Thursday, August 10, 2006

Not much will outwit the Brits

Not much, that is, except fear (and political necessity).

I have no idea whether or not there was a "terrorist plot" to bomb nine aircraft headed for the United States today.

And you don't, either. We've been lied to before, you remember, about a certain "threat" to our country (remember Saddam Hussein?).

All you (we) can do is take the Brits' and Michael Chertoff's word for it. Now the Brits are nice folk, by and large---at least as far as I know---and I guess I believe them that they discovered some unsavory characters preparing to do something really nasty. But my guess is that we will never know exactly what it was all about---at least not until our Fall elections are over. Whatever happened (or was about to, or not), they will work closely with our administration to conceal and cover up the facts until they can't hurt Publican election chances.

That's because Michael Chertoff, even though he tries his level best to LOOK SEXY, is not a nice person. He's one of the neo con-jobs who are running things in Washington, and he helped write the "Patriot" Act.

I'm not the only one who thinks Chertoff is not a nice person: 'Chertoff believes that it is time for "the most creative legal thinking" about the role of the U.S. justice system in "fighting a war of extended duration." According to Chertoff, "We are at a transition point in the evolution of legal doctrine to govern the armed conflict of terror." One concern of his critics is that Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff---with the strong backing of the president---will roll back civil liberties and institutionalize a more restrictive view of the U.S. Constitution during this transition period. Another concern is that Chertoff and the Justice Department are unable to point to one identifiable success in prosecuting suspected terrorists---a sign that Chertoff's dragnet approach in the war's home front has been as unfocused as President Bush's own leadership in his "global war on terrorism."'
Taken from:

Now here's where this begins to get a bit dicey, and I start sounding like a "conspiracy theorist" or just an ordinary kook. I'm really sorry to sound so weird---as if I belong holed up on a farm in the wilds of Idaho or some such place. I know how sick this is. So don't bother me with your tirades. Just hear me out, and then think about it.

I will confess that my crazy "theory" goes back to June of this year when, on the 13th, the special prosecutor announced that Karl Rove would not be indicted in the Valerie Plame case. This announcement did not immediately improve Bush's "approval" ratings.

About that time I said to a group of friends that, in order to get the American people to cringe in fear and re-elect a Publican Congress (and eventually another Bush as President, or this one again under some "martial law" declaration suspending the Constitution), I'd bet my bippy that Karl Rove, now freed from all constraints (no special prosecutor looking over his shoulder), would find ways to scare the bejeezus out of the populace so they would start "approving" of the President again just in time for the 2006 elections.

And then, on the 24th of June (only 10 days later), the Justice Department announced with great fanfare and glee that they had entrapped a group of destitute (and probably desperate) young men from Florida into deciding that it would (for reasons known only to the FBI agent who led them into this plot) be cool to get to Chicago and blow up the Sears Tower. Right. As if they even knew what the Sears Tower was. Bush's "approval" rating was all the way up to 40% last week.

Now jump ahead to yesterday, when the news was all abuzz with the notion that, because Joe Lieberman is no longer a "spokesperson" for the Democratic Party (if he's running as an Independent, he's no longer even a Democrat, is he?), we can assume that the failed policies (if they weren't so tragic they'd be silly) of the administration have been rebuffed by the American people. What did Joe's defeat portend for the "approval" ratings?

And what do we get today? The next great terrorist plot foiled.

I'm willing to admit that I have a more vivid (which is not to say, crazy) imagination than most people I know. And I'm aware that I am constitutionally predisposed (it's not genetic because my parents are perfectly Publican and sane) to "theories" and "fancies" that most people think are weird. "Old weird Harold, " you know.

I have no idea if there was a real plot to blow up airplanes. There probably was (explosives in someone's HAIRSPRAY?). And, if there was, I'm sure glad it was hatched in the United Kingdom; at least there it had a chance of being uncovered---Karl Rove may be telling the Brits they've got to help get a Publican Congress elected in November, but they don't have con-job Chertoff ineptly running the show.

But whether or not the plot was real (hairspray?), things are right on track for Karl Rove: "Scare the American people to death with plots and rumors of plots, and they will run right back to us."

Oh, and by the way, if the U. S., the E. U., and the U. N. don't make Israel stop the carnage she is perpetrating in Lebanon and Gaza, just how long does anyone think it's going to be until there are some REAL terrorist attacks (not hairspray)? And who will ultimately be responsible for them?
(A clue: NOT the victims of Israel's aggression.)