BRAVO, MR. PRESIDENT!!!

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

BRAVO, MR. PRESIDENT!!!

.

OKAY, SMILEY, WEST, GOP, DO I HEAR A "WELL, DONE, MR. PRESIDENT?"
. 

 IF BUSH COULD HAVE PULLED OFF IN IRAQ WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS DONE IN SYRIA, IT WOULD HAVE SAVED A MILLION LIVES AND OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS.

.

The exact same thing is true with respect to bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice. While Bush spent seven years, a national fortune, and over four thousand American lives chasing Bin Laden, Obama brought him to justice with three helicopters and a handful of America's finest - and, while casually dragging Donald Trump through the mud at a dinner party in the process.
.
I hate to come off like an Obama cheerleader, because I assure you, I’m not (http://wattree.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-supporters-vs-cheerleaders.html), but President Obama is less than aggressive in tooting his own horn, which allows the GOP and his other detractors to distort history. So it is incumbent upon those of us who support him to toot his horn for him, because it's just not Obama's nature to land on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a flight suit for a photo op.
.
In that regard, here's what I had to say the other night during an exchange with an Obama critic regarding his handling of the Syrian Affair:
.
"There are a number of very important elements to this situation that critics are failing to take into account, and frankly, I'm shocked to see that so many people who are suppose to be sophisticated and highly intelligent are failing to recognize.
.
"First, international diplomacy is a game of chess, so things aren't always as they seem. Secondly, many things are said for public consumption that are contrived for the specific purpose of disseminating disinformation in order to misdirect the opposition to our true thinking. Many things are also said and done in order for the super powers to allow one another to save face before their client allies.
.
"So for all we know, the U.S., Russia, and China may be on the exact same page on this issue - after all, who wants to see chemical weapons unleashed on the world?  But in order for Russia and China to save face in backing down, it has been agreed between the three powers that President Obama should purposely overstep some pre-agreed upon bounds that would force him to step back. That way, everybody gets a little something.
.
"So, as a good rule of thumb - not only in politics, but in life in general - is one should never start shootin' off their mouth without having all of the facts. That's what first tipped me several years ago about Cornel’s limitations as a serious intellectual. To listen to him run his mouth, you'd think he was getting a CIA condition report across his desk every morning. How in the hell does he presume to second-guess the President of the United States when the ONLY information he has access to is what he reads on the internet?"
.
This morning the New York Times reports, "Deal Reached to Destroy Chemical Arms in Syria." The story reports the following:
.
"GENEVA — The United States and Russia reached a sweeping agreement on Saturday that called for Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons to be removed or destroyed by the middle of 2014 and indefinitely stalled the prospect of American airstrikes."
.
So what Obama critics are failing to recognize is if the president is engaged in diplomatic talks and using the threat of military intervention as leverage to further the United States’ interest, when we have Republican politicians using the issue to jockey for political advantage, and loudmouths like Cornel West running around talking about, "If you do it, we’re gonna impeach you!," for personal advantage, that hurts America’s ability to negotiate. So titles and PhD.s notwithstanding, these people are either so selfish that they don’t care about American interests, something much less than effective thinkers, or both.
.
But they're not fooling the American people for a minute. While we've understandably developed an increasing distrust for politicians - ALL politicians, including Obama - our instincts tells us that there's just something about this guy that we can't quite put our finger on that sets him apart. That's why we elected him to a second term. Well, I think I have put my finger on it.
.
Americans, by nature, tend to gravitate toward the underdog, and while President Obama is undoubtedly the most powerful man in the world, he's also our first Black president, and as such, Americans can clearly see that he's under siege in Washington, D.C., so they've rallied behind him to protect his flank. Because, while the racists, bigots, and blowhards get a lot of press, they don't reflect the actual character of America. The vast majority of Americans are corny, like myself. They truly believe in the ideals that this nation was created to represent. If they didn't, Obama never would have become president in the first place. That's why, for the most part, while race baiters get a lot of press, for the most part, they're spittin' in the wind.
.
Because, when the vast majority of Americans look at President Obama, they don't see "a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs." They see a decent man, who loves his wife and family. They see the guy next door who's been chosen to be a modern-day David, and to everyone's complete shock and surprise, has dredged up the strength and courage to wage a desperate battle against the Goliath of wealth, power, and presumption.
.
When America looks at Obama, and as they watch him turning grey before their eyes, they see themselves fighting the good fight for American ideals. They see him as the personification of everything America once was - a feisty little underdog all alone, in a desperate battle against those out to destroy America.
.
That's also how I see him, not as some kind of Messiah, but like my neighbor doing battle against a group of thugs who's trying to takeover the neighborhood. That's why I defend this man, because I admire both his character and his courage. So I'm not going to just sit back and peep through my blinds and watch a man of his character be bludgeoned to death while he's defending MY home. That's not how Americans do things.
.
And finally, I want to thank him for his service and give him his roses while he can smell 'em. History is certainly going to honor him greatly, but like Martin, he won't be around to see that. As a result, I never got the chance to thank Martin, but I'm not gonna make that mistake this time.
.
So, Bravo, Mr. President!
.

