More on Predicting the Future with Bush...

A few articles relating to this week's 'toon caught my eye...

Most of us know at least a few reasonable people who simply refuse to believe that certain terrible things could ever happen in our great American society, especially in "this day and age." They dismiss any notion that these things could happen as being "alarmist" or "science fiction." Things like the United States government maliciously spying on its own citizens en masse, not in any imperative quest to keep them safe from an outside threat, but rather in an effort to check political speech and document dissent. Or like our own government manufacturing a fake international incident in order to intentionally provoke a war, in an effort to fulfill dubious political goals. Or like our own government responding to a terrible disaster befalling its citizens, and basing its response on the racial makeup or political demographics of the citizens involved (let alone intentionally exacerbating the disaster in an effort to harm certain citizens). Generally, I think one should try to listen to such people, and take what they say into account... some conspiracy theories are, in fact, absurd.

EXCEPT WHEN WE ALREADY KNOW OUR GOVERNMENT HAS DONE THESE THINGS IN THE PAST:

• I already talked about the "Crusty" response to allegations of mass surveillance a few weeks ago...
  
  Check out this article by Paul Craig Roberts on the possibility that the Bush administration may be trying to engineer another "Gulf of Tonkin" incident in an effort to provoke all-out war with Iran, or perhaps another "U.S.S. Liberty" incident in partnership with Israel:
  

  In 1967 Israel attacked and destroyed the US intelligence ship Liberty, because Liberty'’s crew had picked up proof that Israel had initiated the war with Egypt and intended to attack Syria the next day. Some have speculated that Israelis hoped their attack on the Liberty could be blamed on Egypt and used to draw the US into the war against Egypt.
  In 2003 the Moorer Commission, headed by Admiral Tom Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, concluded:
  "That in attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States.
  "That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty.
  "“the Captain and surviving crew members were later threatened with court-martial, imprisonment or worse if they exposed the truth; and were abandoned by their own government.
  "That due to the influence of Israel'’s powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people.
  "“That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of 'any foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel'’s interests when they conflict with American interests.'"”
  On the 30th anniversary of Israel's destruction of the liberty, Admiral Moorer said that Israel attacked the Liberty because Israel knew that the intelligence ship could intercept Israel's plans to seize the Golan Heights from Syria, an act of Israeli aggression to which the US government was opposed. Admiral Moorer said, "“I believe Moshe Dayan concluded that he could prevent Washington from becoming aware of what Israel was up to by destroying the primary source of acquiring that information--the US Liberty. Moorer reports that after a 25 minute air attack '“that pounded the Liberty with bombs, rockets, napalm and machine gun fire . . . three Israeli torpedo boats closed in for the kill . . . the torpedo boats'’ machine guns also were turned on life rafts that were deployed into the Mediterranean as well as those few on deck that had escaped damage."
  Admiral Moorer says, "“What is so chilling and cold-blooded, of course, is that they [Israel] could kill as many Americans as they did in confidence that Washington would cooperate in quelling any public outcry."



• A bombshell from Brownie, as he reveals that political concerns were ultimately driving decisions on the federal response to the Katrina disaster. To be honest, Brownie has about as much credibility on the issue right now as the White House does. And his accusation is that the White House wanted to federalize New Orleans, which I really wish they would have done much earlier in the process. However, Brownie's gradual revealing of previously hidden facts has the feel of an inside story that we haven't heard the last of, in the sense that there may have been many more decisions that were made based on political concerns. It's stories like this that make me more inclined to buy into suggestions like those made by Spike Lee in When the Levees Broke, that the levees were intentionally blown in an effort to fundamentally change the political makeup of Louisiana.
  
  I mean, would you really put it past them?