Headlined as “History In The Making” and “Historic: House Releases Health Care Bill,” Ryan Grim promoted a tone of celebration – as if we should be overlooking facts/fates – and rejoicing: “The ceremony . . . marks the greatest progress toward the Democratic Party’s top domestic priority goal in more than half a century.” How much more insult are we to endure – even from our (supposedly) progressive (and objective) press/media? As written previously, we went “from Single-Payer to a Public Option to a fragmented Option (‘Opt-Out’) to a ‘Trigger’” (still not enough for the likes of Sen. “Money Talks” Lieberman). Once the final combined bills are stripped further – in order to placate a minority - there will be nothing “robust” left of what the majority wished, fought, and voted for. Under the guise of needing 60 votes (with spines, 51 votes would have sufficed), we have been “bamboozled.” (Remember Obama using that term last year?) This constant watering-down has already set us up for realizing “the cost of health care” as “increasing” – in direct opposition to what would have resulted from a Single-Payer focus. Consequently, the “Affordable” reference in the “Health Care for America Act” is just as Orwellian as the “Freedom” in McCain’s “Internet Act.” Does this sham of “reform,” which mainly just mandates us into private insurers hands, really equal “the greatest progress” that could have been made? No. But, the answer as to why is explicit in another HuffPost title from today: “Big Pharma Ready For ‘Hand To Hand Combat’ To Defend White House Deal.”
“Is this the best we can do? Forcing people to buy private health insurance, guaranteeing at least $50 billion in new business for the insurance companies?
“Is this the best we can do? Government negotiates rates which will drive up insurance costs, but the government won’t negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies which will drive up pharmaceutical costs.
“Is this the best we can do? Only 3% of Americans will go to a new public plan, while currently 33% of Americans are either uninsured or underinsured?
“Is this the best we can do? Eliminating the state single payer option, while forcing most people to buy private insurance.
“If this is the best we can do, then our best isn’t good enough and we have to ask some hard questions about our political system: such as Health Care or Insurance Care? Government of the people or a government of the corporations.”
Again, health insurance will become a requirement – by mandate. At this point, will it be a requirement for the government to Provide coverage? No. Employers (big business)? No. Yet, for individuals, they must soon Provide for themselves (bootstraps) – you know, like in “personal responsibility,” just like they have since the corporate bailout, eight years of rampant Enronesque collusion, and more than a quarter-century of deregulation via the setup of Reagonomics. Yes, “It would expand coverage to millions who lack it. . . .” However, that expansion is coming – by force – and, will be based on mandatoryspending of at least 10% of income toward a policy – sold by Private insurers (a new major tax, and an endless cycle of the same abuse these “providers” are known for: Rape is a pre-existing condition. Your baby is overweight/underweight, so, your policy is canceled. Your cancer treatment, or liver transplant, or brain surgery, etc., is too expensive, so, we’ve decided to no longer cover those procedures in your state. Further, once we have 50 million new customers, we are going to raise rates by more than 100% – because there will be no article against it). If there is a Public Option, “states would be permitted to drop out. . . .” Won’t that be wonderful for people who are at the mercy of Governors like Rick Perry, who serve their corporate masters’ vulturous ideology? “Feingold: No Public Option A ‘Strong Reason’ Not To Support Reform.” Exactly. Step by step: From Single-Payer to a Public Option to a fragmented Option (“Opt-Out”) to a “Trigger.” This was planned, from the beginning. “It’s just politics” – without morals or souls. The president sold us out, from day one (just like in other areas). He is not a Progressive, though he promoted himself as one. In fact, he is closer to the obstructionist republicans than those blue dogs. While witnessing a national con job, we must now prepare for those second and third jobs.
