Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts

The Real 9/11 Conspiracy

SUBHEAD: The US pretending it was not Saudi Arabia that flew two commercial jets into the World Trade Center towers.

By Sonali Kolatkar on 23 May 2016 for TruthDig -
(https://www.alternet.org/real-911-conspiracy)


Image above: North tower burning (right) as South tower is struck by commercial jet. From (https://www.alternet.org/real-911-conspiracy).

I remember watching the towers fall.

My sister called early in the morning to tell me to turn on the television. My husband and I, who had been working closely with Afghan women organizing against the Taliban, stared at the screen, aghast as the buildings crumbled.

Like everyone else the world over, we realized it was a moment that was going to change history. We also realized that ordinary people, including our friends in Afghanistan, were going to pay the price for something they likely had nothing to do with.

And sure enough, on Oct. 7, 2001, despite the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, the U.S. went to war with Afghanistan. That war, the longest in U.S. history, remains a bloody weight on our collective conscience.

But as soon as the towers fell and Congress rushed to hand over blanket authority to President Bush to wantonly bomb, whispers of “an inside job” began circulating on the internet.

Those whispers snowballed as the war expanded from Afghanistan to Iraq. Many anti-war activists, eager to undermine the flawed rationale for the Iraq War, insisted ever more shrilly that Bush and company were likely behind the attacks or knew ahead of time that the attacks were coming and failed to act purposefully.

Complex and convoluted arguments about the temperatures at which the towers’ beams melted were vociferously trotted out on public radio and in Internet chat rooms. Jesse Ventura jumped into the fray. Films like “Loose Change” and “Zeitgeist” offered seductive theories for Americans to latch onto as they became angry about our rush to war.

As a journalist, I often came under fire from the so-called “9/11 truthers” for being a “gatekeeper” and refusing to take the conspiracy theories seriously. I was much more interested in the devastation being wrought by the U.S. in the name of the 9/11 attacks.

And one irrefutable fact kept arising over and over in my mind: 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. It was a simple fact that everyone agreed on. It had nothing to do with secrets, lies or thermodynamics. It was out in the open.

Here is a plausible conspiracy: The Saudi government, known for aiding and abetting fundamentalist terrorist groups in order to legitimize its own extremist ideology, may well have been involved with some of the 9/11 terrorists, whether or not they knew the hijackers’ intentions.

Once those links were revealed, the U.S. government, which has a history of cozy relations with the Saudis for various reasons (oil, regional influence, weapons sales, etc.), may have wanted to overlook those embarrassing connections and instead divert the American public to countries it had an interest in, namely Iraq (with Afghanistan as a stepping stone).

But in 2004, the 9/11 Commission, a 10-person government panel created to investigate the attacks, absolved the Saudi Arabian government of any involvement. (It also faulted intelligence agencies for lack of coordination.) This was thought to be the end of the story. We were supposed to accept as mere coincidence the fact that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi citizens.
 
Now it turns out that the far more plausible 9/11 conspiracy could be true. After years of rumors that a classified section of a 2002 congressional report held the key to a Saudi role, The Guardian newspaper recently interviewed a member of the 9/11 Commission who confirmed these suspicions.

John Lehman, a Republican and former U.S. Navy secretary under President Reagan, asserted, “There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government.” According to The Guardian, Lehman was aware of “five Saudi government officials who were strongly suspected of involvement in the terrorists’ support network.”

Lehman, along with several members of Congress, wants the Obama administration to declassify the so-called “28 pages” that were kept secret. While Obama decides whether or not to release the documents, the GOP-dominated Senate has just passed a bill that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government. The Saudis are predictably outraged, and Obama will likely veto the bill to assuage the U.S. ally.

Why is any of this important, particularly given the GOP’s penchant for finding any excuse, however insignificant, to oppose Obama?

It is important because the entire premise of current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is based on an assumption that no government actors were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

 Rather, we were told, it was a series of shadowy and reprehensible groups, including “al-Qaida, the Taliban and their associated forces,” in Obama’s own words, that have been targeted for blame and elimination. Just who those “associated forces” are is unknown. In reality, the “enemy” is about as classified as Saudi Arabia’s role in 9/11.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that began well over a decade ago unleashed chaos and violence. They generated the gulag in Guantanamo, Cuba. They were expanded via drone strikes in Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

They have killed untold numbers of innocents and inspired hatred toward the U.S. The U.S. has undermined the Arab Spring movements for democracy in countries like Egypt and even bolstered Saudi Arabia’s brutal quashing of democracy in Bahrain.

It has partnered with the Saudis on a bloody war in Yemen and continued its long-standing tradition of selling the wealthy Gulf monarchy more weapons than it knows what to do with.

The real 9/11 conspiracy is that, despite recent claims that “U.S.-Saudi relations are strained,” close ties between the two countries are worth far more than uncovering what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

The real conspiracy has been out in the open all along. We are told that we need to trust that our government is handling the terrorists who hate us and tried to kill us, even if many contend that the wars have made us less safe. But it turns out our government is simply and amiably working along with the nation most implicated in the 9/11 attacks.

None of this is to imply that the U.S. should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan in 2001. Our post-9/11 military incursions all point to the singular fact that the “War on Terror” has been a “War of Terror.”

On the lengthy list of reasons our modern era of warfare is immoral, misguided, murderous, violent and in every sense wrong, the revelations of Saudi links to the 9/11 attacks ought to be the final straw.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: 9/11 The Day America Ended 9/11/16
Ea O Ka Aina: What We've Lost Since 911 6/16/14
Ea O Ka Aina: New Meaning for Day After 911 9/12/13
Ea O Ka Aina: 911 Aftermath - Our Self Defeat
9/10/11
Ea O Ka Aina: The Price of 911 9/7/11
Ea O Ka Aina: Giuliani 911 NY PD FD Fraud
8/31/11
Ea O Ka Aina: Israel as a Failed State
1/4/09
Island Breath: 7th Anniversary of September 11th
9/8/08
Island Breath: The War on Terror Begins 9/11/2001 9/9/06
Island Breath: Bush-Taliban Deal Disaster
4/9/04

.

The Empire's new Reality

SUBHEAD: From Skripal to Syria – The empire’s “New Realities” are reaching the end of the road.

By Rob Slane on 12 April 2018 for The Blogmire -
(http://www.theblogmire.com/from-skripal-to-syria-the-empires-new-realities-are-reaching-the-end-of-the-road/)


Image above: A detail of 19th century cartoon by Victor Gillam of America's Uncle Sam with the caption "A Lesson For Anti-Expansionists showing how Uncle Sam has been an expansionist first, last and all the time." From (https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/01/12/an-anthropologist-explains-the-american-empire/).
“That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Thus spake Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff in the Government of George W. Bush.
I do wish people would study Rove’s words more carefully. Judiciously study them.

If they did, then whenever the next alleged atrocity occurs and the United States, together with its coalition of supine vassals, starts yelling and hollering 10 minutes later for action to be taken, on the basis of a test-tube full of washing powder, or pictures of injured women and children in a war zone, and the entire media of dutiful stenographers shrieks that “something must be done”, then perhaps we might pause and wonder if we are being played.

Instead of falling into an emotional spasm, maybe we would instead reject the deafening drumbeats of war – wars that have a habit of killing immeasurably more women and children than the alleged incidents on which they are based, by the way — and ask ourselves whether “Rove’s Law” has come into play.


