulless and not quite human about both of them.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Seadog's post demands that we raise some basic questions. I'll start with the specific and go to the general.

1. The Bush Administration claimed Saddam had to be removed because of his WMD. The Security Council backed renewed inspections. The inspectors, after a relatively short time, reported adequate cooperation from Saddam and failed to find any weapons. WE NOW KNOW THAT THEY WERE RIGHT.

No, that's not what they reported, they reported (simultaneously) that there was a lack of cooperation, and that there was no need for action.

Later, Blix began to report whatever they thought it would take to buy time.

2. The old system, Seadog says, no longer works. It no longer works, it seems to me, because the US has 1) the will and 2) the power to defy it. Is that really a good thing?

No, HC68 said it no longer works. It's outlived its time. As to whether it's a good thing or not, it doesn't matter, it's an inevitable thing.

As for whether it's good, on balance the answer is probably yes. The UN is corrupt beyond repair, a place where the pretence of international legitimacy is bandied about between banana republics and dictatorships, while a network of nepotistic job-projects permeate the Secretariat.

But good or bad, it's inevitable at this stage, it's just one more thing that is unravelling.

3. I spend my whole working life talking about states like 5th-century BC Athens, Napoleonic France, and imperial Germany, that had become the pre-eminent power in their part of the world and talked themselves into attempts at further conquests until they finally collapsed. The Greeks called this hubris. Unless you believe that America is uniquely virtuous and therefore unable to suffer from this vice, you have to ask yourself whether we are suffering from it now. If in fact you believe we are too virtuous to have such a problem, I would like to offer you a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn and some prime Florida land.
"The fault, dear Brutus. . "

The question is, what nation is the current age's Rome, the one that will found the world government? I actually hope the answer is 'none', and that we'll be able to avoid the final stage of Classical Civilization (and Egyptian, Chinese, etc).

But even if America is facing an insoluable block on our power, that does nothing to alter the fact that the UN is a failed experiment.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Tim Walker seems to have forgotten that the US founded the UN.

David K '47

Yeah, with cynical intentions and bad planning when we did.

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"? Some have speculated that 911 may have been a set-up that Bush knew about in advance or even planned in order to get Americans scared enough to give up their civil rights and thereby be more easily controlled for whatever purposes he has in mind. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if something bad happened again and the Bush administation turned out to be masterminding it all.

What do others think? Do I sound like a paranoid nutcase or am I onto something here?

You're engaging in the same kind of wishful thinking (of a negative sort) that the right-wingers did when they theorized about Clinton taking over the country using FEMA (or even more elaborate schemes). Or when they speculated that Clinton arranged the terrorist attacks on the embassies in Africa or the towers in Arabia.

There is zero evidence for either theory.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"? Some have speculated that 911 may have been a set-up that Bush knew about in advance or even planned in order to get Americans scared enough to give up their civil rights and thereby be more easily controlled for whatever purposes he has in mind. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if something bad happened again and the Bush administation turned out to be masterminding it all.

What do others think? Do I sound like a paranoid nutcase or am I onto something here?

I think Karl Rove has the ability to bring out the worst in people, on a number of levels. Turning otherwise sensible people into paranoid nut cases may eventually be seen as his greatest talent.

Svengali indeed. :|

It's not Rove specifically. I've come to believe, based on watching the mirror-image reactions on Left and Right to Clinton and Bush, that any Boomer president is going to irriate, alienate, and at times terrify the opposite half of the country right now.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"? Some have speculated that 911 may have been a set-up that Bush knew about in advance or even planned in order to get Americans scared enough to give up their civil rights and thereby be more easily controlled for whatever purposes he has in mind. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if something bad happened again and the Bush administation turned out to be masterminding it all.

What do others think? Do I sound like a paranoid nutcase or am I onto something here?

I think Karl Rove has the ability to bring out the worst in people, on a number of levels. Turning otherwise sensible people into paranoid nut cases may eventually be seen as his greatest talent.