A New York Times editorial, “The Public Plan, Continued,” stated that “All versions of the legislation would require these people to spend specified percentages of their income toward the premium and a government tax credit would then pay the rest.” Let us correlate these facts with previous assertions: “White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said . . . that President Obama would be unwilling to sign a health care bill that raised taxes on those making under $250,000. But Gibbs would not draw a similar line in the sand when it came a bill that lacked a public insurance option. ‘The president … believes we should have choice and competition for people entering the private insurance market. . . .’” As written earlier, for people below the median income who do not currently have coverage, being “Mandated” into buying an insurance policy without a 100% subsidy – and, basing the difference on forced spending of 10% or more of income – it will be the same as having their Taxes Raised, considerably. During these times, where 10% of the population is unemployed, and wages along with hours are getting slashed, how many of us would be drastically affected by a new requirement (do it or get fined) that we spend 10% of income on a bill we did not have before? Consider the FICA tax rate: 7.65% (1.45% = Medicare) for employees and 15.30% for the self-employed. Along with the upcoming “Mandate” to buy policies from (as of now) Private insurers, wouldn’t it only be logical to add 10% to each of the latter figures – since we will have to spend that much of our income before receiving any subsidies? As a result, might citizens react in outrage at new required “deductions” from earnings of 17.65% and 25.30% – as if the promise of no new taxes for those making less than $250,000 was a blatant lie? Final questions: The Social Security portion maxes out at $106,800 of earnings. Does that mean a Health Care CEO grossing $10 million has the same SS tax weight as one grossing $106,800? If so, wouldn’t the scenario be as repulsive as it is regressive? Also, remember speeches promoting a changing of those terms as a means to solve so many disparities and shortfalls? Of course. But, that was before millions had a realization of getting “punked.” “Without (at least) a Public Option, there will be No Choice or Competition (and the insurance companies will have the biggest ongoing celebration they ever imagined).” And again, “With these types of ‘solutions,’ one could swear to God that we are the middle of the last administration (and former majority).”
Compare the quotes and revelations from “How Moody’s sold its ratings — and sold out investors” to the US Attorneys firing scandal, as well as McCain’s talking points reaction to the financial collapse. The predacious connections were not by coincidence.
McClatchy: “It is just something unthinkable, putting business people in the compliance department. It’s not acceptable. I was very upset, frustrated,” the executive said. “I think they corrupted the compliance department.”
McCain (January 2008): “I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong, and I believe they will remain strong.” Then, on Black Monday: “the fundamentals of our economy are strong. . . .”
It was all related, consciously and purposely. It was neoconservative ideology’s rampant marauders – at a peak: “This is our due.”
1. No cost controls on insurance companies. The coming . . . increases in premiums, deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, etc. will quickly outpace any projected protections from caps on out-of-pocket costs.
2. Insurance companies will continue to be able to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.
3. No restrictions on insurance denials of care that insurers don’t want to pay for. In case you missed it, the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee uncovered data on the California Department of Managed Care website recently that found six of the biggest California insurers rejected, on annual average, more than one-fifth of all claims every year since 2002.
4. No challenge to insurance company monopolies, especially in the top 94 metropolitan areas, where one or two companies dominate, severely limiting choice and competition.
5. A massive government bailout for the insurance industry through the combination of the individual mandate requiring everyone not covered to buy insurance, public subsidies which go for buying insurance, no regulation on what insurers can charge, and no restrictions on their ability to decide what claims to pay.
6. No controls on drug prices. The White House deal with Big Pharma, which won bipartisan approval in the Senate Finance Committee, opposes the use of government leverage to negotiate real cost controls on inflated drug prices.
7. No single standard of care. Our multi-tiered system remains with access to care still determined by ability to pay.
8. Tax on comprehensive insurance plans. That will encourage employers to reduce benefits, shift more costs to employees, promote proliferation of bare-bones, high-deductible plans, and lead to more self-rationing of care and medical bankruptcies.
9. Not universal. Some people will remain uncovered. . . .
10. No definition of covered benefits.
11. No protection for our public safety net. Public hospitals and clinics will continue to be under-funded and a dumping ground for those the private system doesn’t want.
12. Many reforms don’t go into effect until 2013.
13. Nothing changes in basic structure of the system; health care remains a privilege, not a right.
Again: This is a call-out to the truly brave Progressives in Congress: If fifty-three or more in the House of Representatives, and twenty or more in the Senate, vow to kill the entire health care proposal (by voting against anything submitted without a Public Option, or which maintains the Mandate) they could show the nation what it means to be honorably brave and genuinely principled.