As an aside, the West’s interventionist wars remind me of that wonderfully cynical exchange in the film, The Man With Two Brains:
Dr. Hfuhruhurr: “The only time we doctors should accept death is when it’s caused by our own incompetence!”
Dr. Necessiter: “Nonsense! If the murder of twelve innocent people can help save one human life, it will have been worth it!”
Here’s Dr. Necessiter selling us into war in Iraq: “Nonsense! If it costs us the deaths of 500,000 people to topple the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, it will have been worth it!”

Here he is selling us bombs on Libya: “Nonsense! If turning Libya into a failed state, a terrorist’s playground, and causing a mass exodus of refugees is the price for getting rid of Gaddafi, it will have been worth it.”

And here’s Dr Necessiter again, this time trying to sell us into bombing Syria: “Nonsense! Risking a catastrophic clash with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons is worth it in order to respond to the alleged deaths of less than a hundred people in a totally unproven chemical weapons attack.”

Behold, the “logic” of the interventionists!

But back to Rove. What was he saying? Three things:

Number one: We – that is the Globalist Deep State, centred in Washington DC – are sovereign over the entire globe and we will do as we please.
Number two: That we don’t follow reality, we create it.
Number three: That we are prepared to do things that will make your jaws drop, your hair stand on end, and your eyes boggle as you wonder what is going on, and while your jaws, your hair and your eyes are busy doing their thing, we will have moved onto create our next reality.

In other words – we are God – and not a kind and merciful God, but a God who lords it over all peoples’, nations and tongues, who tells lies, and then tells more lies to cover up those lies and – when you poor saps are trying to work out what it is we’re really up to.

Before you know what has happened, those lies and those lies to cover up lies will have become the new reality. We’ll have moved on and the world with it, and the narrative we have created will have been written in the history books, which we ourselves shall write.

The cases of Sergei Skripal and the alleged chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta seem somehow to represent the zenith of this ideology.

I do not know who poisoned Sergei Skripal or for what reason.

It could be that the Russian Government was behind it, although this would mean accepting the highly improbable thesis that they decided to target a has-been MI6 spy, who they released from prison eight years ago, using perhaps the dumbest assassination method in the history of the world.

It was an ineffective, slow-operating, “military-grade” nerve agent, which could be traced back to them, and which they smeared on a door handle in rainy Salisbury –, a week or so before a Presidential election, and less than 100 days before they are due to host the World Cup.

In other words, the official narrative does not rest on accepting that the Russian state is the epitome of pure evil; it rests on accepting that it is the epitome of insanity and bumbling incompetence.

I do not know what happened in Eastern Ghouta. It could be that the Syrian Government was behind what is alleged to have happened (if it indeed did happen), but this would mean having to accept the thesis that just 24 hours away from completely liberating the last pocket of resistance in Damascus, after the US, the UK and France had all warned that they would attack if chemical weapons were used, just a week or so after the US President, Donald J. Swamp, announced that the US would be pulling out of Syria (which they occupied illegally, by the way), they made the decision to use a weapon that gave them no military advantage whatsoever, but which was practically guaranteed to be used as a pretext for airstrikes against them.

In other words, like the Skripal case, the theory does not stand on accepting that the Syrian state is the epitome of pure evil; it stands on accepting that it is the epitome of self-defeating stupidity on an epic scale.

But you see what I’ve done? I’ve fallen right into Karl Rove’s trap, haven’t I?

I’m asking questions about whether the narratives in these cases stack up. In the Skripal case, I’ve been judiciously studying reality by asking lots of questions that ought to have occurred to anyone with a keen interest in arriving at the truth (here and here, for instance). I could do the same with the Syrian case, if I had the time.

Yet while I’m doing so, the narrative is moving on. I’m falling into exactly the trap that Karl and his disciples have laid.

They want two sorts of people: those who just blindly accept that it was the Russians that did it, or that it was Assad that did it; and those who spend their time asking questions about the official explanations. The first group call the second group conspiracy theorists and nutters. The second group call the first group dumb sheeple.

And the Globalist Deep State laughs and laughs and laughs as the two groups battle it out to make sense of what has happened, leaving it free to march on to create the next reality. Truly I tell you, these Bolsheviks have learned their Hegelian Dialectics well.

Now, this is not to rule out that in the Salisbury and Eastern Ghouta cases the official narratives might – just might – be the correct ones. That both Vladimir Putin and Bashar Assad might be the Laurel and Hardy of Geopolitics.

Yet it has to be said that whatever else you think about them, neither of them tends to come across in interviews as being what you might call dumb or inept.

Nor do either of them give the impression that they have sudden insane impulses to do things which have absolutely no benefit to them, but which hand their enemies massive PR victories.

But this is besides the point.

The point is not whether these particular incidents are what the official narrative says they are, or whether they are provocations.

It suffices for the “new reality creators” to create their realities on occasion, or perhaps to distort occurrences which they didn’t create, and before you know it you have your two groups battling over events which may be real or fake.

On one hand are the conspiracists – who are studying every event to try to work out the details and the inconsistencies – and the other are the sheeple – who believe that their Government is full of good hearted, white hatted chaps and lasses who would never, ever do anything bad – unlike those orcs over in Mordor.

Rove and Co have basically created a “reality” where truth is no longer discernible, where assertions of guilt are taken as fact, and where holes in these kinds of incidents only serve to divide the people further, so that the Globalist Deep State can move on to create their next reality.

But let’s not get gloomy. The good news is that although they clearly think they can get away with it indefinitely, they can’t. No kingdom or empire built on a mountain of lies can stand indefinitely. They all fall.

And can’t you start to sense the signs that the empire’s “new realities” – or what are known as lies in laymen’s terms – are reaching boiling point?

Don’t you sense that they have just got too confident and in doing so have begun to get careless? They are making mistakes. And as they do, they are having to resort to bigger and bigger lies to cover up the ones they’ve already told.

Sadly for Rove and Co, but happily for the rest of us, the world doesn’t actually work the way they think it does. Reality — I mean real reality, rather than the phony reality they have created — will catch up sooner or later. I sense that it’s on its way even now.

And when it finally comes, the whole rotten edifice that these “history’s actors” have tried to create will crash and burn. Bringing much rejoicing.

.

Debt as a weapon on poor

SUBHEAD: Is Washington operating under a  monetary theory were debt does not matter to the rich?

By Kurt Cobb on 24 December 2017 for Resource Insights -
(resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2017/12/is-washington-tacitly-operating-under.html)


Image above: Photo of German paper money during uncontrolled economic inflation that lead to the ris Fascism and World War II. From (https://www.istockphoto.com/fi/photo/german-inflation-money-from-1920s-gm170927779-17410276).

In 2002 when soon-to-be-dismissed U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill warned then Vice President Dick Cheney that the Bush administration's tax cuts would drive up deficits and threaten the health of the economy, Cheney famously answered:
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter."
In the wake of the recently approved federal tax cut,voices concerned about the damage that deficits will do are rising again.

What's curious is that since Cheney's rebuke of O'Neill, growing federal government deficits seem not of have mattered. In fact, the largest deficits ever boosted the economy after the 2008-09 recession, exceeding $1 trillion annually for four years.

All of this suggests that the federal government has for a long time been operating under an unspoken monetary theory, namely, that government spending does not need to be backed by revenues and that the debt issued to fill the gap between spending and revenues will have little effect now or in the future.