Svengali indeed. :|

It's not Rove specifically. I've come to believe, based on watching the mirror-image reactions on Left and Right to Clinton and Bush, that any Boomer president is going to irriate, alienate, and at times terrify the opposite half of the country right now.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"? Some have speculated that 911 may have been a set-up that Bush knew about in advance or even planned in order to get Americans scared enough to give up their civil rights and thereby be more easily controlled for whatever purposes he has in mind. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if something bad happened again and the Bush administation turned out to be masterminding it all.

What do others think? Do I sound like a paranoid nutcase or am I onto something here?

I think Karl Rove has the ability to bring out the worst in people, on a number of levels. Turning otherwise sensible people into paranoid nut cases may eventually be seen as his greatest talent.

Svengali indeed. :|

It's not Rove specifically. I've come to believe, based on watching the mirror-image reactions on Left and Right to Clinton and Bush, that any Boomer president is going to irriate, alienate, and at times terrify the opposite half of the country right now.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"? Some have speculated that 911 may have been a set-up that Bush knew about in advance or even planned in order to get Americans scared enough to give up their civil rights and thereby be more easily controlled for whatever purposes he has in mind. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if something bad happened again and the Bush administation turned out to be masterminding it all.

What do others think? Do I sound like a paranoid nutcase or am I onto something here?

I think Karl Rove has the ability to bring out the worst in people, on a number of levels. Turning otherwise sensible people into paranoid nut cases may eventually be seen as his greatest talent.

Svengali indeed. :|

It's not Rove specifically. I've come to believe, based on watching the mirror-image reactions on Left and Right to Clinton and Bush, that any Boomer president is going to irriate, alienate, and at times terrify the opposite half of the country right now.

Clinton had Morris. Bush has Rove. Rove is in a superior league.

I don't like him. I really don't like him. My take is that he is all about power -- truly, truly Machiavelian. No "higher" agenda (unless it's diabolical). And for the record, I don't care for Bush either. After what he allowed his operatives to do in the primaries against McCain still makes me almost seethe.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not about to set up shop with Mr. Meece and sing "We Shall Overcome". But my point was that Rove is masterful at reading the American public and his success is driving people nuts and also creating a poisonous atmosphere of suspicion.

Your'e absolutely right, the same thing went on with Clinton, but it's worse this time. Heck, maybe it has nothing to do with Rove (did you notice he looks like Ken Starr's little brother?) and everything to do with an advancing Unraveling. Is that what you're getting at? That could make sense.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"? Some have speculated that 911 may have been a set-up that Bush knew about in advance or even planned in order to get Americans scared enough to give up their civil rights and thereby be more easily controlled for whatever purposes he has in mind. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if something bad happened again and the Bush administation turned out to be masterminding it all.

What do others think? Do I sound like a paranoid nutcase or am I onto something here?

I think Karl Rove has the ability to bring out the worst in people, on a number of levels. Turning otherwise sensible people into paranoid nut cases may eventually be seen as his greatest talent.

Svengali indeed. :|

It's not Rove specifically. I've come to believe, based on watching the mirror-image reactions on Left and Right to Clinton and Bush, that any Boomer president is going to irriate, alienate, and at times terrify the opposite half of the country right now.

Clinton had Morris. Bush has Rove. Rove is in a superior league.

I don't like him. I really don't like him. My take is that he is all about power -- truly, truly Machiavelian. No "higher" agenda (unless it's diabolical). And for the record, I don't care for Bush either. After what he allowed his operatives to do in the primaries against McCain still makes me almost seethe.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not about to set up shop with Mr. Meece and sing "We Shall Overcome". But my point was that Rove is masterful at reading the American public and his success is driving people nuts and also creating a poisonous atmosphere of suspicion.

Your'e absolutely right, the same thing went on with Clinton, but it's worse this time. Heck, maybe it has nothing to do with Rove (did you notice he looks like Ken Starr's little brother?) and everything to do with an advancing Unraveling. Is that what you're getting at? That could make sense.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"? Some have speculated that 911 may have been a set-up that Bush knew about in advance or even planned in order to get Americans scared enough to give up their civil rights and thereby be more easily controlled for whatever purposes he has in mind. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if something bad happened again and the Bush administation turned out to be masterminding it all.