The Huffington Post bans 9/11 Truthers and birthers (as similar lunatics). Additionally, for an article or blog to be published with 9/11 Truth references, it must be derisive in tone. Realism: “the birther movement includes . . . members of Congress” (none of whom has been run out of town), “while connection to the truther movement can help cost [an] . . . obscure administration official his job.” Moreover, when it comes to the Huffington Post, even commenting along those lines (as a mere reader with a profile) will get you banned: “More full disclosure: I despise 9/11 ‘truther’ conspiracies. Indeed, one of the guidelines for bloggers on HuffPost is a ban on posts putting forth those kinds of theories. The 9/11 ‘Truthers’ are fringe-dwellers. . . .” Thus, clearly, “truthers” (who have volumes of credible information) are relegated to the same level as “birthers” (who have no logical or remotely upstanding basis). Indeed, from Arianna Huffington herself, there is a “ban” on “those kinds of theories” – since they are “despi[cable].” It is then assumed that (the late Aaron Russo,) Rosie O’Donnell, Martin and Charlie Sheen, David Lynch, Ed Begley, Jr., Janeane Garofalo, Ed Asner, Harry and Gina Belafonte, Woody Harrelson, James Cromwell, Peter Coyote, James Brolin, Richard Linklater, and Rory O’Connor (to name a few) would be considered “fringe-dwellers” – and not welcomed to blog or comment in relation to their theories on 9/11, or support of the truther movement (in some specific areas). Further, beyond not being welcomed to posit, would it also be rational to assume that, as far as Arianna Huffington and her staff is concerned, Janeane Garofalo, for example, is just another lunatic? If so, my previous suggestion of a written debate between Bob Cesca and David Ray Griffin (as a means of clarity) will most likely never even receive consideration. That’s sad, in various aspects – one being “9/11 Truthers mainly base their cases of question, and desire for an independent investigation, on scientific and documented evidence”; “birthers” base theirs on none. (All of the latter was, of course, Rejected as a reply/comment.) Another aspect is one where, since Cesca is so vocal in equating birthers and truthers together as “wackaloons,” shouldn’t he relish the opportunity of a supposedly easy task of mopping the floor with Griffin – over facts? Yes, and if he ever went into the written or in-person debate, mopping would definitely take place, unexpectedly – because, obviously unbeknownst to Cesca, Griffin is a world away from the likes of Orly Taitz.
Van Jones Resigns, Backpedals, and Disavows “QUESTION: . . . he was on an organizing committee for a 9/11 Truther march. Your administration has been very active in knocking down the so-called Birthers, . . . who allege without any evidence, and despite all evidence to the contrary, that the president was not born in the United States. How can the administration tolerate somebody who subscribes to a different insane conspiracy theory, as a senior adviser?” To again clarify significant extremes: Centered 9/11 Truthers are all about “evidence to the contrary” – but, of the official version – where overwhelming facts in many areas/facets beg for more light. Most of the 9/11 Commission, for example, completely ignored (WTC 7, eyewitness accounts, etc.) or purposely obscured considerable “evidence to the contrary” of their predetermined results/goals. As far as conspiracy theories, a passage from Debunking 9/11 Debunking: “Assuming that one of the two conspiracy theories about 9/11 is irrational, because it is contradicted by the facts, is it the official theory or the alternative theory?” In direct relation, and as a result of these ongoing public floggings of Truthers, a “30-percent open[-minded]” visit to the web sites of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Scholars for Truth is recommended for substance – after, or in combination with, a reading of The New Pearl Harbor. Further, for those of the Spirit who “fight the good fight” in ultimately Just causes, a quote from David Ray Griffin’s Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action: “If 9/11 is not a religious issue, then I don’t know what is.”
Questions, History, and Stances:
“Inactivity” – Before 9/11
Paul Begala’s article, “Mr. Cheney, You Did Not Keep Us Safe” ended with a time-line of “inactivity” – Before 9/11. Response: “Combined with all the ‘coincidental’ inactivity and seeming indifference, which just happened to benefit the hijackers’ goals (such as the FBI’s quashing of reports from Phoenix, Minneapolis, Chicago, and New York, and John O’Neill’s resignation from the FBI over what he considered ‘repeated obstruction of his investigations into al-Qaeda,’ etc.), there was also significant ‘activity’ – behind closed doors. Qwest Communications, for example, was served with National Security Letters (as were other tele-coms), before 9/11, in relation to a (secret and illegal) Warrantless Surveillance program. Many could wonder: with all the supposed apathy going on previous to the planes striking their targets, what was the ‘ticking time-bomb‘ scenario which led them to covertly bypass FISA – well before they ever hit?”
