BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 09:29 PM

Thanks for the link.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: GUEST,Hitlary '08
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 08:58 PM

Ellsberg again. He brings up translator Sibel Edmonds. She's been gagged for years on account of what she knows about 9/11. Apparently she's going to speak up now, despite the court orders:

"If they come after me...when they come after me --- to indict me, to bring charges --- it's going to be up to the American public to see it's not about some bogeyman in some Afghanistan cave. It's about an American citizen coming forward to expose information that concerns the security of Americans."

"An American citizen is coming forward to say that, no, they are depriving you of your security."

http://www.bradblog.com/p=5260

Edmonds is the real deal. Most "gagged" person in US history.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 02:29 PM

...and seeing if the architects of the coup can still get away with launching one or two more pre-emptive wars upon targets of their choice.

...and seeing if they use nuclear weapons in a first strike on those targets.

If so, they will join the ranks of the greatest war criminals in recorded history.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Peace
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 02:23 PM

The 'coup' is a 'fait accompli'. All that's left is deciding who's to blame.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 02:19 PM

Uh, debatable in what way CarolC?

The first is debatable because there are many unresolved voter fraud issues, so we really have no idea who won the popular vote in the last presidential election.

The second point, I must take back what I said. I misread and thought it said proponents of the war, rather than opponents of the war. So I revise my response thusly...

As regards the coup idea, it's a bit of a no go... ...And the recent Congress elections were hardly a home run for opponents of the war, were they?

In what way does this support your argument? Since the people were voting in the last congressional elections for an end to the Iraq war, and since the Congress is not delivering on that, I think this point supports the coup idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:52 PM

Yeah. ;-) And paffle.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:49 PM

Oh, piffle.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:47 PM

Damn right they're debatable. I don't think the Republicans won either of the last two elections by a majority, I think they won them by fraud. And that was part of what is being referred to as a coup.

I doubt that there has been any presidential election yet which did not involve some fraud, some falsification of the vote, but I think that the fraud in the last 2 elections was unprecedented, massive fraud. If so, it was focused particularly on key electoral states...Ohio and Florida.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:47 PM

Uh, debatable in what way CarolC?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:41 PM

3 years ago, the people of the USA chose by a clear majority to have George Bush run the country for another 4 years. And the recent Congress elections were hardly a home run for opponents of the war, were they?

Both of these points are debatable.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Grab
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:36 PM

Can't the Queen shut down your banks and all that?

Nope. Not in Britain, and not in Canada. The key thing to understand about the British royal family is that they are monarchs for as long as they do what they're told. The Prime Minister writes her speeches for her. All direct power has long since been removed. The Queen has the right to advise the Prime Minister, but has no power to tell him/her what to do. Look up "constitutional monarchy" - we aren't back in the days of King John and Magna Carta any more, you know.

As regards the coup idea, it's a bit of a no go. 3 years ago, the people of the USA chose by a clear majority to have George Bush run the country for another 4 years. And the recent Congress elections were hardly a home run for opponents of the war, were they? As sad as it may be, the majority of the USA are getting precisely what they asked for. Like Prohibition, the result may be a clusterfuck, but it's a democratically-elected clusterfuck.

Democracy may be mob rule, but the only alternative is a dictatorship. And you don't seem keen on the Queen having that power, or anyone else. Maybe anyone else except you, anyway, but you're not going to win many votes here with an anonymous login.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:04 PM

That's right. It can't be verified. Neither can a number of things which are being used by the Bush admininstration to suggest why they should attack Iran or Syria. There are a great many things like this which can't be verified, but it is normal in human psychology only to protest against unverifiable things if they do not appear to benefit one's own argument... ;-) Isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:04 PM

I didn't report it as fact, Wolfgang. I said it contained some interesting discussion. And it does.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:48 PM

The article Carol has linked to has an editor's note with it:

The story can't be verified, but we considered it important enough to publish it...

It would have been nice if the excerpt above would have carried this warning too.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:35 PM

That's a very intriguing article, Carol, and a frightening one. It appears that there may be some hope of elements within the US military itself heading off the administration's plans for another pre-emptive war. In other words, there are sane and responsible people in the US military who have the guts to stand up and say "No" the the neocons. That is good to hear.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: pdq
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:05 PM

Gravel for roads!

