The Daily Brew
Saturday, June 15, 2002:
Four Dead In Ohio!
An annual right of passage turned to sorrow yesterday at the commencement of Ohio State University when four students were shot and killed by members of the Ohio National Guard.
The Guardsmen, sent in as extra security for a commencement speech to be delivered by President Bush, were unharmed. University President William Kirwan explained that the students were given clear instructions to applaud President Bush, and were specifically warned that any disrespectful behavior would be dealt with accordingly. "They can't complain they weren't warned," explained Dr. Kirwan
Those warnings came a result of a "nefarious plot" to "illegally turn their backs on the President during his speech" said Dr. Kirwan. "The terrorist protesters had been uncovered by campus police, who had initially been concerned that insufficient resources were being devoted to the event" said Dr. Kirwan.
Campus police concurred with Dr. Kirwan's account of events. "We were really relieved when the Guard showed up. We were originally told we would have to cover the event ourselves. Imagine. Ten soldiers and George Bush coming" explained a police spokesperson. Fears were eased when a massive security force of ten thousand National Guardsmen were summoned to the event by the White House, and the specific warnings for unacceptable behavior were given prior to the event.
Students and other witnesses disputed Dr. Kirwan's account, however, and complained that they had only been threatened with expulsion for a failure to wildly applaud the President. Apparently, several students were nevertheless willing to part with their just earned diplomas by actively turning their backs on the President. "We're finally on our own." explained a student. Four who did were immediately shot.
Horrified onlookers were mostly silent in deference to the President's speech, which continued uninterrupted by the violence, as secret service agents quickly cleared the bodies of the four dead from the Ohio State University football stadium. However, a weeping mother was taken into custody when she called to an agent removing one of the slain terrorist protestors "What if you knew her and found her dead on the ground? How can you run when you know?"
Attorney General John Ashcroft later updated fearful Ohio residents, revealing that the subversive terrorist organization who organized the illegal protests was unbowed by the President's decisive show of force, and late last night put out a statement reading "We will never stop turning our backs on the President, no matter how many of Bush's soldiers are gunning us down."
Attorney General Ashcroft then assured now terrified Ohioans that remaining terrorist protestors still at large would be getting exactly what they had coming. "Should have been done long ago" the statement read.
Common Sense // 5:06 PM
Tuesday, June 11, 2002:
Common Sense // 1:37 PM
As wth John Walker Lindh, the government's story on the "dirty bomber" begs some interesting questions about our intelligence agencies.
If the government is to be believed, Abdullah al Muhajir, a New York native born as Jose Padilla, met repeatedly with top al Qaeda leaders after Sept. 11 to discuss a range of attack options including blowing up hotels and gas stations. Supposedly, he traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan several times after Sept. 11 to meet senior al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah for talks on plans for other types of attacks. US officials report Muhajir first met Zubaydah, a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle who has since been captured by U.S. officials, in December 2001.
In other words, our government claims a gang-banger from New York was able to infiltrate al Qaeda, and contact its most senior leaders, just by changing his name and showing up. Further, our intellegence agencies know not only who he met with, but also the content of the discussions he had with them. This isn't me speculating, this is the official story.
But the same government is also telling us they can't find these same al Qaeda leaders.
Either the government is lying about the evidence they have against Padilla, and they have no idea who he met with in Pakistan and what was discussed, or they are allowing the al Qaeda leadership to roam free. Either two idiots of the caliber of John Walker Lindh and Padillo were able to infiltrate al Qaeda, or they weren't. If they were, then why the hell hasn't the CIA also infilitrated al Qaeda? If the government is telling us the truth, it is a simple matter to infiltrate al Qaeda and gain access to its top leadership. Why haven't they done so?
Is it so Smirk can spew platitudes like "There's ... a full-scale manhunt on," as he told reporters at the White House? Is it to allow Bush to talk tough and say things like "We will run down every lead, every hint. We're in for a long struggle in this war on terror. And there are people that still want to harm America... As we run down these killers or would-be killers we'll let you know."?