WTC (“Pull It”) 7
Exoteric: Without having been hit by a plane, WTC 7 was the third steel-frame building (on the same day) in history to “collapse,” totally (including core columns), from fire damage – in a free-fall. Senator John Kerry’s version (as if it was common knowledge, and completely devoid of nefarious implications): “I do know that . . . wall, I remember, was in danger – and I think that they made a decision based on the danger that it had of destroying other things, that they did it in a Controlled Fashion.” (Question: How believable is it that WTC 7 was planned and rigged for demolition in under, say, five hours?) So, which proposed Theories are credible? Esteemed “alternative” researchers, impartial scientists and engineers – or officials – purposely looking in, and for, other ways? As far as evidence, another passage from Debunking 9/11 Debunking: “As Steven Jones has written: ‘The likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 due to random fires . . . – requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns – is infinitesimal.” Yet, NIST’s “Thermal Expansion” as a simple scientific wonder was an “official” explanation. What about Senator (“Controlled Fashion”) Kerry? Overruled by NIST. Still, if he was (bluntly) correct, and the reception by unbiased peers on “Thermal Expansion” has been pure, confirming mockery – what would the cover for the revelation of Demolition be? Unsurprisingly, they might come up with a statement like: “Well, NIST did what they were directed to do. But, now that this has come out (where, undeniably, we could not have set WTC 7 up – while it was burning), our currently released position is one where we have been secretly rigging buildings all over the U.S. – ahead of time – just in case it’s needed – for many years.” In turn, public recognition: “How ‘insane[ly]’ convenient!” Retort: “Classified scenarios of such a volatile level were (and to the greatest extent, remain) far beyond your ‘need to know’ status.”
Shoot, or Stand Down? Norman Mineta: “There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’“ In context of the overall situation – and a localized outcome (the Pentagon was hit), what determination is more rational – an order was given to “Shoot Down,” or “Stand Down?”
A Moderate’s View on The Truth of 9/11
“Surveillance/inside information led to Knowing It Was Coming. Based on the latter, covert actions were implemented that would Enhance the Outcome. Then, Standing Down (just long enough) during the occurrence assured an expectation of success.”
Finally, though this blog post could go on (for at least) another twelve pages just focusing on self-evident information, the following statements are a (momentary) conclusion. As an avid reader of the Huffington Post since its inception, it has been intensely disillusioning to discover such absolute ludicrousness by way of shamefully distorted associations and uninformed positions. Howard Zinn, historian, author, and playwright, on “The New Pearl Harbor” : ‘[T]he most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration’s relationship to that historic and troubling event.’ By contrast, his likely take on the birthers: “The most unsustainable, unconvincing, and unsupported-by-facts pile of Beckish rubbish ever brought forth in relation to the Obama administration.” In spite of blanketing assertions attempting to label Truthers and birthers into the same box of “insanity,” they are not similar – to an extreme. One side is completely blinded (and manipulated like clueless sheep) – thus, irrespective of facts and shaded political realities. The other is analytically grounded, critically aware of political possibilities, and pushing forward with ultimate Reason.
Update: 09/23: A surprising admission: “Some, but not all, of the left thought Bush had prior knowledge of the September 11th attacks. It’s a matter of record that he knew an attack might be imminent based upon the famous PDB titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.’ So that one was partially true.” Undoubtedly, Bob Cesca knows what doors are then opened – by invitation. However, if one should step up and try to go (rationally) within, he or she would be ridiculed as just another “wackaloon.” Is that objectively reasonable, or “partially” acceptable? Neither. Once an area of truth so astounding (and implicative) is revealed, the naturally following exploration of related questions ought to be welcomed – without denigration.
The article “How a Detainee Became an Asset” should have this alternate (or accompanying) title: “Proof That the Washington Post is (also) an Asset.” “After enduring the CIA’s harshest interrogation methods . . . [KSM] . . . le[d] what they called ‘terrorist tutorials.’” Get it? After being relentlessly tortured, he became compliant – and later, even a teacher. After John McCain was harshly interrogated, he also became compliant – and later, provided videotaped “teachings.” But no, with McCain it was absolute “torture.” That’s wholly different – and he became a hero (not a traitor). Look at the rewards: “Mohammed ‘seemed to relish the opportunity, sometimes for hours on end, to discuss the inner workings of al-Qaeda. . . .’” See, it was a success! Did McCain reveal “inner workings?” How dare anyone ask such a question of a patriot? The point is – it works! “These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man . . . into what the CIA called its ‘preeminent source’. . . .” Any chance that Cheney is beaming with happiness over this newly released information – and ready to pounce? Still, “The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable. . . .” And, “Critics say waterboarding and other harsh methods are unacceptable regardless of their results. . . .” Yes, some critics say “psychological and physical pressure” to the point of false confessions, insanity, and death is wrong – like War Crimes. To others, the area is “irresolvable” – for specific reasons.
