April 8, 2004
Forget About Condi's Show "Testimony" of Lies Today: That's All White House "Made for Television" Theater. If You Want the Truth, Let's Move on to Plan "B": Impeachment.
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
BuzzFlash is just SO Radical!
I mean if you believe that the national security of our nation, truth, justice, and democracy come before lies, incompetence and blind loyalty to the inept Bush dynasty, then BuzzFlash is, well, SO radical.
It is a sign of the times that standing with the Minutemen of 1776 is perceived by many Republicans as radical. Is it radical to take a stand against a Tory monarchist regime that believes a tired, effete blood line is entitled to rule America, despite our constitutionally guaranteed democracy?
As we write this editorial, at least 30 Americans have been killed in the last few days of fighting in Iraq. Hundreds of Iraqis have died. The toll on both sides will inevitably be revealed to be much higher, because the GOP operatives who control the press operation in Iraq are trying to suppress the tidal wave of disastrous news coming out of Bush's war.
Condoleezza Rice has been a part of the entire bumbling Bush "Crusade" and the cover-up over how the Bush Cartel failed to try and prevent 9/11. She is a willing co-conspirator in an administration that is so corrupt that it makes the mob look honest: Because the mob never sent our sons and daughters to be slaughtered in a war that they lied to get us into. Because the mob protects its own, instead of ignoring direct warnings about an impending attack. Because the mob doesn't tell us how to behave or police us in our bedrooms.
Call us radical, but the mob looks good next to the Bush Cartel. The mob never took a nation in the midst of peace and prosperity and ran it into the ground. But the Bush Cartel did.
The two things that the Bush Cartel does have in common with the mob are a penchant for lying about its actions and punishing anyone that tries to tell the truth. The Bush Cartel knows how to do a political hit job as well as any whacker for the Corleones.
Call us radical, but we don't need a 9/11 Commission.
All the evidence is out there in public -- let alone what the Bush Administration is continuing to withhold or has shredded -- that the Bush Administration was repeatedly warned of an imminent terrorist attack -- most likely through hijackings -- and did nothing. As BuzzFlash has repeated again and again (and regular BuzzFlash readers know what's coming), Condoleezza Rice has gotten away with claiming that no one warned her and the Bush administration about planes being flown into buildings, so they didn't do anything to prevent 9/11.
Not only has her assertion been thoroughly discredited (to the point that she once asked to revise her original claim, only to then proceed once again to return to the original lie), but -- and this is the part that BuzzFlash readers can repeat by themselves -- any second grader can tell you that if you want to prevent a terrorist hijacking that ends up using planes as guided missiles, you need to take steps to prevent ANY possibility of hijackings in general.
But apparently this simple and elemental concept eluded Rice, Bush, Rumsfeld and the entire Bush team of inept zealots, because Rice and Bush did NOTHING in the way of seriously trying to prevent hijackings after a four-level alarm alert briefing in August of 2001 and ongoing warnings by Richard Clarke, former Clinton administration members, and people like Gary Hart, not to mention the CIA. Bush responded to the infamous August, 2001, briefing by going on vacation for a month.
It's almost as if the Bush administration wanted to LET 9/11 happen. But we won't go there for now. That would discredit and marginalize us, right?
But as we look back at the pummeling of lies that led to the bloody disaster in Iraq. As we look back at the lies about how the Bush administration ignored the 9/11 warnings. As we look back at the pyramid scheme of lies upon which the executive branch rules this nation, propelled by a rock-headed cadre of extremist zealots, tell us this: Is it radical to rule out anything about the motives of the Bush administration?
They keep us in the dark alright. It is hard to tell whether their brazen dishonesty exceeds their incompetence, or if it is the other way around.
The 9/11 Commission is not necessary because, among other things, it uses the appearance of process to provide gobbledygook "cover" to the likes of Condoleezza Rice. She will tell her lies under oath and cannot be called back to clarify inconsistencies, based on an agreement with the White House.
Next, Cheney will hold Bush's hand and pull his strings when they privately "talk informally" (not under oath) with the 9/11 Commission.
What's the point of all this scripted and orchestrated activity?
We have enough on the record to prove that the Bush Administration willfully ignored warnings about an Al-Qaeda attack. We have enough on the record to prove that the Bush administration strategically lied this country into a disastrous war that has united the people of Iraq, including two feuding religious sects, against us and created a recruiting ground for terrorists.
We don't need a 9/11 Commission, we need to proceed directly to "Plan B": Impeachment.
Now, you say, there is radical 'ol BuzzFlash acting like some daffy extremist.
Well excuse us, who's the extremist here?
An administration that deliberately ignored impending 9/11 hijacking attacks and led us into a disastrous war that has created more terrorism and united feuding religious sects in Iraq against us, that piles lies upon lies in an effort to prolong its stolen reign of power?
Or BuzzFlash who believes that democracy, the rule of law, truth and our Constitution are worth fighting for as a corrupt White House is actively at war with all four of these basic American principles?
Who is the radical? Tell us?
No, we don't believe that the Tom "Exterminator" DeLay controlled House of Representatives will initiate impeachment hearings. Republicans in Congress, in large part, are loyalists to Bush and will go down with a sinking ship rather than stand up for America. They are "group think" sort of people who probably rationalize that the Bush Administration, Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, and the like, engage in "heroic lying" for some greater good.
But, when you look at the devastation around you caused by the rampant ineptness of the illegitimate Bush Administration, you have to question what that greater good is that they believe merits their loyalty in the face of chronic and pathological lying and failure.
For many Americans, the notion that the Bush administration, in the back of its mind, allowed 9/11 to happen is as difficult as accepting that your father is a child abuser. It takes time and a lot of counseling -- and even then, the psychological need for denying the betrayal of a father figure may override the reality of the betrayal.
That's what happened with so many young people who were abused by some priests who were sexual predators. It took years for the public to accept their accounts as true, because priests were men of God, after all, and how could men of God sexually abuse a child?
But they did, didn't they?
No one is accusing George W. Bush of being a sexual predator. But he is a man who sits in the Oval office who has betrayed a nation, along with the ventriloquist who pulls his strings, Dick Cheney.
Condoleezza Rice is among the second tier of defendants in the case of the citizens of America vs. the Bush administration. She is joined by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell, and Richard Perle, among others.
Her testimony before the 9/11 Commission today is made for television, not for the truth.
We already have enough truth out on the table to proceed to "Plan B."
It won't happen, but it should.
Democracy may not survive a few more months of this administration, because they, undoubtedly, have contingency plans for remaining in power.
They can't afford to lose the election in November, because unless Kerry were to pardon them after their trials, most of them would end up in jail.
And Cheney and Bush don't plan on letting it get that far.
Just call us radical, but after you do, just answer this question?
If the American Revolution were fought today, who would be standing up and fighting on the side of the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, and who would be fighting on the side of the "Lobster Coats" representing King George?
We know we don't look very good in red, how about you?
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
otherwise noted, all original