But isn't there some level of federal debt which would cripple the federal government and the U.S. economy? A common metric for measuring this debt is the ratio of federal debt to annual gross domestic product (GDP).

When one looks at a graph of this, the growth in debt seems perilous, rising from a low of around 30% of GDP in the early 1980s to more than 100% of GDP today.

Seemingly more perilous is the rapid growth in Japanese government debt. That debt has soared from a low of around 40 percent of GDP in 1990 to almost 200 percent of GDP now. Yet, the oft-prophesied demise of Japanese government finance has not occurred.

What the United States and Japan share in this regard is that each issues its own sovereign currency. That means both could theoretically retire their entire government debt in one day by issuing sufficient currency to buy up all the outstanding bonds. A smarter way would be to do this very gradually without announcing it.

In the alternative, the legislature could pass a law requiring government bondholders to sell their bonds back to government at a pre-determined price—something bondholders would certainly dislike since the price is likely to favor the government.

What this tells us is that any government that issues its own currency will never run out of money to pay back bondholders.

That's, in part, why there is no panic among Japanese and American owners of government debt. What the above further tells us is a bit more shocking: Such governments don't even need to issue debt to finance their operations.

And, so long as a government doesn't issue more currency than the economy can produce goods and services for, it won't create price inflation (defined as too much money chasing too few goods).*

The only reason for governments which control their own currency to levy taxes then is to create demand for that currency. If someone has to pay taxes in the government-issued currency, he or she will want to receive at least some payment in that currency.

As it turns out, so will everyone else. As a result it becomes simply more convenient if everyone adopts the country's sovereign currency as their unit of account and medium of exchange.

All of what I've just described fits neatly into what is called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), the premises of which are so deceptively simple that it is hard for people to believe them.

But Japan and the United States seem already to be operating under that theory save for one act—the act of issuing copious amounts of government debt, something that is entirely unnecessary under MMT.

The idea that governments which issue their own sovereign currency must rely on private credit—mostly from wealthy citizens—to finance themselves is an illusion. But it's an illusion that the monied class hopes no one will see through.

For if the public does see through it, government debt—which is used like a weapon to promote cuts in social spending—would cease to frighten anyone (and may be gradually eliminated). That means spending policy would become much more flexible than previously imagined.

So, it turns out that Dick Cheney was right—but not for reasons which he and the new rentier class would ever be willing to admit, namely, that the government doesn't need loans from rich people or loans of any kind.

Bondholders therefore can't really hold the government hostage. Realizing this and acting on it would seriously diminish the influence of the rich in the halls of power and make a realignment of spending priorities possible.

.

2017: Where the Truth Lies

SUBHEAD: And there’s no doubt that Trump is an iceberg-sized gamble, but a change had to come.

By Raul Ilargi Meijer on 27 December 2016 in the Automatic Earth -
(https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2016/12/2017-where-the-truth-lies/)


Image above: Donald Trump's version of reality is "Trumpth". Mashup by Juan Wilson. From (http://www.documentarytube.com/articles/7-scary-realities-for-americans-with-donald-trump-as-president). Click to embiggen.

I was surprised to see how surprised I was, like I’m sure millions of people were, to see the term ‘fake news’ pop up in what are still called ‘respectable’ (which is by now really just another word for ‘old’) news outlets.

Because a huge part of what they have been feeding their readers and viewers for years is that very thing: fake news. Who needs a bunch of bored highschool kids in small town Montenegro when you have the offices of America’s ‘official’ news sources at your disposal?

That there are still people trying to make a serious point by quoting anything at all published in the Washington Post -and to an only slightly lesser extent the New York Times- is beyond me. And not a little bit beyond. Well, that people still read these sheets is just as incredible, I grant you that.

I haven’t kept count of the number of ‘articles’ the WaPo has published over the past year or so -the election campaign- that referred to unsubstantiated reports emanating from anonymous US intelligence sources about Russian involvement in everything bad under the sun, but I’m dead certain that put together they would add up to a Christmas bestseller of respectable size.

A chance missed there, gents. You could have had your own garbage lead your own bestseller lists. Snake, tail.

And it’s not as if it was a new thing for them either, what’s new is the sheer volume and the concerted campaign we’re talking about. We of course had a similar thing in 2003 with the Weapons of Mass Destruction ‘fantasy’. Now that I mention it, how is it possible that Colin Powell is still walking around free, and Cheney and W.?

When did it become de rigueur to lie to the people, let alone Congress and the UN? What have we become? When did that happen? Remember Ukraine, and the stories you were told about that, less than 3 years ago? Crimea? G-d I hope Trump will get rid of Victoria Nuland.

Trump called the UN a sad club for people to “get together, talk and have a good time”. Is he wrong? Really? If so, do tell, how wrong is he? Perhaps wrong in the same way that the IMF is wrong for letting Christine Lagarde keep her plush tax-free seat after being convicted for handing €400 million in French taxpayer money to a crony? That kind of wrong?

I’m thinking there are still awfully few people who understand what’s happening in the world. What’s changing. And I don’t hold out much hope that they will until it hits them smack upside the backs of their heads.

Why there’s Trump and Brexit, and why many more changes are in the offing. Well, it’s precisely because the UN and EU and IMF and Capitol Hill are self-serving ‘clubs’ filled with unaccountable and overpaid people who have turned the world into a godawful mess.

Not for themselves, they’re fine, thank you very much, they all have pensions from here to Rome and back again for the rest of their lives, but for everyone else. God, I hope Trump will come through on his pre-election promise to limit the terms of American Congressmen and Senators. And that this is subsequently applied to all these ‘clubs’. Because if anything, it’s them who are the bane of this world. Public service…

There may be fine individuals among them, that’s not even -the worst of- the point, it’s the dilapidated, decayed, rotten to the core institutions that they ‘serve’ which are the problem. They serve themselves and they serve the institutions, the one thing they sure don’t serve is the people.

You know who’s given (‘voted’) them those lavish pensions and benefits? They themselves did, and their predecessors.

The UN is supposed to keep the peace in the world. Well, works like a charm, doesn’t it? The IMF is tasked with keeping 200 or so nations in reasonably balanced economic conditions. Got it down.

The US Congress was set up as a pillar of democracy, but it’s occupied by guys and gals who spend so much more time raising funds for their next campaign than representing those who voted them in, that they need lobbyists to tell them which way to vote.

As for the EU, is it even possible they’re the worst of the bunch? Europe is falling apart before all of our eyes, and they’re all in full tard denial about it.

They are turning Greece into a third world country, they’re alienating Britain to the point where the English will, once they wake up to what’s going on, want to set Brussels on fire. And why? There’s no point left to any of it at all.

Italy’s a goner, once enough Italians realize what the ECB wants to do to their banks. France is such a key member nobody wants to even imagine it falling, so its broke banks are ignored. Holland will come very close to voting in Wilders, which means Nexit. Germany is destabilizing rapidly. Spain has been a hornets’ nest for years. Etc.

And again: why? Well, because the Obama/Merkel model has so dramatically failed. All these places where left and right work together to produce a shapeless blob somewhere in the center that has no identity and doesn’t speak out for anyone.

You just wouldn’t know it from reading the Washington Post. Or any comparable old and respected medium in any of these European countries. It’s not just the politics that have failed, it’s its propaganda machine too.

