Terrorism alert!

July 13, 2007 by barbara

barbara writes:

Let me put this out there in case there’s been too much subtlety at the Clothesline.

I do not trust George W. Bush. I do not trust BushCo. I do not trust legislators who have aligned themselves with BushCo. Generally speaking, I do not trust people who voted for Bush and I do not trust that shrinking number of people who continue to support him.

It is naïve to say that this administration serves its own agenda and that what happens to America is collateral damage. No. I believe that an essential part of BushCo’s agenda is quite specifically its calculated and concerted effort to damage our country in order to seize control. To that end, they have for all practical purposes waged war on the U.S. Constitution, Congress, the judiciary, the United States treasury, civil and human rights, Social Security, health care and immigration, and checks and balances, for starters.

I believe that BushCo can fairly be labeled a terrorist organization. Click for more. Unfortunately, I'm serious.

Merriam-Webster online defines terrorism this way:

    1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

    2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

    3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

BushCo has infiltrated our country and our government. Its members do not wear masks. They brazenly identify themselves with U.S. flag pins on their lapels. They hide their malfeasance under a cloak of invisibility and they operate in utmost secrecy.

BushCo has attempted for six years to control Americans by sowing and growing seeds of fear and mistrust. In so doing, they have attempted to divert our attention from the fact that it is the seed-sowers who are the most dangerous players in this most dangerous game-that's-not-a-game.

Yesterday’s presidential press conference underscored all of this. (Full disclosure: I didn’t watch. I confess that I cannot bear the sight and sound of the current president of the United States. And so I rely on transcripts after the fact.)

George W. Bush once again connected his make-believe dots between 9/11 and virtually everything that has happened since then or that may happen going forward. He is the master of post hoc fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc, i.e., after this, therefore because of this).

Once again, he trotted out the Saddam Hussein meme. He brandished the spectre of al Qaeda. I read somewhere that he spoke the name of that group 30-some times.

“Al Qaeda wants to hurt us here. That’s their objective,” said Bush. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.” May I point out that the United States is also about the business of bombing innocent people in Iraq?

He spoke of “radicals and extremists who want to impose their dark vision on people throughout the world,” and it took me a moment to realize he was not talking about himself.

He dissed the United States Congress and along with that, checks and balances, saying, “I don’t think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops.”

He said, “Their (al Qaeda’s) objective is to impose their vision on the world.” Hmmm. Speck in the eye, George?

He suggested that to leave Iraq means that America thereby becomes isolationist. More woo-woo dots.

He totally blew off public opinion polls.

The same man who proclaimed he could see into Vladimir Putin’s sainted soul tells us that he implicitly trusts General David Petraeus, implying that we should go forth and do likewise. Now I’m not saying Petraeus = Putin, but I believe the instincts of George W. Bush have been called into question countless significant ways over time.

He warns us that any withdrawal now is precipitous. Four years and hundreds of thousands dead and maimed. Precipitous. Only to someone who has sold his soul.

And finally, after all these years of pounding Americans with the concept of a burgeoning al Qaeda menace, George W. Bush said, “Because of the actions we have taken, al Qaeda is weaker today than they would have been. They are still a threat. They are still dangerous. . . . Al Qaeda is dangerous for the American people.”

Then George W. Bush declared himself an idealist, a realist, and an alternative ideologist.

I declare him monumentally dangerous.

Posted in


Anonymous (not verified) | July 13, 2007 - 3:24pm

agenda is quite specifically its calculated and concerted effort to damage our country in order to seize control.

Hmmmmm. Sounds like Pelosi, Reid, Dicky Durbin. -could it be? Sounds like them!


perhansa (not verified) | July 13, 2007 - 6:05pm

Why anyone would believe one word the Liar-in-Chief uttered yesterday (or in the past couple years) or would trust him to take out the garbage is beyond me. This Admin has clarified human "evil" for me. It comes in many forms, not just flying planes into buildings or detonating suicide bombs.


susan | July 14, 2007 - 8:53am

Barb writes:

[On July 13] George W. Bush said, “Because of the actions we have taken, al Qaeda is weaker today than they would have been. They are still a threat. They are still dangerous. . . . Al Qaeda is dangerous for the American people.”

On July 12, the leading news story was this. "Six years after the Bush administration declared war on al-Qaeda, the terrorist network is gaining strength and has established a safe haven in remote tribal areas of western Pakistan for training and planning attacks, according to a new Bush administration intelligence report to be discussed today at a White House meeting.
(emphasis mine in both)

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Er, make that "truth".


Poet (not verified) | July 14, 2007 - 11:18pm

Barbara for President! (okay, how about chief executioner?) I would love for you to write and deliver a keynote address to the next Democratic convention (I hear Denver is lovely in the fall). I mean a real peel the paint off the walls screamer that (like a primal scream) grants catharsis to the ever building anger and frustration of watching a delusional wacky-doodle being taken seriously.

One that scolds the "party fiathful" for not demanding more action out of the do-nothing congressional leadsership, and finally one that demandsa a party platform committed to undoing all the abridgements of American civil rights that have resulted from the past (by them ) 8 years of neocon misrule.

I listened to the press conference primarily to hear what kinds of questions would be asked. The chimp surprised me by caling on Helen thomas and she started right in on him. Of course he merely denied and deflected her questions and then went on to call on the rest of the glamor boys and girls of the washington press corps who lobgbed patty-cake questions which he also ised as platforms for his "message du jour".

It occurred to me that by this time next year we will still be hearing the same old crap about violence and death of Iraqi civilians and American contractors and forces. Needlerss to say i am not looking forward to the coming year.


barbara aka babs (not verified) | July 17, 2007 - 6:49am

Poet, I just found your comment. It made me laugh, which is a rare occurrence lately. In a former life, I did some commentaries for MPR. Had to keep them relatively tame in order to be, oh, fair and balanced. It was easier then, because we were just entering the rabbit hole and had no idea how bad things were really going to get. Anyway, once in a great while, I think about doing that again, somewhere. And ratcheting up the rhetoric.

Someone told me yesterday that America isn't particularly interested in Constitutional abuse or other more esoteric outrage about BushCo. Told me that it needs to be less abstract and more about the things that enrage them. Iraq, I think, was the principal topic.

I don't remember for sure, because I was so totally disheartened by the notion that Americans by and large don't care that we are in a constitutional crisis. And the worst part of all is that I fear it's true.

There's a constant and growing roar in the blogosphere that might be deafening/blinding us to what fuels the rage of the population at large.

And so we write and hope.


susan | July 17, 2007 - 9:08am

If it doesn't involve sex, it doesn't interest them. And I don't mean a lusty healthy sort of sex, I mean a learned fascination/revulsion with sex, a TV tawdry sort of sex. So stuff that wouldn't ruffle a feather in Denmark or France becomes the HEADLINES here, to wit, Clinton's blow job or Rep. Vitter's affinity for prostitutes. Of course I see a huge difference in a Clinton, who never claimed the moral high road and whose various appetites were pretty much a known part of the package, vs. Vitter, Foley et al, who run on family values and rail against sinners like Clinton. Anyway, there's truth in the bumper sticker that says, "Somebody give Bush a blow job so we can impeach him." Using the Constitution as toilet paper? What's the problem?