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:02 PM

Here's some very interesting discussion about the US' plans for attacking Iran. Some good news in the article - apparently the air force has (so far) refused to comply with the plans. I recommend reading the whole article. The following is only an excerpt...

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/09/27/p19807


WMR has learned from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, were destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

However, elements of the Air Force, supported by U.S. intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community.

Yesterday, the /Washington Post/ attempted to explain away the fact that America's nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of "security failures at multiple levels." It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of a command and control chain-of-command "failures" but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional
weapons.

The /Washington Post/ story on BENT SPEAR may have actually been an effort in damage control by the Bush administration. WMR has been informed by a knowledgeable source that one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was, and may still be, unaccounted for. In that case, the nuclear reporting incident would have gone far beyond BENT SPEAR to a National Command Authority alert known as EMPTY QUIVER, with the special classification of PINNACLE.

Just as this report was being prepared, /Newsweek/ reported that Vice President Dick Cheney's recently-departed Middle East adviser, David Wurmser, told a small group of advisers some months ago that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch a missile attack on the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. Cheney reasoned that after an Iranian retaliatory strike, the United States would have ample reasons to launch its own massive attack on Iran. However, plans for Israel to attack Iran directly were altered to an Israeli attack on a supposed Syrian-Iranian-North Korean nuclear installation in northern Syria.

WMR has learned that a U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons was scheduled to coincide with Israel's September 6 air attack on a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr az-Zwar, near the village of Tal Abyad, in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. Israel's attack, code named OPERATION ORCHARD, was to provide a reason for the U.S. to strike Iran. The neo-conservative propaganda onslaught was to cite the cooperation of the George Bush's three remaining "Axis of Evil" states -- Syria, Iran, and North Korea -- to justify a sustained Israeli attack on Syria and a massive U.S. military attack on Iran.

WMR has learned from military sources on both sides of the Atlantic that there was a definite connection between Israel's OPERATION ORCHARD and BENT SPEAR involving the B-52 that flew the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale. There is also a connection between these two events as the Pentagon's highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented U.S. Air Force program that has been working on an attack plan for Iran since June 2007, around the same time that Cheney was working on the joint Israeli-U.S. attack scenario on Iran.

PROJECT CHECKMATE was leaked in an article by military analyst Eric Margolis in the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, the /Times of London/, is a program that involves over two dozen Air Force officers and is headed by Brig. Gen. Lawrence Stutzriem and his chief civilian adviser, Dr. Lani Kass, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who, astoundingly, is now involved in planning a joint U.S.-Israeli massive military attack on Iran that involves a "decapitating" blow on Iran by hitting between three to four thousand targets in the country. Stutzriem and Kass report directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Michael Moseley, who has also been charged with preparing a report on the B-52/nuclear weapons incident.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 11:52 AM

Gravel for vice president!


;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: number 6
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 11:40 AM

I agree with you Carol ... "But I like Kucinich's vision for the country better"

I just find it a shame that Gravel is not getting the attention he certainly deserves, if not for his past accomplishments ... he also has a lot to offer now ... it's also a shame that Kucinich isn't getting the attention he deserves.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:39 AM

The Queen wouldn't shut down our banks! (grin) She wouldn't think of doing such a thing, and she wouldn't dare, and we wouldn't accept it if she tried. It would instantly end our national relationship with the British crown, I assure you. Look, she's like an elderly Aunt who lives across the ocean and visits very occasionally...a bit eccentric, but still the family is fond of her because she is part of the family history, you see. Just like you guys are fond of Mount Rushmore and Davy Crockett and Mark Twain. It's tradition. The only reason we still have a "Queen" is because it's a tradition.

Japan still has an emperor for the same reason, but the Emperor does not run Japan. He's a living symbol of national culture. So is the Queen. She doesn't run the UK, she doesn't run Canada, but she's a very important traditional symbol, that's all, and her job requires carrying out various procedural formalities and behaving in a dignified fashion.

That's it, period. The Queen is like a maiden Aunt whom you visit for tea on important occasions like Christmas and Easter.

The elected politicians run the UK and Canada and Australia and the rest of the former British Empire....and the big business community pulls the strings that run the elected politicians...as well as your elected politicians. That's my opinion. Big Money runs the show.