This is something that manifests itself differently in different places, but it shouldn’t be that hard to see the ties that bind it all together. For one thing, because, not even touched on so far, the amount of fake financial news that has been forced down our throats for decades, and increasingly so: the worse things get, the bigger the lie…

There is no economic recovery. Never was. Not in the US, not in Europe anywhere. It’s a fairy tale. There are plates shifting, sure. You can cherry pick a region stateside that does well if only you select the ‘right’ stats. Like you can say employment is on a roll, if you’re willing to discard the number of ‘newly created’ jobs that are part time.

And yes, if you just completely ignore that 94 million Americans are not counted at all in unemployment numbers, Obama has been a big success. It’s just that those 94 million have a vote, too. We will see that exact same dynamic, and we have already started, play out all across Europe.

It’ll be much messier, for instance because in Holland last time I looked 81 different political parties were vying to take part in the upcoming elections, but the end result will be the same. That is, the existing order will be voted out.

Not everywhere, and it won’t be replaced by radically different parties and people in all places, but do please understand that it doesn’t have to.

In Europe, it’s not and/and, it’s if/or. As in, if either Italy or France or Holland vote in a party that wants to leave the EU or the Euro, it’s game over. The endgame will be almighty messed up because of all the laws and regulations the EU has invented, but eventually the walls of Brussels will crumble.

Good riddance too.

I’ve said it a hundred times before, all the institutions mentioned before, EU, IMF, UN and yes, even Congress, exist by the grace of growth. People accept them only as long as they can show reasonable proof that they bring economic benefits. As soon as that’s gone (or I should say as soon as people figure it out), so are they.

People are going to vote for someone close to their own lives, their own world, to lead them in times of contraction. That is inevitable. It’s why Trump won, and it’s also why he’s set to fail. Isn’t that a lovely paradox? We’re going to split up into smaller entities, economic contraction guarantees it.

And while everyone tries to talk you into thinking that’s terrible, there’s no reason why it should be.

We can work together in many different ways.

All these supranational institutions have merely become straight jackets that serve only the people who work inside them and those outside who benefit from keeping up appearances and clinging to power.

That of course gets us back to the Washington Post and its comatose brethren. The US press has been a full accomplice with Washington in reporting fake news about the recovery, and it’s not there. Never has been.

The Dow Jones says one thing, the votes for Trump say another. In the end, democracy is that simple. Same goes for Britain, same goes for continental Europe.

And there’s no doubt that Trump is an iceberg-sized gamble, but a change had to come. A change from the monsoon of fake news we have all been fed, but also initially a change that won’t be able to help itself from being replete with more fake news, from all sides.

Put it this way: in 2016, the engine of change got cranked up. In the new year, it will accelerate. That is 2017. That is what the new year will bring.

.

Trumpxuberance Until it's Not

SUBHEAD: We’ll soon discover the temperamental difference between Donald Trump and Franklin Roosevelt.

By James Kunstler on 12 December 2016 for Kunstler.com-
(http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/trumpxuberance-until-its-not/)


Image above: Donald Trump settling into the White House with a glass of bourbon and a pile of Medellin frost. From (http://617vip.com/video-shows-donald-trump-using-copious-amounts-of-cocaine/).
“Markets shrugged off the Brexit vote in a couple of days. They shrugged off Donald Trump’s election in a single day. They shrugged off the Italian referendum result in a couple of hours. Heck, in this mood they would shrug off an alien invasion of planet Earth.”
— Albert Edwards, Société Générale

At this time of year, only the hardest, coldest heart can fail to show good will to fellow man. That said, the silvery orb of Donald Trump’s post-election honeymoon may set sooner than expected as Ms. Yellin prepares to hoist her interest rate petard this week.

Even a modest up-bump in the Fed Funds Rate is liable to prang the orgy of corporate share buybacks fueling the eight-year bull market that many formerly sane observers think is a permanent feature of the human condition. The bond market bull also seemed to last a lifetime and that’s gone south now, too.

Poor Trump’s mammoth ego has led him by the snout into a deadfall trap. The Trumpublican voters and cheerleaders expect another Morning in America miracle. Sorry, been there, done that, that was then, this is now. Conditions were quite different in 1981.

For one thing, a brutal decade after the 1970 all-time US oil production peak, the Alaska North Slope fields came into full flow, along with the North Sea and Siberian fields.

The Alaska bonanza did not boost US production back to 1970 levels, but it did take the leverage away from OPEC, and it stuffed the elevated price-per-barrel back down to levels that an industrial economy could tolerate. The rest of the Reagan miracle was accomplished with debt.

The case was similar for Mrs. Thatcher over in the UK. She was not an economic magician, just the beneficiary of a brief oil boom that made Britain a net energy exporter for two decades, providing an illusion of permanent prosperity and cover for the financialization of the economy. Now, with the North Sea oil playing out, all that’s left is the banking necromancy in Threadneedle Street.

Reagan also came in at the height of Fed Chair Paul Volker’s war on inflation, when the interest rate on the ten-year US treasury bond topped at 15 percent in September of 1981. Imagine paying 18 percent interest rates on your mortgage!

How was that a good thing? Well, it wasn’t, not at all, it was a very bad thing for a while — but for Lucky Ronnie Reagan it meant interest rates had nowhere to go but down. And because bond prices correlate opposite to rates, the value of bonds had nowhere to go but up, which they did for 30-odd years until right now.

And all that time, the world bond market couldn’t get enough of them — also till now, when big holders like China and Saudi Arabia are puking them back out.

When Reagan stepped in the national debt was only (only!) about half a trillion dollars. It will be over $20 trillion when Trump hangs his golden logo on the White House portico. Oh, by the way, consider that a trillion dollars is a thousand billion dollars and a billion dollars is a thousand million dollars. Just so you know. Reagan had room for plenty of government finance monkey business. Trump has no room.

Bush One, Clinton, Bush Two and Obama dug the deadfall debt trap for poor Donald and the election shoved him right into it. He thinks he’s on an upper floor of his enchanted tower; he’s actually down in a pit.

Trump thinks he’s going to rebuild highways and bridges for another century of Happy Motoring — to make America like it was in 1962 forever. Fuggeddabowdit. The bond market is poised for collapse as I write, and Trump’s money people (that is, the Goldman Sachs gang he has assembled) are talking about issuing fifty and 100 year “Build America” bonds. Their nostrils must be rimed with the frost of Medellin.

They’re certainly not going to accomplish this trick by raising taxes. On who? Corporations? Ha! The One Percent? Double-Ha! Everyone else? Pitchforks and torches!

American oil companies can no longer make a buck doing their thing. Exxon-Mobil’s U.S. production business lost $477 million in the third quarter, the seventh straight quarter in the red.

Why? Because it costs a lot more to get the stuff out of the ground than it did ten years ago, and that high cost is bankrupting oil companies and industrial economies. That is the stealth action of Peak Oil that so many people pretend is not happening. It will ultimately destroy the banking system.

The disappointment issuing from this dire set of circumstances is apt to be epic as Trump flounders and the furious tweets of futility waft out of the hole he’s trapped in. Christmas will be over, and with it the hopes of a retail reprieve.

Gasoline may remain cheap, but the little people won’t be able to buy the cars to run it in. Or buy much of anything else. Not even tattoos. We’ll soon discover the temperamental difference between Donald J. Trump and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.


.

15 Years Past 9/11

SUBHEAD: A recollection of how I lost the country I used to know and the person I used to be.

By Adele M. Stan on 11 September 2016 for AlterNet.org -
(http://www.alternet.org/culture/15-years-past-911-how-i-lost-country-i-used-know-and-person-i-used-be)


Image above: Interior of WTC1 (north tower) plaza level lobby looking south. WTC2 tower can be seen in leftmost window of south wall. From (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001)).

