"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens....Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." ~ John Maynard Keynes
Next Stop, Syria
Richard Clarke should be awarded a medal. By speaking out against the way the current administration handled the 9/11 attacks, he is helping to prove that we are being led by a regime of, to quote Al Franken, 'lying liars.'
The only good thing that can be said about the Bush Administration is that throughout all of this, they have at least acted consistently. By that I mean they have reacted by making contradicting statements with no regard of the facts.
I imagine that'in their minds'we are a populous of idiots, unable to spot inconsistencies in the statements they have issued and the factual evidence that has arisen about the President and his administration's handling of the terrible tragedy that was exacted against our people. If this is not the case, then they must think we are just so gullible that they can say whatever they want and expect us not to notice that their actions do not coincide with their words. Either way, it's obvious they don't respect or care enough about us to bother covering their tracks a little better.
Since the 60 Minutes interview with Clarke aired on Sunday night, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley have issued a series of statements that fly in the face of many of the facts that have been unearthed by the investigation surrounding our nation's push to war.
One of the most alarming of these is the statement by Rice that 'Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to.' It is a documented fact that Clarke issued a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked 'urgent.' In this memo, he requested a Cabinet-level meeting to discuss an impending al Qaeda attack on the U.S. While the White House acknowledges that the memo was sent, they felt that 'principals did not need . . . a formal meeting to discuss the attacks.'
A full seven months before the worst attack on U.S. soil in our history, Clarke was trying to alert the President. Seven months. And in actuality, it was more than seven months.
Why did they choose to ignore his request? Why did they feel there was no need to assemble a meeting to discuss the possibility that the information was correct? Were they so wrapped up in dealings with their corporate friends that they chose to endanger the lives of thousands of people? Or were they hoping that the tragedy would give them a much-needed excuse to invade a country that posed us no threat in order to thieve its oil? Or are both of these true?
Another statement that should cause the tempers of American citizens to boil over is one made by our Vice-President, Dick Cheney. On Rush Limbaugh's radio talk show Monday morning he said: '[Clark] was moved out of the counterterrorism business . . . .' However, a White House press release issued the day before claimed that: '. . . Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principal counterterrorism expert.' What happened in the course of a day to cause our Vice-President, a man I hope is kept up-to-date with pertinent information regarding our nation and the people in charge of keeping it safe, to make a comment that so blatantly contradicts a statement made just a day earlier? Did he miss that memo? Or was he just using the tactics of lying and doublespeak that the administration of which he is associated has become so famous for?
These are but two examples. There are many more, and all of them suggest'no, they do more than suggest, they almost prove'that we are being lied to.
It's no secret that I have never been happy with Bush or his administration. I didn't vote for him the first time around, and I definitely won't be voting for him in November. As a citizen of the nation I was raised to believe was the epitome of Nobility and Honor, I feel it is my civic duty to remove the people that are tarnishing that image. I can only hope that it isn't too late to repair the damage that has already been done.