Recently in Conspiracy Theorist Category

The Daily Brew
February 21, 2008

Suppose, hypothetically, that sometime in the middle of next summer there is a major terrorist attack in the United States. Not on the scale of September 11, but somewhat larger in scale than the attacks in London and Barcelona. Suppose, for example, that on Friday, the Fourth of July, 2008, explosives simultaneously destroy ten subway trains packed with people on their way to the firework shows in New York City and Washington DC, killing 800 people, and injuring 1200 more. What would be the political fallout?

We all know what would happen. It would take perhaps three seconds before the Republican megaphone on AM radio and Fox News blamed the Democrats. The Republicans would immediately point to the Democrat's failure to renew FISA this past week as the reason the attacks were not stopped. The Democrats would then pee in their pants and form a circular firing squad, simultaneously blaming each other for not giving Bush the unfettered power to declare who should live and who should die, and debating whether the fall elections should just be delayed, or canceled entirely. Assuming that the ballot somehow went forward, John McCain would be elected president and the Republicans would re-take both houses of Congress.

The simple, undeniable truth is that the Republicans now have a tremendous amount to gain if America is attacked, and even more to lose if we are not. So put on your tinfoil hats with me and ask yourself if Cheney would let it happen.

I realize that among respectable progressives one is not allowed to even hint that the Republicans are capable of such evil. There is no more certain way to poop in the punchbowl of the comments section any of my favorite blogs than to suggest that you don't buy the official explanation of September 11. Virtually all of the self appointed consignetti of the left-wing commentariat will either ban you outright or mock you for even bringing the topic up. Despite how much we have in common on virtually every other political issue, I have to admit that I regard these people as idiots.

How much evidence do we need to see that the main difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans aren't shy about using violence, including violence against Americans, as a means to an end?  What do the Republicans have to do to prove they are capable of doing damn near anything to further their power?

The head of the Klu Klux Klan has been quoted as publicly predicting that Barrack Obama will be assassinated. No one believes for a minute that if he is elected President, some racist Republican won't try. The anthrax spores that were mailed to then majority leader Tom Daschle were created in a US government facility, yet no one has ever been charged with the crime. Osama bin Laden is blamed for killing three thousand American citizens. At six foot four, he is the most recognized man in the Arab world. He is also disabled, as he is in need of periodic kidney dialysis. Despite that, he has never been caught. The Bush administration deliberately lied to the American public to start an illegal war of choice that has killed thousands of American servicemen, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. They tortured people, some to death, in detention centers in Iraq and Cuba. They paid your tax dollars to hire private corporate mercenary armies to operate outside of the jurisdiction of any sovereign power, while knowing that male employees of these mercenary armies were raping female American citizens who worked for them, with no consequences whatsoever.

Call me a conspiracy nut, but given this track record I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that the Republicans are capable of doing whatever is necessary to stay in power. Quite the contrary, I would suggest that anyone who thinks they would not is hopelessly naive.
__________________________________________________________________
The Daily Brew is an editorial/opinion column delivered to a select group of political junkies who occasionally forward them along to their colleagues.

If someone sent you this, you should consider it an invitation to join, and sign up to receive future editions by entering your email address here:

http://brew.notifylist.com/thedailybrew.html

I will never use your email for any purpose except to send more columns.

New York Times

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, said it was "unfortunate that the administration failed to identify the concerns upon which this veto is based until after the bill had passed both houses on Congress and was sent to the president for signature." The senator said he was "deeply disappointed" at Friday's developments.

The bill is important to members of the military and their families, since it provides for a 3.5 percent pay raise for the troops and contains measures intended to improve the much-criticized health-care system for veterans. (Money for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is provided for in separate legislation.)

Honestly, it is not about the possibility of lawsuits. It is about BushCo™ using it as an excuse instead of vetoing it over the 3.5% pay raise for the troops. These bastards are nothing, if not craven, in their efforts to undermine our troops. And since there is no simple fix to be had here-it will all have to go through the legislation process again, more pork barrel sections will be added, and the pay raise will be battled against. And if it is not successfully combated and makes it into the bill again, than another section will be used as an excuse to veto that version of the bill.

Now, if you will all excuse me, I have to put my conspiracy theorist back in his underground bunker complex.