Because that would certainly be useful to distract the American public from the on-going investigations into the fact that Bush knew the Septmeber 11 attacks were coming, and his attorney general stopped flying commercial while he went and hid on his ranch in Texas. It would also give the public something to think about besides the fact that Smirk's inner circle were taking Cipro weeks before the anthrax attacks. It would redirect the public's attention away from the revocation of the constitution via the PATRIOT act.
What the hell did anyone expect? The whole point of democracy is accountability. Once you throw counting votes out the window, you throw accountability out the window with it. Welcome to America, a dictatorship run by the Bush Corporation.
Common Sense // 11:02 AM
Common Sense // 2:30 AM
I consider myself a moderate, liberal democrat, except on one issue where I find myself in general agreement with both the far left and the totally out to lunch, terrorist, far right; civil liberties and the need to check government power.
That is why I find the case of Jose "Pucho" Padilla, the "dirty bomber", is so chilling.
He didn't have a bomb, he didn't (apparently) have the means to make one, and he is an American citizen.
Nevertheless, he was handed over to the Pentagon for indefinite imprisonment as an "enemy combatant."
For the sake of arguement, let's toss the presumption of innocence right out the window and assume he is guilty. His crime is simply wanting to kill innocent Americans. Should the government be able to send you away, indefinitely, simply by making this accusation? No trial, no lawyer, no nothing? I don't think so.
But if this is the new standard, if Ashcroft is giving us the "new world order" Bush's dad warned us about, then let's apply it fairly. Let's apply the same standard to Ashcroft's core supporters. Let's send every freeper, every anti-abortion zealot, and every right wing gun nut to the Pentagon for indefinite confinement because we know by their own words, even if they have no plans of actually doing it, they want to kill all liberals, abortion doctors, and ATF agents. No trials, no lawyers, nothing.
Common Sense // 2:13 AM
Monday, June 10, 2002:
Common Sense // 2:33 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Andersen
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 10:08 PM
Subject: Why keep paying for Salon?
You ask in your blog why people should "continue to pay for such idiotic crap?" Well, I think MWO's continued support for the support of Salon has more to do with it being one of the few forums available for non-whores (Conason and others) in a media world consistently given over to whoredom.
Think of it like the battle between the Democratic Party and the Greens. The Greens want ideological purity, and when they don't get it, they make the Democratic party suffer for it, even thought their own agenda gets even more hurt in the process.
The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good if the good is to have a chance of succeeding. Thus, while Salon may publish rubish like the Libreto article, they still provide a useful service that deserves support.
In other words, don't cut of your nose in order to spite your face.
I hear what you are saying Chris, but I'm not demanding moral purity; all I want is factual accuracy. IMNSHO, Salon didn't give me that in their article, (eg. their statement "As best can be determined, Media Whores Online originated in Tulsa, Okla., in 1996" is a flat out lie) I really don't care if a news source is coming from the left or the right. As long as they are telling the truth, and by that I include sins of ommission, IMNSHO, they deserve my money and support. If they give me the facts, they are free to spin, I am perfectly capable of sorting out the rest out on my own.
Also, couldn't you have found a better word to analogize the Greens than "perfect"?
I actually agree with alot of what the Greens are saying. At the same time, I cannot stand them, and it is for the same reasons I cannot stand any ideologues, be they fundementalist Christians, libertarians, the high priests of science, or Islamic Jihad. The Greens and their holier-than-thou-vote-your-conscience mantra is the biggest pile of crapola I've ever heard of. If you want to change the world, you have to change people's minds. Its one thing to demonstrate for change out in the open, that at least has a prayer of getting through to the collective consciousness, but if your "conscience" leads you to use an annonymous ballot as a "protest" instead of picking the best available option, you can't call yourself "morally superior" in my book. You had a chance to make things better, and instead you made them worse, in what I consider a juvenile tantrum. That doesn't make you moral, it makes you stupid, and "perfect" is a funny way to describe stupid if you ask me.
p.s. I know that isn't what you meant, but it was a useful device for me to tee off on the Greens, so don't take it personally.
Common Sense // 2:25 AM