What do others think? Do I sound like a paranoid nutcase or am I onto something here?

I think Karl Rove has the ability to bring out the worst in people, on a number of levels. Turning otherwise sensible people into paranoid nut cases may eventually be seen as his greatest talent.

Svengali indeed. :|

It's not Rove specifically. I've come to believe, based on watching the mirror-image reactions on Left and Right to Clinton and Bush, that any Boomer president is going to irriate, alienate, and at times terrify the opposite half of the country right now.

Clinton had Morris. Bush has Rove. Rove is in a superior league.

I don't like him. I really don't like him. My take is that he is all about power -- truly, truly Machiavelian. No "higher" agenda (unless it's diabolical). And for the record, I don't care for Bush either. After what he allowed his operatives to do in the primaries against McCain still makes me almost seethe.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not about to set up shop with Mr. Meece and sing "We Shall Overcome". But my point was that Rove is masterful at reading the American public and his success is driving people nuts and also creating a poisonous atmosphere of suspicion.

Your'e absolutely right, the same thing went on with Clinton, but it's worse this time. Heck, maybe it has nothing to do with Rove (did you notice he looks like Ken Starr's little brother?) and everything to do with an advancing Unraveling. Is that what you're getting at? That could make sense.

A few comments:

1. Regarding WMD, there's a split within the Administration that is affecting the media. Some of the neocon gang (with Cheney in their pocket) continue to insist they were right all along. Some weeks ago they leaked a document (which I think must have been prepared in the Pentagon) containing all the bogus intelligence about both WMD and Iraq-Al Queda connections--intel reports, mostly from Iraqi exiles, that the intel community as a whole had failed to confirm. The Weekly STandard printed it and William Safire has endorsed it, but the Pentagon officially trashed it. In essence, there's one "line" for the hard-line "base" and one for the rest of it. I'm sure the extremists are pushing the Syria story, as well, but it is too absurd to be worth mentioning. By the way, if you want a great perspective on the WMD mess go to moveon.org and buy their DVD, "Uncovered." You will never look at the Bush people the same way again.

2. I don't think the Administration is capable of staging an attack, no. I think they are capable of trying to time the capture of Osama Bin Laden. He may have too much pull with Pakistani authorities, however, to be caught.

3. The idea that the UN and other multilateral institutions have "outlived their usefulness" is a tautology or self-fulfilling prophecy by those who want to make the will of the US the law of the planet. I'm sure the Japanese in 1931 claimed the League of Nations had outlived its usefulness, too--when they left it. Hitler undoubtedly felt the same way.

4. Regarding the inspectors, I have looked up their last reports to the UN. They reported almost full cooperation--they had been able to go anywhere they wanted to go. They did complain about some of the documentation they had been provided. Only some one determined to go to war could have interpreted their report as a suggestion to go to war.

5. I am afraid we do need another five years--at the very least, another 3. No one is talking about this, but if Kerry wins, he will undoubtedly face a very aggressive Republican Congress and there will be a disastrous 2-year stalemate. At that point, perhaps, the populace will wake up and toss the Gingrich mob out.

6. The Republicans are missing their chance to develop an actual 4T program, I think.

David K '47

A few comments:

1. Regarding WMD, there's a split within the Administration that is affecting the media. Some of the neocon gang (with Cheney in their pocket) continue to insist they were right all along. Some weeks ago they leaked a document (which I think must have been prepared in the Pentagon) containing all the bogus intelligence about both WMD and Iraq-Al Queda connections--intel reports, mostly from Iraqi exiles, that the intel community as a whole had failed to confirm. The Weekly STandard printed it and William Safire has endorsed it, but the Pentagon officially trashed it. In essence, there's one "line" for the hard-line "base" and one for the rest of it. I'm sure the extremists are pushing the Syria story, as well, but it is too absurd to be worth mentioning. By the way, if you want a great perspective on the WMD mess go to moveon.org and buy their DVD, "Uncovered." You will never look at the Bush people the same way again.