.

TO THE

HARD WORKING AND COURAGEOUS

MEN AND WOMEN OF LITTLE CLOUT,

WHOSE COLLECTIVE EFFORTS BUILT

AND DEFINES THE CHARACTER  

OF THIS GREAT NATION

*

HERE’S TO THE UNDERDOG

.

Here's

to the magnificent underdog,

majestic--just look at that face;

who struggle each mile, yet, manages a smile,

while the powerful spits in his face.

.

Yes,

a toast!

To the illustrious underdog,

whose courage holds chaos at bay;

for the unshakable steel, which makes up his will,

to stand-up through yet one more day.

.

Let’s hear

a cheer!

For the tireless underdog.

His heart firmly girdered in place;

who finds just enough to survive when life's tough,

while the "powerful" stands in disgrace.
.

Let us

cherish

the heroic underdog,

who walks water routinely each day;

who braves lion Jaws and shuns all applause,

then quietly goes on his way.

.

.

*

*

RELATED CONTENT

.

Reflections on President Obama’s Speech on Syria

http://wattree.blogspot.com/2013/09/reflections-on-president-obamas-speech.html

.
Barack Obama: A Unique Historic Figure
http://wattree.blogspot.com/2013/09/obama-unique-historic-figure.html
.

A List of Obama Accomplishments

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009/

.

Eric L. Wattree

Http://wattree.blogspot.com

Ewattree@Gmail.com

.

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

The Blind Hatred and Ignorance that Obama Must Endure From A Minority of His Own People - It's Pathological

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

The Blind Hatred and Ignorance that Obama Must Endure From A Minority of His Own People - It's Pathological 

From Battchief:
.
Wattree,
.
I don't think I questioned the wisdom of asking for Congress to pass a resolution and I don't recall mentioning "warmongering". What I said is that there is no moral high ground for Obama to stand on.
.
"Assad is a part of the Alawite religion, a very small sect of Islam. They constitute only 12% of Syria, and they’re beliefs are kept so close to the vest that they’re secret from even other branches of Islam. So we don’t know what this guy is capable of. He may launch biological weapons into Israel and start an all-out regional conflict." Really? Are you a religious bigot, too? I think what you've got hold of is the very, very special Kool-Aid.
.
If this spills beyond Syria's borders, the Israelis and the Egyptians have plenty of arms that we've given them, to the tune of $1.5 billion a yr., to make it move back. The idea that we have to impose our will there is based, again, on oil.
.
If the people in the region don't want to act, why should we do so in their stead? In the past few days Kerry made an offhand comment that, to Obama's benefit, Putin and Assad decided to run with. No one's blinking. The Russians intend to keep assad in power. Whether or not the weapons CAN be removed under the conditions at hand or this is a delaying tactic, remains to be seen.
.
Obama invoked international conventions and says that only America is responsible for enforcing them. That makes little sense to me, when there are so many international conventions being broken, killing so many in places we turn our back on. Let's go clean up Darfur. I'm down with that. What? No oil, huh?
************************************************************
Battchief,
.
Your analysis of the Syrian crisis is based on seriously flawed thinking.  You're engaging in gross suppositions, unwarranted assumptions, the tendency to give ideology priority over truth, and an atrocious example of syllogistic logic.
.
An example of that is you said, "The idea that we have to impose our will there is based, again, on oil."
.
What credible evidence do you have of that? While I agree with you that the United States’ history in the region has been all but entirely characterized buy hubris, greed, and unthinking self-interest, to say that EVERY action that we take in the region is an extension of that very same animus without being able to put forth clear evidence for your assertion constitutes a grossly unwarranted assumption. The logic behind your assumption gives ideology priority over fact and is based on the following flawed syllogistic construction: "All dogs have fleas. My cat has fleas. Therefore, my cat is a dog."
.
President Obama was clear in his explanation as to why he was considering taking action in this case. Bashar al-Assad is in direct violation of the "Chemical Weapons Convention," designed to control the development, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons, which has been signed and ratified by 189 nations.
.
The president said the following:
.
"If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and to use them to attack civilians."
.
That’s a serious matter to be considered, and so is the following:
.
"If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path."
.
And with regard to your question that, "If the people in the region don't want to act, why should we do so in their stead?" There’s a very simple answer to that question. First, The Arab League -a regional organization of 22 Arab countries in and around North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Southwest Asia - not only suspended Assad in 2011, but has called for his resignation. And secondly, the use of chemical weapons is not just a regional issue. Just like nuclear weapons, chemical weapons are a threat to the entire WORLD.
.
Comments like yours is a perfect example of what President Obama has to deal with on a daily basis. Regardless to what he does, even when it’s in their best interest, haters will start ranting and raving over the issue without even knowing the facts. But now that you do know the facts, what would you do on this issue if you were in his place?
.
I shudder to even think what Cornel West would do, who thinks the president should be impeached if he acts as a responsible adult in the face of an irresponsible congress.
.