[AlterNet Editor's Note: Five years ago, AlterNet's Washington bureau chief, Adele M. Stan, wrote an article detailing how 9/11 changed America and her life. Fifteen years after the terrorist attack, we feel it's important to reprise the piece as we continue to reflect on what 9/11 meant to America, to politics, and to our culture.
Author's note: This piece is a memoir. Actual events may have, and likely did, differ in small ways. Likewise, quotes from others are my memory of what was said, not the precise words that were spoken. The names of all people who are not public figures have been changed to protect their privacy.]
 
He walked through the front door, a thick roll of blueprints tucked under his arm, his eyes brimming with the kind of excitement a six-year-old displays opening his first box of Legos.

"Know what this is, honey?" he asked.

I looked up from the television, where he found me each night, attention focused on one news show or another.

"The World Trade Center!"

We were married. He was a project manager in a small construction company, I was a freelance journalist who wrote mostly about the collision of religion and politics. His company specialized in the interior build-outs of retail stores and office suites; they had just landed a job for the renovation of a flower shop on the ground floor of the South Tower. It was maybe 1994 or 1995.

He unrolled the prints on the rickety dining-room table in our Weehawken, N.J., apartment. We had the top floor of a two-family house built late in the previous century, just two blocks from a magnificent park perched on the Palisades that offered a sweeping view of Manhattan, all the way out to New York Harbor, from the west side of the Hudson River.

The towers were built when we were entering our teenage years, a source of true excitement at the prospect of yet another technological wonder just on our doorstep -- the tallest building in the world! -- and the subject of great debate as to their appearance.

The lines were harsh, the buildings unornamented, and once finished, they appeared to overweight the tip of Manhattan Island, whose skyline had long featured its tallest buildings at the island's center, with the building heights tapering downward at the northern- and southernmost points.

None of that mattered now. Ben had a job to do in one of the biggest buildings in the world. He stood over the unfurled prints, examining the electrical schematics with an obvious sense of wonder on his face. Then his face took on a quizzical mien, when he looked up, saying, "You know what's so weird, Addie? I just walked into the building engineer's office and asked for these prints. They didn't ask for ID or anything. I think they would've given 'em to anybody."

It was only two or three years before then that terrorists loyal to Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman had tried to blow up the buildings with a bomb and failed, but still managed to kill six people in the effort.



We did not have what you would call a good marriage, but it was filled with many kindnesses we accorded one another, perhaps to make up for our fundamental incompatibility, or to try to get the other one to see things one's own way.

Or maybe we just loved each other. When I had to make impossible deadlines, he'd drive me to the city with my manuscripts and fellowship applications in the middle of the night; when he put in a long night at 2 World Trade Center, I'd bring him a meal, traveling to and from the site via the PATH train, a subway that runs between Jersey and the Big Town.

The PATH station sat underneath the south tower, as 2 WTC was also known, its escalators leading to a large concourse filled with retail stores, some chain stores, some quirky little family-owned business, like the coffee joint where I'd hang, waiting for Ben to catch his break.

At rush hour, some 25,000 people moved through that concourse; more than double that number worked in the Trade Center. Long before Ben got his first WTC gig, I knew that concourse and the landscape of the financial district that surrounded it.

Once within the buildings, there was more to appreciate aesthetically than was apparent from a distance -- especially the narrow, arched windows that echoed the Gothic forms of the ancient Trinity Church, just yards way, where George Washington prayed on the day of his inauguration, now cast into shadow by the towers.

Other times I just stopped by a makeshift plywood storefront with an offering of sustenance, finding Ben in the unglamorous surroundings of a gutted space, all wires, pipes and dusty concrete floor.

Only once had I ventured to the building's upper floors, for a glamorous press event at Windows on the World, the swanky restaurant whose main attraction was the 360-degree view it offered of the city and the harbor.

I was happy to have seen it, and indeed it was beautiful, but I never wanted to go back. It made me uneasy, the obvious vulnerability and the palpable wind that relentlessly blew, unbroken by anything but the tower and its twin.



In 1998, I moved to Washington, D.C., without my husband. He continued to rack up job after job in the World Trade Center, as well as other store build-outs elsewhere in Manhattan. We were not quite through with each other, but our marriage was pretty much over. I took a job with a non-profit organization to work on a project about women and religion.

By April, I was in Peshawar, where Osama bin Laden had set up shop, having just issued a fatwa against Americans and their property.

At the time, Peshawar, the provincial capital of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, was home to hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees, who lived in dusty camps guarded by hostile, Urdu-speaking Pakistani security forces, and ruled in part by the Taliban.

The plight of Afghanistan's women under the rule of the Taliban was a feminist cause célèbre; since Kabul had fallen to the black-turbaned mullahs, Afghan women were banned from just about any public place, unless they were covered head-to-toe in a burqa and accompanied by a male relative.

Girls were banned from attending school. If accused of adultery, women were subject to public execution by stoning.

Now there was noise coming out of the Clinton administration about possible diplomatic recognition of the Taliban, which at that point was recognized by only three countries. One of them was Saudi Arabia. A U.S. company was looking to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, and the administration was considering cutting a deal.

I came to Peshawar to interview women's rights activists -- both Afghan and expatriate -- about the Taliban, and about Islam. I was about as dumb and naive an American as you might find.

Up until my South Asian sojourn, my international experience amounted to a weekend Ben and I had spent in Quebec. Oh, I was pretty book-smart about it all; I knew my Pastuns from my Hazaras, and had followed news of the region since the Soviet invasion in the 1970s.

And I knew what the Taliban were doing to women. I just didn't know why. The progressives and feminists in Washington would extol the horrors of patriarchal religion and patriarchal societies, and what happens when those are given their ultimate expression. And while all that was important, it wasn't that simple once you were on the ground.

In the Nasir Bagh refugee camp, more than 120,000 Afghans lived in mud huts made by their own hands. Many had arrived long before the Taliban ever came to power in Afghanistan, fleeing Soviet tanks and the civil war that followed -- a war fought with the artillery provided by the United States via Pakistan, taken through the Khyber Pass before which Peshawar is the last big city.

The automatic rifles and shoulder-launched missiles paid for with U.S. tax dollars were meant to vanquish the Soviets, and they did, in the hands of the Islamist fighters. That mission accomplished, the U.S. looked away while Afghanistan descended into chaos, without so much as a "Hey, thanks, fellas, for helping us win the Cold War."

Among those who helped in that cause was Osama bin Laden, who had also helped to import an extreme form of Islam, Wahabbism, to Afghanistan from his native Saudi Arabia. The Taliban, which adopted much of Wahabbi belief, was born of the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan and Western Pakistan. (Peshawar is a Pashtun town.)

They have an honor code known as Pastunwali, which promises the utmost consideration and hospitality to the enemy of one's enemy.

Since that time, a whole generation of young men had grown up in the refugee camps of Peshawar. They were angry, had no prospects and owned no land. They were ripe for the picking by the Taliban.

In the camps I found plenty of women wearing the burqa. But it wasn't because the Taliban made them; many of them came from families in which the burqa had always been worn. Other women dressed in a common Afghan style that featured a loosely worn, scarf-like veil, and the pants-and-tunic outfit known as a salwar kameez. Even the dress code was complicated.