I agree that bare majority rule does not in itself guarantee a decent system. Majorities can be totally wrong about things, and they can persecute minorities. That is why we have things like a Bill of Rights...to protect minorities and individuals. You have the Bill of Rights. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Same basic deal. Same basic protections.

Can a dominion be a partial dominion? Darn right it can! ;-) My dachshund thinks he has dominion over this entire property, but he's mistaken about that. The Queen has far less dominion over Canada than even that, and she knows it! Give the poor old thing a break, man... ;-) She's making the best of a difficult situation. I wouldn't want her job.

Heh! Anyway, it's always fun talking about this with an American. We really are from different worlds, and every now and then it becomes evident. Still, we have a lot more in common than you might think. Just different traditions, that's all. We are equally keen on freedom, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: GUEST,Hitlary '08
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:35 AM

Hey, I like this handle. All of you are using handles, and this one works for me. Hitlary '08. Yeah, I like it. I may stick with this one, for a while at least.

And cite sources on what? The Clinton hemopheliac stuff? Isn't that what google's for? I'm just surprised some grieving parent hasn't taken the guy's head off yet.

And a dominion is a dominion, Little Hawk. What can I say? Are there partial dominions? Dominion implies dominance, and to be a dominion of the crown, AND say you're a free country, would be like...a little bit pregnant. Can't the Queen shut down your banks and all that? Canada's just like, in it's first trimester, to play out the analogy.

As far as direct democracy, that would be where 51% of the people rule, right? So the Protestants could vote to kill all the Catholics, the whites the blacks, etc. Representative government protects the rights of the minorities. Democracy is mob rule.

Time to lock me out again, I guess. Is it the handle that triggers the lockout? lol. You have to admit it's a fine handle. I'm working up some literature that makes use of it, to mail to the Clinton campaign.

Hitlary '08

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 10:23 PM

I feel very indebted to Mike Gravel, and I admire the hell out of him. But I like Kucinich's vision for the country better.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: number 6
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 08:13 PM

"Your government does NOT truly rule with the consent of the governed!"

Which is true LH .... and brings me back to Mike Gravel and this thread. Mike Gravel supports constitutional amendments towards direct democracy. He is founder and head of the Democracy Foundation which promotes direct democracy.

"He's the only candidate who both voted against the war, and voted against funding the war, and he's the only one who is unequivocal about not attacking Iran"

Mike Gravel has not been a senator since 1980. His policy towards Iran is bring the troops back home in 120 days, and that is all the troops. In regards to Iran, he equates it to Cambodia in the Vietnam conflict. If the U.S. attacks Iran the minimal direct effect according to him is a world wide depression, maximum effect .. nuclear war.

Mike Gravel was principal while in tenure in the U.S. Senate in ending the draft, making public the Pentagon Papers, and ending nuclear testing in the Pacific. He certainly should be taken seriously with that track record and his current platform. It's a shame how he has been forgotten and not being heard and taken seriously.

and BTW, he is the son of immgrants to the U.S. .. His parents were French Canadian.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 07:51 PM

We are still technically and tenuously connected to the British royalty in a strictly formal manner, Guest, but that's about as far as it goes. It's a very old and lingering tradition, and traditions die hard...like your tradition of having 2 huge phony political parties called "Democrats" and "Republicans". I'll tell you who really runs Canada: the same consortium of international corporations and banks who run the USA and the UK. Our elected government is their errand boy, although its members on an individual basis are often well-intentioned people who go into politics with a desire to serve the public. They find themselves in the grip of huge financial forces, and they must deal with that. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

Your government does NOT truly rule with the consent of the governed! That's a myth. A fantasy. It imposes itself UPON the governed from the day they are born and indoctrinates them (just as my government does, though far less aggressively) and TELLS them that they have consent! Ha! That is a polite fiction, because whichever party they elect the government apparatus is still in charge, and the government apparatus is a creature that exists mainly to perpetuate itself and to serve as an agent for its main sources of funding, the financial oligarchy (banks and major corporations).

You get to rubber stamp the government's latest bunch of chosen officials every couple of years in an election. Big deal. We get to do the same thing in Canada. It's a charade. The public does NOT give consent, the public are told what to believe from the time they are toddlers. They're told they are "free"...meaning they're not literally in chains yet and they can buy whatever they like if they have enough money. Consent is manufactured, Guest, just like clothing styles and junk food.