RELATED CONTENT

Reflections on President Obama’s Speech on Syria

http://wattree.blogspot.com/2013/09/reflections-on-president-obamas-speech.html

.

A Slave's Prayer

http://wattree.blogspot.com/2009/01/slaves-prayer.html

Eric L. Wattree

Http://wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com
.
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Reflections on President Obama’s Speech on Syria

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

Reflections on President Obama’s Speech on Syria

.

After listening to the president’s speech on the Syrian affair, my position remains the same. He should throw this issue in the lap of congress, and thereafter, follow their prescription. The primary reason for that is, for the past four years it has been clearly demonstrated that he’s dealing with an irresponsible Republican congress, so regardless to what he does on his own initiative, or how it turns out, they’re going to say it was wrong. They’ll then completely ignore any precedents set by the Clinton or Bush administrations and conjure up articles of impeachment against Obama - as was so helpfully suggested by Cornel West - in order to sabotage and distract from any initiatives that he might have planned for his second term.

.

Another reason that the president should place this issue in the lap of congress is to force congress to act responsibly by giving them a vested interest in bringing the country together behind whatever action we take. The United States is between a rock and a hard place on Syria. It’s one of those issues where there is no right thing to do. If we don’t act, we’ll lose face with U.S. allies. That could cause them to lose faith in the United States’ commitment to protect their security, and thereby, cause them to have second thoughts about standing behind the United States when our own security is in jeopardy in the region.

.

On the other hand, if we do take action against Syria, we have to deal with the possibility of unintended consequences. One of the big mistakes the United States makes when dealing with people from other countries is that we assume that everyone thinks like we do. That’s a mistake. People from other countries have different religions, and therefore, different motivations. So while President Obama may plan on ordering a limited air strike as an admonishment to Syria to behave, Bashar al-Assad may feel under siege and go for broke.
.
Assad is a part of the Alawite religion, a very small sect of Islam. They constitute only 12% of Syria, and they’re beliefs are kept so close to the vest that they’re secret from even other branches of Islam. So we don’t know what this guy is capable of. He may launch biological weapons into Israel and start an all-out regional conflict.
.
President Obama has all of this information, so for some to suggest that he’s just anxious to go running off to war against some unknown quantity, is simplistic thinking at best. As he mentioned in his speech, he’s weighing options. The president said the following:
.
"If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and to use them to attack civilians."
.
That’s a serious matter to be considered, and so is the following:
.
"If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path."
.
So it’s easy to run around and rant about this "warmongering’ president, but the people who are out searching for cameras to run their mouths in front of are not concerned about any of these issues. All they’re concerned about is getting media exposure, and if you specifically ask them about these issues, they probably wouldn’t even know what you were talking about - if they do, they certainly haven’t come up with any suggestions on how we should handle the situation. That’s the difference between wagging your tongue and governing - when governing you have to come up with solutions.
.
The majority of us voted for President Obama, not because we expected him to do everything that we wanted him to do, but because he’s a serious-minded adult whose judgment we trust; and in this big stakes chess match, he’s managed to stand firm, just as we voted for him to do - so firm, in fact, that Russia and China, Assad’s two major allies are beginning to blink. As a result, the president was able to report the following:
.
"However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs, in part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitting that it has these weapons and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use."
.
Now, that’s what it means to be a president.
.
Eric L. Wattree 
Http://wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com
.
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