Posted by seaclearly 
Posted by seaclearly 
Posted by seaclearly 
The Huffington Post Bans 9/11 Truthers & Birthers
September 9, 2009The Huffington Post bans 9/11 Truthers and birthers (as similar lunatics). Additionally, for an article or blog to be published with 9/11 Truth references, it must be derisive in tone. Realism: “the birther movement includes . . . members of Congress” (none of whom has been run out of town), “while connection to the truther movement can help cost [an] . . . obscure administration official his job.” Moreover, when it comes to the Huffington Post, even commenting along those lines (as a mere reader with a profile) will get you banned: “More full disclosure: I despise 9/11 ‘truther’ conspiracies. Indeed, one of the guidelines for bloggers on HuffPost is a ban on posts putting forth those kinds of theories. The 9/11 ‘Truthers’ are fringe-dwellers. . . .” Thus, clearly, “truthers” (who have volumes of credible information) are relegated to the same level as “birthers” (who have no logical or remotely upstanding basis). Indeed, from Arianna Huffington herself, there is a “ban” on “those kinds of theories” – since they are “despi[cable].” It is then assumed that (the late Aaron Russo,) Rosie O’Donnell, Martin and Charlie Sheen, David Lynch, Ed Begley, Jr., Janeane Garofalo, Ed Asner, Harry and Gina Belafonte, Woody Harrelson, James Cromwell, Peter Coyote, James Brolin, Richard Linklater, and Rory O’Connor (to name a few) would be considered “fringe-dwellers” – and not welcomed to blog or comment in relation to their theories on 9/11, or support of the truther movement (in some specific areas). Further, beyond not being welcomed to posit, would it also be rational to assume that, as far as Arianna Huffington and her staff is concerned, Janeane Garofalo, for example, is just another lunatic? If so, my previous suggestion of a written debate between Bob Cesca and David Ray Griffin (as a means of clarity) will most likely never even receive consideration. That’s sad, in various aspects – one being “9/11 Truthers mainly base their cases of question, and desire for an independent investigation, on scientific and documented evidence”; “birthers” base theirs on none. (All of the latter was, of course, Rejected as a reply/comment.) Another aspect is one where, since Cesca is so vocal in equating birthers and truthers together as “wackaloons,” shouldn’t he relish the opportunity of a supposedly easy task of mopping the floor with Griffin – over facts? Yes, and if he ever went into the written or in-person debate, mopping would definitely take place, unexpectedly – because, obviously unbeknownst to Cesca, Griffin is a world away from the likes of Orly Taitz.
Van Jones Resigns, Backpedals, and Disavows
“QUESTION: . . . he was on an organizing committee for a 9/11 Truther march. Your administration has been very active in knocking down the so-called Birthers, . . . who allege without any evidence, and despite all evidence to the contrary, that the president was not born in the United States. How can the administration tolerate somebody who subscribes to a different insane conspiracy theory, as a senior adviser?” To again clarify significant extremes: Centered 9/11 Truthers are all about “evidence to the contrary” – but, of the official version – where overwhelming facts in many areas/facets beg for more light. Most of the 9/11 Commission, for example, completely ignored (WTC 7, eyewitness accounts, etc.) or purposely obscured considerable “evidence to the contrary” of their predetermined results/goals. As far as conspiracy theories, a passage from Debunking 9/11 Debunking: “Assuming that one of the two conspiracy theories about 9/11 is irrational, because it is contradicted by the facts, is it the official theory or the alternative theory?” In direct relation, and as a result of these ongoing public floggings of Truthers, a “30-percent open[-minded]” visit to the web sites of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Scholars for Truth is recommended for substance – after, or in combination with, a reading of The New Pearl Harbor. Further, for those of the Spirit who “fight the good fight” in ultimately Just causes, a quote from David Ray Griffin’s Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action: “If 9/11 is not a religious issue, then I don’t know what is.”