You're quite right, of course, that IF the public in a country withdraws their consent en masse, simultaneously, in the streets, in great enough numbers, and to the extent that significant numbers of people in the armed forces AND the police join them in withdrawing consent....then and only then does the government have to bow to the public will.

That's a popular revolution. And it can happen.

People in Beijing withdrew consent in '89. The army, after a period of hesitation, crushed them.

People in Myanmar withdrew consent last week, but the army and police did not join them, they came down hard on them. Accordingly, the government is still in charge there, and some people have been killed for withdrawing consent, while many more have been imprisoned.

It is when people find the anger and determination to genuinely, openly, publicly withdraw consent from a government that they discover the deal was not what they were told it was. They are not in charge. The government and its hired guns are in charge.

Try withdrawing consent openly from your government in a way that actually affects them seriously and you will find out quite quickly who is in charge. They are, by the means of police and military power. If, however, you can persuade 100 million people to withdraw consent all at the same time, then I can see where you might succeed...because the police and army would probably not stand against a movement that large. Some of them would break ranks. Some of them would also withdraw consent, and then the government would bow or it would fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 07:23 PM

Why don't you cite some sources, reliable sources, AND come out from behind your guest name?

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: GUEST,Hitlary '08
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 07:03 PM

Canada and the U.S. are different kettles of fish, LH. You live in a dominion. The queen of England owns you and grants you the occasional privilege. That's what the revolutionary war in the US was about...breaking those apron strings. Unfortunately, they've grown back...tendrils of the European central banking system. So nowadays there's really not much difference between your police state and ours, except that we have more guns.

The power in the U.S. derives from the consent of the governed. When we no longer consent, the government will be changed. And I suspect we're damned close to withdrawing our consent. The people who've built the prison camps and are now ballooning the number of police know that too. Cheney, Bush, the Clintons...they're such CRIMINALS. Bill Clinton killed...how many in Canada with his AIDS blood shipments to Canada? Can the number even be calculated? And that's juse ONE of THOUSANDS of Bill Clinton's capital crimes. And nowadays he's being portrayed as the good ol days. If Bill Clinton shipping AIDS-infected blood to Canada is the good ol days, that speaks volumes about the shape we're in now. These people running things lost touch with their 'patriotic' side long ago. They're just doing a job for the World Bank and having an occasional bit of fun killing hemopheliacs and people in tall buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 01:10 PM

Yeah, that's right. And that's how I already view them....more or less.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 01:07 PM

If they destroy the Constitution, they may be hailed as heroes by their followers (who are not all that great in number), but not by everyone else. They will be regarded as traitors and dictators by the rest of us, and we are by far the majority. If they are successful, in time, they will come to be viewed in the same light as Hitler and Pol Pot by most of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 01:01 PM

For sure it's treason, Carol. But don't forget...what George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson did in 1775 and 1776 was ALSO treason in its time. It was high treason against the British Crown, which was THE sacred established authority of the society in which they lived. They were all risking execution for high treason. That's what revolutionaries do.

The neoncons are engaging in a revolution.

When a revolution is won, the people who technically committed treason in order to accomplish it are hailed as heroes and visionaries, and their treason is seen as a noble "fight for freedom". When it is lost, they are executed and regarded as criminals and traitors forever after by their society.

Dick Cheney and his pals expect to win. If they do, they will be remembered as visionary heroes by their followers. If not, they will be damned. It's a calculated risk.

Treason, like beauty, is strictly in the eyes of the beholder...and the winners get to say who committed it or who didn't. Every time.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 12:44 PM

Breaking that oath is treason, LH. By definition (in this country).

We have ways of changing the Constitution, but those involve the consent of the governed.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 12:37 PM

Well, all they would have to do is come to the conclusion that the Constitution as it was originally written in 1776 is no longer adequate, feasible, practical, or appropriate to safeguard and direct modern society...because of many great societal changes in the past 250 years. Thus their higher "duty" to the country would be to get around the Constitution somehow or subvert it if they can't legally change it...or to set about legally changing it...whatever seems most feasible at the time.

There's nothing new about that sort of thing. Old sacred codes (whether political, religious, or legal) in all societies are brought into question as new situations arise.