An Indictment against the Mainstream Media (Reprise)

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

An Indictment against the Mainstream Media (Reprise)

On September 15, 2002 - six months and four days prior to the Iraqi invasion - I published an article entitled "Would Bush's Saber Rattle as Loudly Against China?" in the Portland Independent Media Center (no one else would publish it at the time) that said the following:

Now that we've reached the anniversary of 9-11, I am consumed by one thought - in light of what I've seen over the past year I find myself much more afraid of Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft than I am the Al Qaeda. While I understand that terrorists strike without warning to destroy life and property to promote their own agenda, it has become increasingly clear that Bush and his cohorts threaten to be even more destructive by attacking life, liberty, and the very foundation of this nation in the promotion of theirs.

Over the past year these conservative war mongers have been playing the American people like a fiddle. Now they want to sacrifice American lives for nothing more than their own political advantage. Just ask yourself, what does Saddam Hussain have to do with 9-11? Absolutely nothing. Evidence of that can be found in the fact that if Saddam had been involved in 9-11 the administration would have gone after him initially. So why is it suddenly so imperative that we invade Iraq now? I'll tell you why. Since Bush was unable to produce the head of Osama Bin Laden, he now needs another villain to take Bin Laden's place in order to keep his numbers up in the polls - and if that means having to sacrifice a few American lives and ignite even more terrorist activity on American soil in the process, so be it.

It is a well known political fact that the American people tend to rally around the president when the country's at war. That's why the Bush Administration fell all over themselves after 9-11 to declare "a war against terrorism." And the American people reacted just as planed - Bush's numbers immediately went up in the polls. But now with the mystery surrounding the fate of Osama Bin Laden, the administration has found itself without a war to sustain those numbers, so now they have to create one.

While I'm not prepared to say that the Bush Administration allowed 9-11 to take place, it is clear that the timing of the 9-11 tragedy was without a doubt the best thing that could ever happened to Bush's presidency. Bush was a lame duck the minute he was sworn in. It seems that as soon as Bush entered The Oval Office the stock market began to falter and the economy started to weaken. And whenever he spoke, the next day's news was not so much what he said, but whether or not he got through the speech without falling on his face. In addition, his big tax cut that was touted as the key to boosting the economy turned out to be a bust, and he was so inept in dealing with congress that a Republican senator changed parties costing Bush control of the senate. As a result, when 9-11 took place, it was embraced by conservatives more like it was a football rally than the sober occasion that it was - thus, all the flag waving, ceremonies, and strutting about.

But where was all that bluster prior to 9-11? ABC News reported on May 16th of this year that the Bush Administration acknowledged that U.S. Intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before 9-11 that Osama Bin Laden's terrorists might try to hijack a plane. It was also reported that Bush privately alerted transportation officials and security agencies, but other than that, he simply sat on the information. The administration claims that the information they received was non-specific, but one would think that even if they couldn't determine exactly when and where the attack was going to take place, at the very least they could have warned the American people. If they had, maybe some of the people who died would have chosen not to fly - or possibly, chosen to leave their children behind. But no, this president who now claims to be so concerned with protecting our welfare that he feels compelled to launch an unprovoked attack against Iraq, was at that time more interested in the impact that warning us would have on the airline industry.

