The Watch

The Watch is concerned about the increasing pressure towards feudalism in the United States from corporations, social regressives, warmongers, and the media. We also are concerned with future history concerning our current times, as non-truths which are “widely reported” become the basis for completely false narratives.

Wednesday, August 20, 2003

Anti-war equals Saddam-lovin' pinko

9/11 Watch

Here are a couple of more articles on Bush’s gross negligence and/or culpability on 9/11. Isn’t it amazing that this doesn’t get more play in the mainstream media? Instead we get stories about Ahnold. You have to hand it to this administration and the media they sure do know how to bury a story.

First, an article by John Dean concerning Bush and warnings about 9/11:

Bluntly stated, either the Bush White House knew about the potential of terrorists flying airplanes into skyscrapers (notwithstanding their claims to the contrary), or the CIA failed to give the White House this essential information, which it possessed and provided to others.

Bush is withholding the document that answers this question. Accordingly, it seems more likely that the former possibility is the truth. That is, it seems very probable that those in the White House knew much more than they have admitted, and they are covering up their failure to take action. The facts, however, speak for themselves.

Second, an article from the Village Voice to the same effect:

Rice also said at this briefing that the PDB pointed out that Bin Laden might hijack an airline and take hostages to gain release of one of their operatives. She said the warning was "generalized"no date, place, or method.

As Dean notes, how could Rice, having known all this, say that the administration had no idea "these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon"?

Operation Desert Faux Watch

One of the lamest retroactive excuses that Bush supporters use to "justify" the Iraq war is to ask: "would you rather have Saddam back in power?" The answer to this is yes, of course. He hadn’t done us any harm in 11 years, especially in the last 5 years, and it seems pretty obvious now that he wasn’t in any position to do us harm even if he had wanted to. The costs of this war will vastly outweigh any benefits, even in the short term. Just because Saddam was cast as the scary boogeyman in this drama, doesn’t make him any worse than any other of Bush Sr’s other cronies and business partners (remember that Saddam was our bestest buddy throughout the 80s). Here is an even better response to the question "would you rather have Saddam back?" from the great blog The Daily Brew. An excerpt:

And if I could get back the lives of over 240 hundred US servicemen, including over 1,000 wounded or injured, and still have Saddam Hussein completely boxed in militarily and economically, just as he was prior to the start of the war, would I?

You are damn right I would.

Bartcop Watch

Here’s a letter to the editor I saw on the always funny Bartcop site:

For years, the worst nightmare of the conservatives was that when the baby boomers began to take power, the country would end up with a president who was a draft-dodging, drug-addled deserter who would wreck the economy and bankrupt the government with deficit spending. When I think of the money and effort the conservatives put into getting Bush into the presidency, I am appalled at the lengths some people will go, just to be right.
-an American citizen


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home