For the Taliban, women were cultural symbols, the Afghanistan scholar Nancy Hatch Dupree, sitting in her Peshawar office at the ACBAR Resource Center, explained to me.

The Westernized woman who held positions in universities and government ministries during the Soviet occupation became the symbol of the occupier, Dupree explained.

And the Taliban's harsh treatment of women, with its vice police beating women on the streets, was a means of asserting the Taliban's primacy in face of other men. Before the Taliban came to power, it was unthinkable that any man would beat another man's wife, she said. That was the husband's right.

I met with a group of women activists at the offices of a non-profit in Peshawar who told me secondhand stories of what was happening in the camps, since few in the camps were willing to talk to me. Women were being sexually abused by the guards, they said.

If it became known that a woman had been raped, she could be disowned or worse by her family. Several women repeated the same rumor of a family whose daughter was kidnapped, only to be deposited on their doorstep two days later, barely alive, with a kidney missing.

During my stay in Peshawar, I received an invitation to a reception at the U.S. consulate in honor of a State Department official who was touring the region. All the local women's rights activists were there, from the U.N., the European and U.S.-based non-governmental organizations, and the Afghan groups. We all wanted to know what the U.S. would do to save Afghanistan's imperiled women.

Well, the diplomat explained, we could get birth control to the women in the north, in a region of the country that was not controlled by the Taliban. That was pretty much it. The women who were being stoned to death in Kabul were beyond our reach.

I sat with an Afghan woman who ran a sewing collective sponsored by a Scandinavian nation. She was a Pashtun poet, and very gentle in her affect. I asked her what one thing she wanted people in the U.S. to understand about her people. "All Taliban are Pashtun," she said, "but not all Pashtun are Taliban."

I didn't have the heart to tell her that most Americans had never heard of the Pashtuns, and that many thought Afghans and Arabs to be pretty much the same people.

I came home from South Asia with a waterborne parasite, sick over the fate of the brilliant women I had met along the way who had no future, sick over the destruction of lives and culture my nation had facilitated and ignored, sick over my own confusion about it all and over the fate of my marriage.

While I was in Pakistan, Ben called to wish me a happy birthday. I was 42. Things were going fine on his latest job at the World Trade Center, he said.



In November 2000, we finally divorced, but it would still be a while before we truly let go. We scheduled long phone calls with each other, and occasionally got together, though the time gaps between our meetings became further and further apart. As my marriage had unraveled, so had my career, and I had been fast at work putting it back together, and trying to make a life.

I started going to a 12-step recovery program, and began eeking out a living as a full-time journalist again, with regular gigs at two websites and a column at a monthly magazine. Then the dot-com bust hit, and the web work disappeared.

In August 2001, the magazine went belly-up quite suddenly, and I was panicked for work. A call to a temp agency landed me a secretarial stint at a notoriously right-wing advocacy organization for big corporations. I needed to make rent, and figured I'd probably learn a few things that would prove useful when I got back to reporting.

The organization headquarters is in a sleekly decorated office building that adjoins the National Press Building, just three blocks from the White House, on Pennsylvania Avenue. If there was any camaraderie in that place, I didn't find it. Surveillance cameras were mounted in the corridors, and the admin staff toiled in open cubicles that faced those corridors.

On the other side of the hallway, the higher-ups worked in nicely appointed fishbowl offices, many with televisions running all day long tuned to CNN (which was then an actual news channel).

I arrived at my cube to word that a plane had struck the World Trade Center. I took that to mean a small plane had hit one of the towers. I was worried, but I knew that Ben's work was on the lower floors in the south tower, so I focused on putting together the packets for the briefing my boss was convening the next day on how employers could minimize their health-care costs.

Then came word of the second plane hitting the south tower, and I dared to look through a glass-walled office at the television. I looked with alarm at the woman whose cube space adjoined mine. "Must be that Osama bin Laden," she said.

I began frantically dialing Ben's numbers, but phone service was already down between New York and Washington. I went back to my packets, stopping every few minutes to dial, to no avail. Within a half hour, the Pentagon was struck.

I was now in automaton mode, in a rhythm of futile dialing and packet-stuffing. My boss came around and told me they were shutting the building. I offered to stay to finish the packets. No, he said, we all have to leave.

"But what about the briefing?" I asked. I was trying to cling to a schedule, a promise of mundane normality within 24 hours.

"Adele, there's not going to be any briefing," he said with a kindly look on his face.



Outside, the weather was perfect and the sirens were screaming. All of downtown Washington was turned out into the streets. There was still a plane unaccounted for. Smoke rose in the distance. All mass transit was shut down, as were the bridges and tunnels. People walked in throngs, quietly talking among themselves, dazed, not knowing where to go.

My apartment was only a mile from the office, and my route took me past Lafayette Park, the public space between the White House and St. John's Church. The park is small, and even at the far side from the White House, the view of the executive mansion is clear.

I still couldn't reach Ben, so I decided to stand at the edge of the park and watch the White House. If the missing plane was headed that way, I would be there to watch it. I could see men with guns moving on the roof.

I stood there a long time, maybe an hour. Nothing happened. Thank God, I thought, and trudged home. That's when I saw the video of the south tower, Ben's tower, collapsing.

The ensuing hours became a vigil of hitting the redial button on the phone, and watching endless video loops of the same horror. Then finally, miraculously, sometime in the afternoon, Linda picked up the phone at Ben's office.

Her voice was soothing. She said the magic words: "Adele, he's okay. He didn't go to the city today." When Ben and I finally spoke -- it might have been the next day -- I learned that he had been on his way to his office, in New Jersey, sitting on a stretch of highway with a clear view of the skyline when the first tower collapsed.

Ben is an avid photographer and always keeps a camera with him; he's been known to shoot driveby photos of weird stuff on the highway, burning cars and the like. But not this. "I just couldn't," he said. He knew people inside that place who were busy dying.



There comes a point in the coverage of any disaster when the television has been saying and showing nothing new for many hours, and you finally give up hope of finding a satisfying answer. In the late afternoon of September 11, 2001, the phones still weren't really working; it seems I had gotten through to Jersey on a fluke.

I wandered out into an empty street, drawn to the clubhouse where we had our 12-step meetings. There was no meeting scheduled, and I had no reason to expect the club to be open, but it was. My sponsor, Anna, had a key, and there she was. Soon, two other friends wandered in.

Marshall suggested we try to find an open restaurant. Thankfully, the social entrepreneur Andy Shallal had kept his Luna Grille open. So we four crowded into a booth. "Let's all talk about where we'd like to be in five years," Marshall said. Honestly, I can't remember what any of us said. I do know this: by the beginning of the following year, Anna left D.C., where she was from, to move to Ohio, because of the attack. Denny left the city, too, to move an hour out into the suburbs.

There was no work the next day, so I started dialing around to some of the sources I'd developed when I was researching Afghanistan. One number yielded a middling-level government official who apparently needed to talk to somebody. I reached him by accident, trying to find somebody who no longer worked there.

Did I know that Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, head of the Pakistani intelligence agency had been in the U.S. when the attacks took place? Why no, I did not. Ahmed helped stage the coup that brought Gen. Pervez Musharraf to power as Pakistan's head of state; he was also known to be sympathetic to the Taliban.

I talked to the official again over the weekend. He confirmed that, after the attacks, Ahmed met with U.S. government officials who demanded Pakistani cooperation in securing the Taliban's cooperation in capturing bin Laden. Jeez, I thought, never gonna happen. Haven't these guys ever heard of Pashtunwali?