What the American people needs to understand is that the power elite in this country doesn't view the United States in the same way as its citizens. They see the United States as a huge corporation, with its various industries as its subsidiaries. They see American citizens, particularly the lower and middle class, as simply pawns to be cajoled and manipulated in whatever way is necessary to meet the goals of the corporation. Therefore, they didn't view the tragedy of 9-11 in the same patriotic way as the average American citizen. After the initial shock, they saw 9-11 in terms of dollars and cents. Ultimately, it was viewed as an assault on their corporate superstructure. Later they recognized that the incident could be used as a distraction for the American people, and still later, an opportunity to move on Middle Eastern oil interests.

So let there be no doubt, all of the flag waving, ceremonies, and patriotic speeches have nothing to do with 9-11; they are designed to whip the American people into such a frenzy that they're blinded to Bush's actual agenda. And that agenda includes the following.

1).Committing America (and American lives) to a war in order to get himself reelected.
2).Taking control of Iraqi oil fields to benefit his friends in big business.
3).Keeping the American voter distracted from considering the ramifications of the recent corporate scandals.
4).Keeping the American people from recognizing how inept he is as president.

The rest of the world sees Bush's agenda for what it is, and the American people would too if they'd stop waving their flags long enough to consider the flag's true meaning. The American flag represents freedom and justice, not trying to dictate who should lead other countries. It represents the open debate of issues, not intolerance to any and everyone who disagrees with your point of view. It represents the guarantee of personal freedom, not the suspension of the Bill of Rights. If the American people would just stop to consider these facts, it would become clear that even while Bush and his conservative cohorts are frantically waving our flag, they are simultaneously waging war against the very values that the flag and this great country represents.

These issues can, and will, be debated ad nauseam, but the American people need only ask themselves two questions to put all of the administration's nonsense into perspective. First, would the administration be so anxious to go to war if we were talking about China as opposed to Iraq? And secondly, do we think that invading Iraq will make us more, or less safe from terrorist attacks? If we answer those questions honestly, it becomes clear that the administration is being disingenuous at best.***

So what I'd like to know is this - if a shade tree journalist sitting up in his den in the heart of a Los Angeles ghetto could see what was going on, why couldn't the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, CNN and all of the other media networks; why couldn't Harvard, Yale, and all of the various and sundry Ph.D.s from America's great institutions of learning; and why couldn't the nation's so called "think tanks," all of the nation's political scientists, and the United States Congress figure it out?

The answer is, they had, but they simply turned their backs and allowed young patriotic Americans to march off to their deaths. The most irrefutable evidence of that? None of their children died. 

Now, in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey, Florida, etc., the corporate media, with notable exceptions, is turning a blind eye and allowing the same thing to happen again, but this time, to America as a whole.

God help us.


Eric L. Wattree
http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

This Bears Repeating

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

An Indictment against the Mainstream Media

I'd like to start by tipping my hat to Markos Moulitsas, founder and spiritual leader of the very popular website, Daily Kos, for setting that gasbag, Chris Matthews, straight. He also put Tom Tancredo in his place several weeks earlier, so I guess he's becoming something of a soft-spoken dragon slayer - What was wrong with pointing out that chicken hawk Tancredo claimed to be "too depressed" to fight for his country in Vietnam?

More recently - last week, in fact - Chris Matthews made the remark on his show, Hardball, that "I don't consider them [progressive bloggers] Democrats. I consider them Netroots. And if I see they vote in every election, or most elections, then I'll be worried. But I'm not sure they're regular, grown-up Democrats. I think a lot of these people are troublemakers who love to sit in the back seat and complain. They're not interested in governing this country. They never ran for office, they're not interested in working for someone in public office. They get their giggles out of sitting in the back seat and bitching."

So let's see, people who have never run for office, or are not interested in working for someone in public office are not grown-up Democrats. They're trouble makers who get their giggles out of sitting in the back seat bitching, and it worries him when he see them vote. What an arrogant and closed-minded, Washington beltway idiot. That pompus idiot casually sat there and wrote off most of America as children who bitch too much.

The irony is, the unmitigated arrogance of that statement is exactly what makes netroots and blogging sites like KOS and TPM so vitally important to America. Due to the many self-centered and closed-minded hacks like himself, the mainstream media has become all but irrelevant, and Moulitsas pointed that out, very adroitly, and much more diplomatically than I ever could have. He's the one who came off looking like an adult, responding to the immature and irresponsible rantings of a child.

