Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Preempting Another Chicago, 1968, Mr. Obama?

Why would the Democratic Party allow US Military Intelligence and the Colorado National Guard to deploy in Denver during the Democratic National Convention? What warrants the use during the convention (and what warrants the existence) of a certain "Colorado Information Analysis Center" which is "just one facet of a diffuse national intelligence network that has grown up quietly since Sept. 11, 2001?" Why did a precursor to this "Information Analysis Center" collect data on peaceful protestors and report one of them as a terrorist? And why doesn't the Colorado National Guard explain why it's renting 500+ hotel rooms and operating a restricted military base at a nearby college campus? Why are members of "US Northern Command" that was created in 2002 for "homeland defense" operations be working with the Secret Service on "convention security?" Obviously, since all the democracy has been removed from Democratic National Conventions since the Democrats stopped actually convening nationally to choose a candidate, a direct analogy to what happened to the DNC in Chicago in 1968 is elusive.

So, is all this just a lot of homeland security and defense cheese that needs to be blown before god forbid it goes to some hospital or school? This sounds traditionally like something that would embarrass Democrats. It is unquestioningly a domestic military operation planned that has to do with security and spying at the DNC. Democrats didn't seem to be be embarrassed by illegal spying on Americans after immunity was given to companies that did so, so why should they at their own convention? After all these questions only one remains: Is this the same event that culminates the "movement" that Barack Obama envisioned?

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Case Closed, Thank Heavens!

Interesting that the Anthrax attacks that came one and two months after 9/11 bore Islamic terrorist markings and were seemingly mailed from within the US military establishment. Elements in the government that were trying to hype up the threat of Islamic terrorism found a perfect opportunity with these attacks--at a crucial time. Thank heavens it was proven that it was just a "lone nut" who committed suicide before he could be tried and was completely disconnected from any overt plan to terrorize America to accomplish larger governmental objectives. Though the case against the "lone nut" Army scientist is compelling it is entirely circumstantial. Whatever you believe, it appears as though the Anthrax originated from within the inhuman and apparently well funded US bio-weapons establishment and seemed to further the quick passage of the Patriot Act.

The "closed case" goes like this:
A certain Dr. Ivins was so convinced that "Bin Laden terrorists for sure have anthrax and sarin gas" and was so worried since they "just decreed death to all Jews and all Americans" as he wrote to a coworker that he stole weapons-grade Anthrax in his custody from his workplace at the Fort Detrick, MD Army Weapons lab, later lied about ever having it, and while working late in the nights leading up to the attacks "weaponized" it through a state of the art nano-tech process that his coworkers said he couldn't accomplish, put it in letters in a makeshift manner underwater in a lake, and mailed them to two New York City papers, NBC's Tom Brokaw and probably the two most powerful lawmakers that were obstructing the USA Patriot act. All this solo work in order to validate to himself that he was indeed worthy of a date that sorority girl refused him all those years ago by being the hero that helped the country understand the threat of bin Laden--though the case tying him to 9/11 was never made public--and encourage the adoption of the Patriot Act.

As the bbc news observes: "Most people will reach verdicts guided by their general views on America's federal institutions - if you are inclined to trust government agencies, then you will accept their view on Ivins' sole responsibility for these terrible crimes. If you are not, you will probably be sceptical."

I fall into the latter category. This scenario may be possible, but if you were serving on a jury deciding on this case, would you have to look too hard find reasonable doubt in it? But, no, we're told: case closed! Due to his suicide, there will be no trial. Stop trying to make sense of it and file it with your questions about 9/11 in the "just trust us" file. After all, 9/11 saw no vested governmental interest in exploiting puzzling terrorist attacks with improperly established culpability to accomplish previously held agendas. Thank heavens in both cases it was ultimately just a lone nut we're after.