Questions, History, and Stances:
“Inactivity” – Before 9/11
Paul Begala’s article, “Mr. Cheney, You Did Not Keep Us Safe” ended with a time-line of “inactivity” – Before 9/11. Response: “Combined with all the ‘coincidental’ inactivity and seeming indifference, which just happened to benefit the hijackers’ goals (such as the FBI’s quashing of reports from Phoenix, Minneapolis, Chicago, and New York, and John O’Neill’s resignation from the FBI over what he considered ‘repeated obstruction of his investigations into al-Qaeda,’ etc.), there was also significant ‘activity’ – behind closed doors. Qwest Communications, for example, was served with National Security Letters (as were other tele-coms), before 9/11, in relation to a (secret and illegal) Warrantless Surveillance program. Many could wonder: with all the supposed apathy going on previous to the planes striking their targets, what was the ‘ticking time-bomb‘ scenario which led them to covertly bypass FISA – well before they ever hit?”
WTC (“Pull It”) 7
Exoteric: Without having been hit by a plane, WTC 7 was the third steel-frame building (on the same day) in history to “collapse,” totally (including core columns), from fire damage – in a free-fall. Senator John Kerry’s version (as if it was common knowledge, and completely devoid of nefarious implications): “I do know that . . . wall, I remember, was in danger – and I think that they made a decision based on the danger that it had of destroying other things, that they did it in a Controlled Fashion.” (Question: How believable is it that WTC 7 was planned and rigged for demolition in under, say, five hours?) So, which proposed Theories are credible? Esteemed “alternative” researchers, impartial scientists and engineers – or officials – purposely looking in, and for, other ways? As far as evidence, another passage from Debunking 9/11 Debunking: “As Steven Jones has written: ‘The likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 due to random fires . . . – requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns – is infinitesimal.” Yet, NIST’s “Thermal Expansion” as a simple scientific wonder was an “official” explanation. What about Senator (“Controlled Fashion”) Kerry? Overruled by NIST. Still, if he was (bluntly) correct, and the reception by unbiased peers on “Thermal Expansion” has been pure, confirming mockery – what would the cover for the revelation of Demolition be? Unsurprisingly, they might come up with a statement like: “Well, NIST did what they were directed to do. But, now that this has come out (where, undeniably, we could not have set WTC 7 up – while it was burning), our currently released position is one where we have been secretly rigging buildings all over the U.S. – ahead of time – just in case it’s needed – for many years.” In turn, public recognition: “How ‘insane[ly]’ convenient!” Retort: “Classified scenarios of such a volatile level were (and to the greatest extent, remain) far beyond your ‘need to know’ status.”
Shoot, or Stand Down?
Norman Mineta: “There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’“ In context of the overall situation – and a localized outcome (the Pentagon was hit), what determination is more rational – an order was given to “Shoot Down,” or “Stand Down?”
A Moderate’s View on The Truth of 9/11
“Surveillance/inside information led to Knowing It Was Coming. Based on the latter, covert actions were implemented that would Enhance the Outcome. Then, Standing Down (just long enough) during the occurrence assured an expectation of success.”
Finally, though this blog post could go on (for at least) another twelve pages just focusing on self-evident information, the following statements are a (momentary) conclusion. As an avid reader of the Huffington Post since its inception, it has been intensely disillusioning to discover such absolute ludicrousness by way of shamefully distorted associations and uninformed positions. Howard Zinn, historian, author, and playwright, on “The New Pearl Harbor” : ‘[T]he most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration’s relationship to that historic and troubling event.’ By contrast, his likely take on the birthers: “The most unsustainable, unconvincing, and unsupported-by-facts pile of Beckish rubbish ever brought forth in relation to the Obama administration.” In spite of blanketing assertions attempting to label Truthers and birthers into the same box of “insanity,” they are not similar – to an extreme. One side is completely blinded (and manipulated like clueless sheep) – thus, irrespective of facts and shaded political realities. The other is analytically grounded, critically aware of political possibilities, and pushing forward with ultimate Reason.
Update: 09/23: A surprising admission: “Some, but not all, of the left thought Bush had prior knowledge of the September 11th attacks. It’s a matter of record that he knew an attack might be imminent based upon the famous PDB titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.’ So that one was partially true.” Undoubtedly, Bob Cesca knows what doors are then opened – by invitation. However, if one should step up and try to go (rationally) within, he or she would be ridiculed as just another “wackaloon.” Is that objectively reasonable, or “partially” acceptable? Neither. Once an area of truth so astounding (and implicative) is revealed, the naturally following exploration of related questions ought to be welcomed – without denigration.