Instead of indulging in insulting characterizations and name-calling (like I probably would have), Moulitsas, very calmly made his point through example. He pointed out that the following:

"In 2003, when Bush landed his plane in the aircraft carrier, and spoke in front of the banner that said, 'Mission Accomplished,' Chris Matthews had an entire show based on that event, and he said everybody knows that we won the war, except a few critics." Moulitsas went on to say, "Well, I was one of those few critics. People like me in the Netroots were some of those critics. And it turns out that we were right and the Beltway conventional wisdom was wrong. And once again, we're in a situation where people like Chris Matthews don't learn from these mistakes. They're trapped in this bubble and they think that they know better."

Bingo! That said it all, and he didn't raise his voice once. And he handled Tom Tancredo several weeks earlier with the very finesse. He literally ran Tancredo off the Ed Show, and again, without busting so much as a sweat bubble. The reason he doesn't have to raise his voice, is because he's confronting Washington hypocrisy with facts and courage - something that the mainstream media seems to have lost.

They've degenerated into cheerleaders with an unspoken agreement not to step outside the approved parameters of the status quo. Then Moulitsas is that guy who shows up at the dinner party with a crude but unyielding truth: "No, that's not a bad egg - somebody farted." That's who bloggers and are, and that's exactly what America needs.

On September 15, 2002–six months and four days prior to the Iraqi invasion--I published an article entitled "Would Bush's Saber Rattle as Loudly Against China?" in the Portland Independent Media Center (no one else would publish it at the time) that said the following:

"Would Bush's Saber Rattle as Loudly Against China?"

Now that we've reached the anniversary of 9-11, I am consumed by one thought--in light of what I've seen over the past year I find myself much more afraid of Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft than I am the al-Qaeda. While I understand that terrorists strike without warning to destroy life and property to promote their own agenda, it has become increasingly clear that Bush and his cohorts threaten to be even more destructive by attacking life, liberty, and the very foundation of this nation in the promotion of theirs.

Over the past year these conservative war mongers have been playing the American people like a fiddle. Now they want to sacrifice American lives for nothing more than their own political advantage. Just ask yourself, what does Saddam Hussain have to do with 9-11? Absolutely nothing. Evidence of that can be found in the fact that if Saddam had been involved in 9-11 the administration would have gone after him initially. So why is it suddenly so imperative that we invade Iraq now? I'll tell you why. Since Bush was unable to produce the head of Osama Bin Laden, he now needs another villain to take Bin Laden's place in order to keep his numbers up in the polls-- and if that means having to sacrifice a few American lives and ignite even more terrorist activity on American soil in the process, so be it.

It is a well known political fact that the American people tend to rally around the president when the country's at war. That's why the Bush Administration fell all over themselves after 9-11 to declare "a war against terrorism." And the American people reacted just as planed-Bush's numbers immediately went up in the polls. But now with the mystery surrounding the fate of Osama Bin Laden, the administration has found itself without a war to sustain those numbers, so now they have to create one.

While I'm not prepared to say that the Bush Administration allowed 9-11 to take place, it is clear that the timing of the 9-11 tragedy was without a doubt the best thing that could ever happened to Bush's presidency. Bush was a lame duck the minute he was sworn in. It seems that as soon as Bush entered The Oval Office the stock market began to falter and the economy started to weaken. And whenever he spoke, the next day's news was not so much what he said, but whether or not he got through the speech without falling on his face. In addition, his big tax cut that was touted as the key to boosting the economy turned out to be a bust, and he was so inept in dealing with congress that a Republican senator changed parties costing Bush control of the senate. As a result, when 9-11 took place, it was embraced by conservatives more like it was a football rally than the sober occasion that it was--thus, all the flag waving, ceremonies, and strutting about.

But where was all that bluster prior to 9-11? ABC News reported on May 16th of this year that the Bush Administration acknowledged that U.S. Intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before 9-11 that Osama Bin Laden's terrorists might try to hijack a plane. It was also reported that Bush privately alerted transportation officials and security agencies, but other than that, simply sat on the information. The administration claims that the information they received was non-specific, but one would think that even if they couldn't determine exactly when and where the attack was going to take place, at the very least they could have warned the American people. If they had, maybe some of the people who died would have chosen not to fly-or possibly, chosen to leave their children behind. But no, this president who now claims to be so concerned with protecting our welfare that he feels compelled to launch an unprovoked attack against Iraq, was at that time more interested in the impact that warning us would have on the airline industry.