I thought I had a tidbit interesting enough to be worthy of a short article for the one website among my former clients that was still in business. "Um, I don't know. I mean, what are you trying to say?"

"Nothing," I said. "Just that the head of the ISI was in the U.S. at the time of the attacks, and now he's being told to surrender bin Laden. I mean, if nothing else, it's kinda interesting."

No dice, could be taken for a conspiracy theory.

When my office reopened later that week, we convened in a large conference room. "Let's all bow our heads in a moment of silence for those who lost their lives," an executive said. The words were barely out his mouth when he picked up his head and said, "Well, okay." He said we should now throw out ideas for what we could do at this time in the spirit of coming together and helping out in the aftermath of the attacks.
People looked really stricken. I particularly remember one woman, an attorney, whom I had really been scared of; her broad and permanent scowl was always perfectly painted in dark red lipstick, setting off her pale skin and dark hair. Now, she looked small and frightened and a bit teary. The staff offered up earnest suggestions: "We could bring sandwiches to the firefighters at the Pentagon," or, "We could give staff time to volunteer at the disaster site."
The executive let this go on for a while. Then he made a suggestion of his own. How 'bout if the organization's member companies offered up some small percentage of the purchase price of certain goods or services to donate to a special 9/11 fund for I can't remember what. It would be a 9/11 marketing campaign. (Look for specially marked packages...) I felt bile start to move up my esophagus; I was really going to throw up.

By the time I was done in the bathroom, the meeting had ended. I went to my boss' office and told him I had to go to New York. "So, you'll be back next week?" he asked.

"No," I said. "You have to understand. I'm really sick from this."

Like I was the only one.



The doorbell was buzzing, but my mind was far away. I sat on the balcony of my D.C. apartment, gazing up into the sky, glimpsing the outline of a fighter jet, high above, tiny yet unmistakable in its triangular form. I didn't want to talk to anybody. But she saw me out there, so I had to let her up.

"I figured I'd find you in some kind of a zone," my friend Eileen said.

She dragged me out for coffee, and then told me that her brother-in-law was missing. He worked for Cantor Fitzgerald, the brokerage firm that had been headquartered in the World Trade Center. Making matters worse, he was now her ex-brother-in-law, as Eileen and her partner of 19 years had broken up only months before.

He was never legally her brother-in-law, because there was no marriage available to same-sex couples at that time. But he was someone she loved, and the world gave her no legitimate claim to the torment she felt as she contemplated the horrors that had likely befallen him.

That's the part that gets us. It's much more than the death. It's knowing that those who died suffered so horrifically before their lives ended so unfairly.



The next week, a week to the day of the attacks, I started a new temp job, this one a much better fit, as they say, at the American Federation of Government Employees. The attacks were all anyone could talk about, when they managed to talk at all.

I stepped outside on my coffee break, and found myself chatting with a young man from the in-house print shop. He lost his aunt at the Pentagon, he told me, his eyes welling up. We had just met.

And that's how it was for everybody. Even if you and yours were spared, everybody knew somebody who lost somebody, it seemed. Grief was never more than a degree of separation away.

A few weeks later, the U.S. began airstrikes in Afghanistan. I knew the Pakistanis had been trying to force the people of the Nasir Bagh camp to go back to their homeland, and wondered if any of the refugees I met had made it home, only to be bombed when they got there.

The terrorist attacks soon provided a pretext for any extraconstitutional measure the Bush administration -- and even local governments -- cared to take. Muslim men were rounded up in Paterson, New Jersey.

Illegal wiretapping by the government became widespread. Congress passed the USA Patriot Act. We were now engaged in a "war on terror," a contradiction in terms if there ever was one, terror being an emotion that has never been alleviated by war.

When Congress went on to create the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security, the Bush administration saw its opening for another sort of a war -- a war on the rights of public employees. And there I was, by complete happenstance, in the headquarters of the resistance, typing up my new boss's strategy memos.

The creation of TSA took place in an atmosphere of total chaos. The administration hired a contractor, NCS Pearson, to put the new agency together, even though its very creation was an attempt to correct the corrupt and shoddy screening system staffed by contractors who had allowed the 9/11 hijackers to board the planes they ultimately used as weapons.

The contractor that did the hiring for TSA proved to be no more effective, and no less corrupt. Ultimately, the government paid more than $12,000 per each hire of a screener. Meanwhile, screeners weren't receiving their paychecks, weren't properly trained, were subjected to mandatory overtime and abusive behavior by managers.

Originally, the Bush administration opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which combined 22 disparate government agencies and entities under a single cabinet secretary. When public opinion went against the administration, it relented, but with a stipulation.

Bush would sign the bill if the president was granted broad authority to deny collective bargaining rights to those moved into the new department.

In the House, Majority Leader Dick Armey led the charge for the anti-union provisions. Today, Armey leads FreedomWorks, one of the two main astroturf groups responsible for the organization of the Tea Party movement.

In a sense, you could say the Tea Party movement was born in November 2002, when George W. Bush signed the Homeland Security Act.

AFGE began organizing airport screeners almost as soon as TSA came into being. But in January 2003, TSA chief James Loy signed an executive order forbidding the screeners to collectively bargain.

Meanwhile, the administration began setting up DHS in ways designed to be destructive to the unions that represented the employees who were being folded into the new agency, creating new bargaining units that pitted the existing unions in competition with each other for the retention of their members. It was pure evil genius.

I would spend the next four years at AFGE, engaged in this fight, first as a secretary and then as a communications specialist, working with the organizers of the TSA screeners, before I returned to journalism.



After the attacks of 9/11, it took a while before I found my way back to New York. It was Eastertime before I saw the big hole in the ground where the towers used to stand. There was a throng of us gawkers, standing across the street from the site, held back by orange plastic fencing and cops on guard duty. Like New York itself, the small crowd comprised all races, and people from across the spectrum of social class.

A young man stood just in front of me, a yarmulke pinned to the back of his head. I stood awestruck at the enormity of the hole, and the huge, yellow earth-mover being used to pick up soil and debris that would then be sifted by hand in the search for evidence and human remains. He turned around. "I was supposed to be there," he said to me, "but I was 20 minutes late for work that day."

Two years later, I returned to New York, on leave from the union, to cover the 2004 Republican National Convention for the Washington Blade.

 New York had been chosen as the convention city because of the World Trade Center attacks. The invasion of Iraq was going into its second year and the administration was arbitrarily detaining whomever it wanted to, and contracting out the torture of so-called enemy combatants to governments run by dictators.

The abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was a full-blown scandal. And GITMO was in full swing.

The New York I found in September 2004 was not a New York I had ever seen before. It was a city under martial law. Mayor Michael Bloomberg illegally detained hundreds of protesters in a makeshift prison on the Chelsea Pier, and the people of New York re-elected him either in spite of or because of it.

The perimeter around Madison Square Garden, where the convention took place, was so vast that those of us who covered what was taking place within the Garden never even caught a glimpse of the protesters.

In order to get to the Blade's New York offices in midtown, I had to prove my bona fides to a phalanx of cops, presenting a press pass and an assignment letter.

In the convention hall, speech after speech hailed the glories of the Iraq war and highlighted the horrors of 9/11. "U-S-A! U-S-A!" the crowd chanted, especially during the convention speech delivered by Vice President Dick Cheney, who declared Democratic candidate John Kerry, a decorated war veteran, "unfit" for office.

