I think Wilkerson is upset and frustrated at how Colin Powell was set up. I don’t think Condelisa Rice’s PhD is going to help her get out of the mess once Dick and Bush start to point the finger at her. These guys would shoot their own grandmothers if it meant they could stay in office longer.

One thing is certain; these people have committed treason against the American People by using Patriotism as their tool.

An old wife’s tale says that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Both Cheney and Rumsfield were raised by parents who supported Hitler. Their parents were Nazi’s. Both of their character is showing through, but for all those who have passed so late.

The only thing we can do is hope for people like Cindy Sheehan to make a difference. She has been this administration’s stumbling block.

When Scott Ritter went public and stated that Iraq had no WMD, Cheney and Karl Rove when on a character assassination spree to discredit this man. Where is his apology? It’s a good thing now that less people believe them.

Maybe there will be justice. And it’s not for the people who don’t like this “War on Terror”. Because the apparent “Terror” is within.

Here’s something even more interesting. Late yesterday CST the link was removed from CNN’s web site. Last night this didn’t even make the news. Hummmmm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today1_wilkerson_20051129.ram

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/

What hasn’t been clear is exactly what problems Wilkerson is blaming on the cabal. Did the cabal fix the pre-war intelligence? Did it make the decision to invade and somehow push that decision on the president? Did it botch the post-invasion?

Christ…

The Sound of Patriots

Submitted by the cubist on Fri, 2005-10-21 22:36.

The Army and Marines have been shabbily treated, and they know it. The Colonel hints that he speaks for the common wisdom among the best and brightest of those at least in the generation he taught. If things have reached such a pass that a career field-grade officer and Naval War College professor—the deputy to the past Secretary of State—thinks the situation is so bad that professional soldiers may be seriously considering armed revolution to rid the nation of these stupid Republican traitors, then Iraq must be even worse than we can know, even as the Gulf devastation is.

What a story. And nobody whispers a word about it but a few on the net, and some foreign newspapers. Nice work, Lambert and Corrente.

In defense of my take on these elements, I say that Wilkerson himself is one of the professional soldiers who seems here to be considering the prospect of armed revolution. He is a professional diplomat, of high order. So he speaks in metaphors, the lingua franca of the diploma. He even points to this very skill when he speaks of using the Declaration of Independence in study classes with his tutored students. And after he speaks about metaphors, he refers to the Declaration as calling the people “to throw off tyranny, to throw off ineptitude.� The inept and tyrannical Bush administration? (“Cabal� is a word historically associated with treason). He clearly implies that the time is getting close for a return to the principles of the Declaration, and that the circumstances Americans faced then may parallel what we face now. And the Declaration is nothing less than a call to join an armed revolution to overthrow tyranny. There is thus at least one soldier who seems to be considering it, and I think his reference at the opening to his former students hints at his saying what they may not say. In my view, he hints at the possible overthrow of King George.

Posted by: the cubist at October 25, 2005 02:51 AM

We are in Iraq today because the Republican party needed to do something to insure that they remained in control after the 2002 mid-term elections.

At that time the American people were beginning to focus on domestic issues where the administration did not have any advantage over the Democrats. As they have repeatedly demonstrated, the Republican party is expert at setting the forum for debate. By diverting public attention to “terrorism” and the serious issues of war, they shut-down all other debate. The nation and Colonel Wilkerson were busy debating the content of the administrations arguments about whether or not WMDs were there rather than questioning why the issue had suddenly become pressing.

I do not believe that the Democrats were fooled for a minute, they simply lacked the courage to run the risk of having the American people reject them as “unpatriotic” or weak. I blame the American public for the lack of critical thinking that justified those fears and the news media fo failing to adequately pursue the question “Why now?”. There was not any “new intelligence” presented during the entire debate to justify the presence of an immediate crisis. Of course that was because the crisis was not related to Iraq but to internal US politics.

I do not argue that the US mid-term elections were the only reason for the invasion. I firmly believe that there were many in the administration who wanted to invade Iraq for a number of other reasons, one of which might actually been a fear of WMD (and of course there is always oil). The precipitous “rush to war” however was driven by the desire to keep everyone off-balance and predictably get the people to rally around their president. The move was expertly executed, even the debate of whether their were WMDs or not actually helped obscure the fact that there was no immediate need to do this.

By timing the push and war when they did they were able to guarantee that the issue would persist through the presidential elections and while the negative consequences of the war might have become an issue in 2004, the big issues were all longer-term and unlikely to be a problem for the election. I am sure that the idea looked better and better and “group-think” took over in the White House. Not only would they sway the election, but they would make changes that they believed were in the best long-term interests of the country, make some money for their supporters, and install a free-market economy in Iraq (democracy is not the goal, it is grudgingly accepted as a companion to free-market economics).

I have no doubt that may of the individuals firmly believe these things are desirable, just as they believe that they will be forgiven for lying “in the best interests of the country”. This demonstrates their utter contempt for democracy. In my view an informed electorate is the basis of democracy and voters should make decisions based on the issues. Most of the Republican party appears to believe in “paternalism”. where “good” people do what is best for the nation and don’t bother the public with the details of their deliberations. It is OK (in their minds) to bend the truth in order to do what they feel is necessary. The ends justify the means. This is reminiscent of the Soviet Union under Stalin, the rationalization of all sorts of horrible behavior for the future good.

The problem is that it is our goal not to have an “end” so how can you justify it with “the means”?

Jim

he chose poorly last year.