What the American people needs to understand is that the power elite in this country doesn't view the United States in the same way as its citizens. They see the United States as a huge corporation, with its various industries as its subsidiaries. They see American citizens, particularly the lower and middle class, as simply pawns to be cajoled and manipulated in whatever way is necessary to meet the goals of the corporation. Therefore, they didn't view the tragedy of 9-11 in the same patriotic way as the average American citizen. After the initial shock, they saw 9-11 in terms of dollars and cents. Ultimately, it was viewed as an assault on their corporate superstructure. Later they recognized that the incident could be used as a distraction for the American people, and still later, an opportunity to move on Middle Eastern oil interests.

So let there be no doubt, all of the flag waving, ceremonies, and patriotic speeches have nothing to do with 9-11; they are designed to whip the American people into such a frenzy that they're blinded to Bush's actual agenda. And that agenda includes the following.

1).Committing America (and American lives) to a war in order to get himself re-elected.

2).Taking control of Iraqi oil fields to benefit his friends in big business.

3).Keeping the American voter distracted from considering the ramifications of the recent corporate scandals.

4).Keeping the American people from recognizing how inept he is as president.

The rest of the world sees Bush's agenda for what it is, and the American people would too if they'd stop waving their flags long enough to consider the flag's true meaning. The American flag represents freedom and justice, not trying to dictate who should lead other countries. It represents the open debate of issues, not intolerance to any and everyone who disagrees with your point of view. It represents the guarantee of personal freedom, not the suspension of the Bill of Rights. If the American people would just stop to consider these facts, it would become clear that even while Bush and his conservative cohorts are frantically waving our flag, they are simultaneously waging war against the very values that the flag and this great country represents.

These issues can, and will, be debated ad nauseam, but the American people need only ask themselves two questions to put all of the administration's nonsense into perspective. First, would the administration be so anxious to go to war if we were talking about China as opposed to Iraq? And secondly, do we think that invading Iraq will make us more, or less safe from terrorist attacks? If we answer those questions honestly, it becomes clear that the administration is being disingenuous at best.***

Where was the mainstream media?  If a shade tree journalist sitting up in his den in the heart of a Los Angeles ghetto could see what was going on, why couldn't the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, CNN and all of the networks; Harvard, Yale, and all of the various and sundry Ph.D.s from America's great institutions of learning? Why couldn't the nation's think tanks, all of the nation's political scientists, and the United States Congress figure it out? The answer is, they had, then simply turned their backs and allowed our young people to march off to their deaths. The most irrefutable evidence of that? None of their children died.

Eric L. Wattree

wattree.blogspot.com

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everybody who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