2. I don't think the Administration is capable of staging an attack, no. I think they are capable of trying to time the capture of Osama Bin Laden. He may have too much pull with Pakistani authorities, however, to be caught.

3. The idea that the UN and other multilateral institutions have "outlived their usefulness" is a tautology or self-fulfilling prophecy by those who want to make the will of the US the law of the planet. I'm sure the Japanese in 1931 claimed the League of Nations had outlived its usefulness, too--when they left it. Hitler undoubtedly felt the same way.

4. Regarding the inspectors, I have looked up their last reports to the UN. They reported almost full cooperation--they had been able to go anywhere they wanted to go. They did complain about some of the documentation they had been provided. Only some one determined to go to war could have interpreted their report as a suggestion to go to war.

5. I am afraid we do need another five years--at the very least, another 3. No one is talking about this, but if Kerry wins, he will undoubtedly face a very aggressive Republican Congress and there will be a disastrous 2-year stalemate. At that point, perhaps, the populace will wake up and toss the Gingrich mob out.

6. The Republicans are missing their chance to develop an actual 4T program, I think.

David K '47

A few comments:

1. Regarding WMD, there's a split within the Administration that is affecting the media. Some of the neocon gang (with Cheney in their pocket) continue to insist they were right all along. Some weeks ago they leaked a document (which I think must have been prepared in the Pentagon) containing all the bogus intelligence about both WMD and Iraq-Al Queda connections--intel reports, mostly from Iraqi exiles, that the intel community as a whole had failed to confirm. The Weekly STandard printed it and William Safire has endorsed it, but the Pentagon officially trashed it. In essence, there's one "line" for the hard-line "base" and one for the rest of it. I'm sure the extremists are pushing the Syria story, as well, but it is too absurd to be worth mentioning. By the way, if you want a great perspective on the WMD mess go to moveon.org and buy their DVD, "Uncovered." You will never look at the Bush people the same way again.

2. I don't think the Administration is capable of staging an attack, no. I think they are capable of trying to time the capture of Osama Bin Laden. He may have too much pull with Pakistani authorities, however, to be caught.

3. The idea that the UN and other multilateral institutions have "outlived their usefulness" is a tautology or self-fulfilling prophecy by those who want to make the will of the US the law of the planet. I'm sure the Japanese in 1931 claimed the League of Nations had outlived its usefulness, too--when they left it. Hitler undoubtedly felt the same way.

4. Regarding the inspectors, I have looked up their last reports to the UN. They reported almost full cooperation--they had been able to go anywhere they wanted to go. They did complain about some of the documentation they had been provided. Only some one determined to go to war could have interpreted their report as a suggestion to go to war.

5. I am afraid we do need another five years--at the very least, another 3. No one is talking about this, but if Kerry wins, he will undoubtedly face a very aggressive Republican Congress and there will be a disastrous 2-year stalemate. At that point, perhaps, the populace will wake up and toss the Gingrich mob out.

6. The Republicans are missing their chance to develop an actual 4T program, I think.

David K '47

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

You attach too much credit to Junior. He just reads (actually stumbles through) the scripts they place in front of him. If you had such a plot, would YOU put Junior in the loop? Hell, no! You can bet your a** that whoever is pulling Junior's strings will do anything to stay in power, but the whole thing seems immediately implausible the moment you try to paint Junior as some sort of "criminal mastermind." Junior is plainly not even in the loop with regard to ANYTHING. Take the focus off him..

You could only be on to something if you took the responsibility away from Junior. He does not know a thing. He just reads the lines they put in front of him. No one is going to believe it so long as you paint Forrest Gump as the mastermind.

You make a good point. Bush probably knows nothing; he lacks the intelligence to concoct something so sinister (unless he really is a genius and brilliantly pulls off a good Forrest Gump imitation). I think Cheney or Rumsfeld, who are obviously both extremely intelligent could be the ones pulling the strings. There's something soulless and not quite human about both of them.