The opening night of the convention featured a "special tribute" to 9/11 families and first responders that featured searing video of the attacks on the towers, and a speech by Rudolph Giuliani, who had been New York's mayor at the time of the attacks. "Thank God George W. Bush is president," he said.

I was on the convention floor, wandering around during the video tribute. I knew it was propaganda.

Nonetheless, it made me cry. I found myself standing next to the row where Bloomberg and Gov. George Pataki sat together, with tears streaming down their faces; meanwhile, the Bill of Rights was suspended for protesters who spent the night in unsafe conditions in a makeshift jail.

No tears for them, or for the U.S Constitution, which may as well have been laying charred and in tatters at their feet.

EPILOGUE

Labor unions, led by AFGE, eventually did win the right to organize TSA screeners, and screeners chose AFGE as their union earlier this year, even as the public employees of Wisconsin, Michigan and other states lost theirs.

Last year, a judge ruled that the city of New York did not have to release documents detailing the surveillance it conducted on protesters at the 2004 convention.

Osama bin Laden is dead, but the United States is still at war in Afghanistan.

The U.S. Constitution has not been restored. The surveillance provisions of the USA Patriot Act that were set to expire were reauthorized by a Democratic Congress in 2010, and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Eileen fell in love and moved to Europe.

Ben and I stopped speaking, for no particular reason. I learned through a friend that he married again and has children. He now does still-life art photography.

I returned to journalism in 2006, and now mostly cover the Tea Party movement. I think about the people I met in Peshawar every day.

• Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's senior Washington editor, and a weekly columnist for The American Prospect. Follow her on Twitter @addiestan.

.

Neoconservatives destroyed peace

SUBHEAD: Whatever chance there was of peace with the Russia, China or the Middle East.

By  Paul Craig Roberts on 18 Apriol 2016 for PaulCraigRoberts.org -
(http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/04/18/how-the-american-neoconservatives-destroyed-mankinds-hopes-for-peace-paul-craig-roberts-2/)


Image above: Hillary Clinton engaged with John McCain. From (http://www.salon.com/2014/08/30/dont_do_it_hillary_joining_forces_with_neocons_could_doom_democrats/).

[IB Publisher's note: We were no fans of the Reagan or G. H.W. Bush administrations. But at least Reagan had the sense to leave the war in Lebanon and Bush exited Iraq after defeating Saddam Hussein. The second Bush, Obama and now Clinton have been neo-con nitwits in the Middle East.]

When Ronald Reagan turned his back on the neoconservatives, fired them, and had some of them prosecuted, his administration was free of their evil influence, and President Reagan negotiated the end of the Cold War with Soviet President Gorbachev. The military/security complex, the CIA, and the neocons were very much against ending the Cold War as their budgets, power, and ideology were threatened by the prospect of peace between the two nuclear superpowers.

I know about this, because I was part of it. I helped Reagan create the economic base for bringing the threat of a new arms race to a failing Soviet economy in order to pressure the Soviets into agreement to end the Cold War, and I was appointed to a secret presidential committee with subpeona power over the CIA.

The secret committee was authorized by President Reagan to evaluate the CIA’s claim that the Soviets would prevail in an arms race. The secret committee concluded that this was the CIA’s way of perpetuating the Cold War and the CIA’s importance.

The George H. W. Bush administration and its Secretary of State James Baker kept Reagan’s promises to Gorbachev and achieved the reunification of Germany with promises that NATO would not move one inch to the East.

The corrupt Clintons, for whom the accumulation of riches seems to be their main purpose in life, violated the assurances given by the United States that had ended the Cold War. The two puppet presidents—George W. Bush and Obama—who followed the Clintons lost control of the US government to the neocons, who promptly restarted the Cold War, believing in their hubris and arrogance that History has chosen the US to exercise hegemony over the world.

Thus was mankind’s chance for peace lost along with America’s leadership of the world. Under neocon influence, the United States government threw away its soft power and its ability to lead the world into a harmonious existance over which American influence would have prevailed.

Instead the neocons threatened the world with coercion and violence, attacking eight countries and fomenting “color revolutions” in former Soviet republics.

The consequence of this crazed insanity was to create an economic and military strategic alliance between Russia and China. Without the neocons’ arrogant policy, this alliance would not exist. It was a decade ago that I began writing about the strategic alliance between Russia and China that is a response to the neocon claim of US world hegemony. http://www.rense.com/general77/tus.htm
The strategic alliance between Russia and China is militarily and economically too strong for Washington.

China controls the production of the products of many of America’s leading corporations, such as Apple. China has the largest foreign exchange reserves in the world. China can, if the government wishes, cause a massive increase in the American money supply by dumping its trillions of dollars of US financial assets.

To prevent a collapse of US Treasury prices, the Federal Reserve would have to create trillions of new dollars in order to purchase the dumped financial instruments. The rest of the world would see another expansion of dollars without an expansion of real US output and become skeptical of the US dollar. If the world abandoned the US dollar, the US government could no longer pay its bills.

Europe is dependent on Russian energy. Russia can cut off this energy. There are no alternatives in the short-run, and perhaps not in the long run. If Russia shuts off the energy, Germany industry shuts down. Europeans freeze to death in the winter. Despite these facts, the neocons have forced Europe to impose economic sanctions on Russia. What if Russia responded in kind?

NATO, as US military authorities admit, has no chance of invading Russia or withstanding a Russian attack on NATO. NATO is a cover for Washington’s war crimes. It can provide no other service.

Thanks to the greed of US corporations that boosted their profits by offshoring their production to China, China is modernized many decades before the neocons thought possible. China’s military forces are modernized with Russian weapons technology. New Chinese missiles make the vaunted US Navy and its aircraft carriers obsolete.

The neocons boast how they have surrounded Russia, but it is America that is surrounded by Russia and China, thanks to the incompetent leadership that the US has had beginning with the Clintons.
Judging from Killary’s support in the current presidential primaries, many voters seem determined to perpetuate incompetent leadership.

Despite being surrounded, the neocons are pressing for war with Russia which means also with China. If Killary Clinton makes it to the White House, we could get the neocon’s war.

The neocons have flocked to the support of Killary. She is their person. Watch the feminized women of America put Killary in office. Keep in mind that Congress gave its power to start wars to the president.

The United States does not have a highly intelligent or well informed population. The US owes its 20th century dominance to World War I and World War II which destroyed more capable countries and peoples. America became a superpower because of the self-destruction of other countries.

Despite neocon denials that their hubris has created a powerful alliance against the US, a professor at the US Navy War College stresses the reality of the Russian-Chinese strategic alliance.

http://sputniknews.com/world/20160414/1037981155/russia-china-cooperation.html
Last August a joint Russian-Chinese sea and air exercise took place in the Sea of Japan, making it clear to America’s Japanese vassal that it was defenceless if Russia and China so decided.

The Russian defense minister Sergey Shoigu said that the joint exercise illustrates the partnership between the two powers and its stabilizing effect on that part of the world.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that Russian-Chinese relations are able to resist any international crises.

The only achievements of the American neoconservatives are to destroy in war crimes millions of peoples in eight countries and to send the remnant populations fleeing into Europe as refugees, thus undermining the American puppet governments there, and to set back the chances of world peace and American leadership by creating a powerful strategic alliance between Russia and China.

This boils down to extraordinary failure. It is time to hold the neoconservatives accountable, not elect another puppet for them to manipulate.

.