As for oaths, such as..."I swear to protect and defend the constitution of the United States"...or...."I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this court of law"....or "we will remain together until death do us part"...

In real life people say all those kind of oaths mainly because they are required to by the rituals of some social power system that they are under. They have no choice about it. They can't make the next formal step without doing the ritual! ;-) So they do it. Do you honestly think that everyone who speaks such an oath has given absolutely full thought and consideration to everything that oath implies and is moreover absolutely bound to obey that oath in future, no matter what happens? I sure don't. Has everyone who speaks a solemn oath, and even everyone who really meant it at the time, remained true 100% to what he said as time went by? I bet that 97% of those who have spoken such solemn oaths have later in some way violated or deviated from the specific requirements of the oath.

It's a formality. There are rather few people who are of such unbreakable moral fiber (or such a cumpulsively single-minded nature) that they will go to their deaths to honor the requirements of an oath...specially in western society. Now, if you were to look at Japanese soldiers in the 1940's on the other hand...well, they grew up in a society where honor was more important than life itself, and they died en masse honoring oaths to the Emperor and to their country. That was a different mindset, an almost medieval mindset.

But it's not like that in our society now. People take oaths like they do anything else that they have to do to ascend the next rung on their career ladder. In the case of an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, some will feel the moral depth of that when they say it...others will say it just because they're supposed to...but in either case they will mostly deal with a future situation of crisis more on their gut instincts and best judgement at the time than on the basis of an oath.

I think the neocons' gut instincts and their money-driven philosophy are telling them that the Constitution is an archaic, anachronistic document, one that can no longer effectively serve the country...and that a new path must be taken. I easily understand how someone could come to such a conclusion.

But....I think that if that's what they do think, they're absolutely wrong. What they're really doing is engaging in self-serving wishful thinking. They are supposing that what is good for them (in terms of money, power, and control) must just naturally be the best thing for the world too. That's what most people do most of the time....they normally think what's best for them is best, period. It's how the human ego functions.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 11:11 AM

I have a problem with the "misguided patriots" thing, myself. I don't know how anyone can possibly misconstrue the words in their oaths to "protect and defend the constitution of the United States". That wording really isn't open to interpretation. If they are undermining the constitution, they cannot possibly be patriots. They are traitors to their country.

From Websters...

Traitor

1. one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 01:23 AM

The option and the "right" to do something amount to exactly the same thing as far as I'm concerned. The rest is just rhetoric, and the USA has always been big on rhetoric when it comes to concepts like "liberty", "freedom", and the "right to bear arms", as if they invented all those things brand new for the very first time in 1776. They did not. I noticed when I moved to the USA at the age of 10...from a country that is just as free as the USA, if not a little more so...that the schools there were hammering it into all the kids 5 days a week that they were living in the one country in the world that had invented and apparently copyrighted things like freedom, liberty, and the right to bear arms. What total nonsense! But American kids are taught to believe it from Grade 1 on...so of course they believe it. It just isn't true. The reason I noticed it and it was so blatant to me was simple...I hadn't been born in the USA. I'd already seen an alternative.

Your constitution, however, is a pretty brilliant document and it's totally worth defending. No doubt about that. A great many other countries have used it as the inspiration to write their own constitutions.

"They've hijacked the American government and military to further goals that aren't in American interests or in the interest of ANY human."

Agreed! But it is still entirely possible that they fully believe they are doing what is "best" and that it IS in the interest of many human beings. It's my experience that such autocrats as these always imagine they are doing what is "best"...for the world, for the people in the world who really "matter" (meaning them and their friends and key associates)...and best for the future of the planet! I kid you not. I'd be amazed if they don't believe that to their core.

They're completely deluded if they think that...but I'm sure it is what they think. Very, very few people are consciously evil (they always think it's the other guy who is)...and even if they ARE consciously evil then they have convinced themselves that THAT is the "right" way to be...by some strange leap of faith all their own (this would be true in the case of a few people who are consciously serving, say, a so-called Satanic deity or some such obviously negative concept as that). They can always justify what they do in their own minds. They always imagine it serves some ultimate higher purpose that is justified.