Cheney, Rumsfeld...or Rove. All of this reminds me of that old Star Trek episode, in which Kirk's mild-mannered old history professor sets up a neo-Nazi regime on a faraway world, with the idea that "the most efficient government in Earth's history" under his benign leadership could be an amazing force for good.....only to end up a drugged-up puppet for a 23rd century Machiavelli.

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

You attach too much credit to Junior. He just reads (actually stumbles through) the scripts they place in front of him. If you had such a plot, would YOU put Junior in the loop? Hell, no! You can bet your a** that whoever is pulling Junior's strings will do anything to stay in power, but the whole thing seems immediately implausible the moment you try to paint Junior as some sort of "criminal mastermind." Junior is plainly not even in the loop with regard to ANYTHING. Take the focus off him..

You could only be on to something if you took the responsibility away from Junior. He does not know a thing. He just reads the lines they put in front of him. No one is going to believe it so long as you paint Forrest Gump as the mastermind.

You make a good point. Bush probably knows nothing; he lacks the intelligence to concoct something so sinister (unless he really is a genius and brilliantly pulls off a good Forrest Gump imitation). I think Cheney or Rumsfeld, who are obviously both extremely intelligent could be the ones pulling the strings. There's something soulless and not quite human about both of them.

Cheney, Rumsfeld...or Rove. All of this reminds me of that old Star Trek episode, in which Kirk's mild-mannered old history professor sets up a neo-Nazi regime on a faraway world, with the idea that "the most efficient government in Earth's history" under his benign leadership could be an amazing force for good.....only to end up a drugged-up puppet for a 23rd century Machiavelli.

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

You attach too much credit to Junior. He just reads (actually stumbles through) the scripts they place in front of him. If you had such a plot, would YOU put Junior in the loop? Hell, no! You can bet your a** that whoever is pulling Junior's strings will do anything to stay in power, but the whole thing seems immediately implausible the moment you try to paint Junior as some sort of "criminal mastermind." Junior is plainly not even in the loop with regard to ANYTHING. Take the focus off him..

You could only be on to something if you took the responsibility away from Junior. He does not know a thing. He just reads the lines they put in front of him. No one is going to believe it so long as you paint Forrest Gump as the mastermind.

You make a good point. Bush probably knows nothing; he lacks the intelligence to concoct something so sinister (unless he really is a genius and brilliantly pulls off a good Forrest Gump imitation). I think Cheney or Rumsfeld, who are obviously both extremely intelligent could be the ones pulling the strings. There's something soulless and not quite human about both of them.

Cheney, Rumsfeld...or Rove. All of this reminds me of that old Star Trek episode, in which Kirk's mild-mannered old history professor sets up a neo-Nazi regime on a faraway world, with the idea that "the most efficient government in Earth's history" under his benign leadership could be an amazing force for good.....only to end up a drugged-up puppet for a 23rd century Machiavelli.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

You attach too much credit to Junior. He just reads (actually stumbles through) the scripts they place in front of him. If you had such a plot, would YOU put Junior in the loop? Hell, no! You can bet your a** that whoever is pulling Junior's strings will do anything to stay in power, but the whole thing seems immediately implausible the moment you try to paint Junior as some sort of "criminal mastermind." Junior is plainly not even in the loop with regard to ANYTHING. Take the focus off him..

You could only be on to something if you took the responsibility away from Junior. He does not know a thing. He just reads the lines they put in front of him. No one is going to believe it so long as you paint Forrest Gump as the mastermind.

You make a good point. Bush probably knows nothing; he lacks the intelligence to concoct something so sinister (unless he really is a genius and brilliantly pulls off a good Forrest Gump imitation). I think Cheney or Rumsfeld, who are obviously both extremely intelligent could be the ones pulling the strings. There's something soulless and not quite human about both of them.