An Indictment against the Mainstream Media

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree An Indictment against the Mainstream Media . On September 15, 2002–six months and four days prior to the Iraqi invasion--I published an article entitled "Would Bush's Saber Rattle as Loudly Against China?"in the Portland Independent Media Center (no one else would publish it at the time) that said the following: . Now that we've reached the anniversary of 9-11, I am consumed by one thought--in light of what I've seen over the past year I find myself much more afraid of Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft than I am the al-Qaeda. While I understand that terrorists strike without warning to destroy life and property to promote their own agenda, it has become increasingly clear that Bush and his cohorts threaten to be even more destructive by attacking life, liberty, and the very foundation of this nation in the promotion of theirs. . Over the past year these conservative war mongers have been playing the American people like a fiddle. Now they want to sacrifice American lives for nothing more than their own political advantage. Just ask yourself, what does Saddam Hussain have to do with 9-11? Absolutely nothing. Evidence of that can be found in the fact that if Saddam had been involved in 9-11 the administration would have gone after him initially. So why is it suddenly so imperative that we invade Iraq now? I'll tell you why. Since Bush was unable to produce the head of Osama Bin Laden, he now needs another villain to take Bin Laden's place in order to keep his numbers up in the polls-- and if that means having to sacrifice a few American lives and ignite even more terrorist activity on American soil in the process, so be it. . It is a well known political fact that the American people tend to rally around the president when the country's at war. That's why the Bush Administration fell all over themselves after 9-11 to declare "a war against terrorism." And the American people reacted just as planed-Bush's numbers immediately went up in the polls. But now with the mystery surrounding the fate of Osama Bin Laden, the administration has found itself without a war to sustain those numbers, so now they have to create one. . While I'm not prepared to say that the Bush Administration allowed 9-11 to take place, it is clear that the timing of the 9-11 tragedy was without a doubt the best thing that could ever happened to Bush's presidency. Bush was a lame duck the minute he was sworn in. It seems that as soon as Bush entered The Oval Office the stock market began to falter and the economy started to weaken. And whenever he spoke, the next day's news was not so much what he said, but whether or not he got through the speech without falling on his face. In addition, his big tax cut that was touted as the key to boosting the economy turned out to be a bust, and he was so inept in dealing with congress that a Republican senator changed parties costing Bush control of the senate. As a result, when 9-11 took place, it was embraced by conservatives more like it was a football rally than the sober occasion that it was--thus, all the flag waving, ceremonies, and strutting about. . But where was all that bluster prior to 9-11? ABC News reported on May 16th of this year that the Bush Administration acknowledged that U.S. Intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before 9-11 that Osama Bin Laden's terrorists might try to hijack a plane. It was also reported that Bush privately alerted transportation officials and security agencies, but other than that, simply sat on the information. The administration claims that the information they received was non-specific, but one would think that even if they couldn't determine exactly when and where the attack was going to take place, at the very least they could have warned the American people. If they had, maybe some of the people who died would have chosen not to fly-or possibly, chosen to leave their children behind. But no, this president who now claims to be so concerned with protecting our welfare that he feels compelled to launch an unprovoked attack against Iraq, was at that time more interested in the impact that warning us would have on the airline industry. . What the American people needs to understand is that the power elite in this country doesn't view the United States in the same way as its citizens. They see the United States as a huge corporation, with its various industries as its subsidiaries. They see American citizens, particularly the lower and middle class, as simply pawns to be cajoled and manipulated in whatever way is necessary to meet the goals of the corporation. Therefore, they didn't view the tragedy of 9-11 in the same patriotic way as the average American citizen. After the initial shock, they saw 9-11 in terms of dollars and cents. Ultimately, it was viewed as an assault on their corporate superstructure. Later they recognized that the incident could be used as a distraction for the American people, and still later, an opportunity to move on Middle Eastern oil interests. . So let there be no doubt, all of the flag waving, ceremonies, and patriotic speeches have nothing to do with 9-11; they are designed to whip the American people into such a frenzy that they're blinded to Bush's actual agenda. And that agenda includes the following. 1).Committing America (and American lives) to a war in order to get himself re-elected. 2).Taking control of Iraqi oil fields to benefit his friends in big business. 3).Keeping the American voter distracted from considering the ramifications of the recent corporate scandals. 4).Keeping the American people from recognizing how inept he is as president. The rest of the world sees Bush's agenda for what it is, and the American people would too if they'd stop waving their flags long enough to consider the flag's true meaning. The American flag represents freedom and justice, not trying to dictate who should lead other countries. It represents the open debate of issues, not intolerance to any and everyone who disagree with your point of view. It represents the guarantee of personal freedom, not the suspension of the Bill of Rights. .  If the American people would just stop to consider these facts, it would become clear that even while Bush and his conservative cohorts are frantically waving our flag, they are simultaneously waging war against the very values that the flag and this great country represent. . These issues can, and will, be debated ad nauseam, but the American people need only ask themselves two questions to put all of the administration's nonsense into perspective. First, would the administration be so anxious to go to war if we were talking about China as opposed to Iraq? And secondly, do we think that invading Iraq will make us more, or less safe from terrorist attacks? If we answer those questions honestly, it becomes clear that the administration is being disingenuous at best.*** . So what I'd like to know is this--if a shade tree journalist sitting up in his den in the heart of a Los Angeles ghetto could see what was going on, why couldn't the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, CNN and all of the networks; Harvard, Yale, and all of the various and sundry Ph.D.s from America's great institutions of learning? And why couldn't the nation's think tanks, all of the nation's political scientists, and the United States Congress figure it out? The answer is, they had, then simply turned their backs and allowed our youth to march off to their deaths. The most irrefutable evidence of that? None of their children died. . Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everybody who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content