That is true of Satanists, it was true of Nazis, it was true of Maoists, it was true of Pol Pot, it was true of the Spanish Inquistion, and I bet it's true of the neocons as well. I bet they think they are doing "the right thing". They wouldn't do it if they didn't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: GUEST,Hitlary '08
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 12:12 AM

Well, I'm bringing all the attention I can to the Clinton campaign.

Regarding Ellsberg, again I think he's being naive when he says the perpetrators of the coup are misguided patriots, or whatever. They aren't even American. They're multi-nationalists. Dick Cheney has sold off all his dollar holdings and is building a palace in the middle east. He already moved Halliburton there. The Bushes have a chalet in Switzerland, just bought a hundred square miles in...where was that...Paraguay? These people aren't American anymore than they're Balinese. They've hijacked the American government and military to further goals that aren't in American interests or in the interest of ANY human. They're using America to create the turmoil that will lead to WW3, which will be so ugly that people will WANT a world government, to prevent future wars. The problem is, the people who created the situation will be the ones who offer the fix. Either Ellsberg is being naive, or he's misdirecting, trying to paint the perps as incompetent.

And Little Hawk, you may have the 'option' to own guns in Canada, but in the US we have the 'right.' Big difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 09:43 PM

I know, LH. We crossposted. My post about Hillary was just me talking about the subject of the thread. I didn't see your post until after I posted that.   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 09:37 PM

I share your view of Hillary's likely policies in the Middle East, Carol.

My 9:22 post was a reply to bobad.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 09:31 PM

...with the exception of Gravel, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 09:31 PM

On the subject of Hillary, however, I am of the opinion that she would be just as likely to keep us in Iraq, and just as likely to attack Iran as any of the Republican candidates. I'll be voting for Kucinich. He's the only candidate who both voted against the war, and voted against funding the war, and he's the only one who is unequivocal about not attacking Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 09:22 PM

Sometimes it does. But I think what more often hijacks threads around here is people's personal feuds with other people, including their feuds with Guest posters as well as members.

Anyway, the point is that Ellsberg says that the American government has been taken over by a coup, and that the coup is anti-constitutional and essentially unamerican in the extreme. I agree with that.

The ironical part is, though, that the architects of the coup are probably under the impression that they are quintessentially American and are doing what's right for America...such aggressive patriotism being as has been said "the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings"... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 09:21 PM

No it doesn't bobad. They're easy enough to ignore, which is how we're supposed to deal with them.

What hijacks threads is people constantly sniping at other posters rather than discussing the subject of the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 07:30 PM

I should have said LETTING nameless f@#king trolls post is what hijacks threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 07:22 PM

Cool, Don. Thanks.

bobad, feeding the trolls is precisely what Don was doing, if, in fact, Guest, Hitlary08 is a troll. Not feeding trolls means not responding to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 07:17 PM

Feeding the nameless f#@king trolls is what hijacks threads, not Don's postings.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:47 PM

Bye, bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:22 PM

Okay, Carol. If that's what you think, then I won't "hijack" your thread any further. I'll let "GUEST,Hitlary" do that.

You're on your own. I'm outta here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 05:49 PM

Don, that person, the one who is in this thread posting as Guest,Hitlary08 is not the one who is hijacking this thread. He/she is offering an opinion, just like the rest of us. And he/she has as much right to do so as you. It's people like you who are hijacking this thread. Just like they (you) do on numerous other threads, by making it about another poster instead of about the subject of the thread.

If you disagree with his/her opinions, go ahead and offer your own as an alternative. Or even tell us why you think his/her opinions are wrong. Offer some documentation to back up your assertions. But when you make it about another poster, rather than what he/she has said, like this...

"GUEST,Hitlary" is our old friend "GUEST,froth" (and any of about eleventy-fourteen other names), our resident conspiracy-theory lover.

Source for "Hitlary's" information? Some cockamammie blog somewhere

...that's how the thread gets hijacked, and that's how it goes all to shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 05:22 PM

All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.


Pat Paulsen

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 05:08 PM

You could ban bullets. People would then use their guns as clubs. It might be an improvement of sorts, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:29 PM

Pat Paulsen said, when he was running for the Presidency: "If I'm nominated I will not run, and if I'm elected I will not serve."

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: 'A Coup Has Occurred'
From: pdq
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:24 PM

Pat Paulsen also said "Guns don't kill, bullets do. So, my plan is to ban bullets".