Cheney, Rumsfeld...or Rove. All of this reminds me of that old Star Trek episode, in which Kirk's mild-mannered old history professor sets up a neo-Nazi regime on a faraway world, with the idea that "the most efficient government in Earth's history" under his benign leadership could be an amazing force for good.....only to end up a drugged-up puppet for a 23rd century Machiavelli.

Ah, yes, the "Patterns of Force" episode. I think it is still banned in Germany. The Federation observer who screwed the whole thing up (whatever happened to that Prime Directive?) was John Gill.

Ekos for Ekosians you Zeon pig!

It must have been challenging for Shatner and Nimoy, both Jewish, to run around in Nazi uniforms for that.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

You attach too much credit to Junior. He just reads (actually stumbles through) the scripts they place in front of him. If you had such a plot, would YOU put Junior in the loop? Hell, no! You can bet your a** that whoever is pulling Junior's strings will do anything to stay in power, but the whole thing seems immediately implausible the moment you try to paint Junior as some sort of "criminal mastermind." Junior is plainly not even in the loop with regard to ANYTHING. Take the focus off him..

You could only be on to something if you took the responsibility away from Junior. He does not know a thing. He just reads the lines they put in front of him. No one is going to believe it so long as you paint Forrest Gump as the mastermind.

You make a good point. Bush probably knows nothing; he lacks the intelligence to concoct something so sinister (unless he really is a genius and brilliantly pulls off a good Forrest Gump imitation). I think Cheney or Rumsfeld, who are obviously both extremely intelligent could be the ones pulling the strings. There's something soulless and not quite human about both of them.

Cheney, Rumsfeld...or Rove. All of this reminds me of that old Star Trek episode, in which Kirk's mild-mannered old history professor sets up a neo-Nazi regime on a faraway world, with the idea that "the most efficient government in Earth's history" under his benign leadership could be an amazing force for good.....only to end up a drugged-up puppet for a 23rd century Machiavelli.

Ah, yes, the "Patterns of Force" episode. I think it is still banned in Germany. The Federation observer who screwed the whole thing up (whatever happened to that Prime Directive?) was John Gill.

Ekos for Ekosians you Zeon pig!

It must have been challenging for Shatner and Nimoy, both Jewish, to run around in Nazi uniforms for that.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

You attach too much credit to Junior. He just reads (actually stumbles through) the scripts they place in front of him. If you had such a plot, would YOU put Junior in the loop? Hell, no! You can bet your a** that whoever is pulling Junior's strings will do anything to stay in power, but the whole thing seems immediately implausible the moment you try to paint Junior as some sort of "criminal mastermind." Junior is plainly not even in the loop with regard to ANYTHING. Take the focus off him..

You could only be on to something if you took the responsibility away from Junior. He does not know a thing. He just reads the lines they put in front of him. No one is going to believe it so long as you paint Forrest Gump as the mastermind.

You make a good point. Bush probably knows nothing; he lacks the intelligence to concoct something so sinister (unless he really is a genius and brilliantly pulls off a good Forrest Gump imitation). I think Cheney or Rumsfeld, who are obviously both extremely intelligent could be the ones pulling the strings. There's something soulless and not quite human about both of them.

Cheney, Rumsfeld...or Rove. All of this reminds me of that old Star Trek episode, in which Kirk's mild-mannered old history professor sets up a neo-Nazi regime on a faraway world, with the idea that "the most efficient government in Earth's history" under his benign leadership could be an amazing force for good.....only to end up a drugged-up puppet for a 23rd century Machiavelli.

Ah, yes, the "Patterns of Force" episode. I think it is still banned in Germany. The Federation observer who screwed the whole thing up (whatever happened to that Prime Directive?) was John Gill.

Ekos for Ekosians you Zeon pig!

It must have been challenging for Shatner and Nimoy, both Jewish, to run around in Nazi uniforms for that.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...1.florida.html

Here's an article (long) by Richard Florida that outlines what I believe to be the key issue of the crisis: the lack of leading sectors for the next economy. It also characterizes the "sides" of the crisis as old economy (red) versus new economy (blue).