The concentration of power in the executive branch has indeed been increasing for decades. But to personalize this is a mistake. Looking to electing a white knight does not solve the fundamental problem.

The executive is just that, the executive. There is a board of directors that have real power. And this ain't the congress either. They are composed of career folks in and around think tanks and foundations. Major universities feed this board with newer and brighter faces constantly.

The country is ruled by a small group of the very wealthy that are in crisis. To continue to make profits they need a world with all countries cooperating with their rape and pillage.

In general they prefer democracies because it is not efficient to get people to keep filling their coffers at the point of a gun. But nonetheless the gun will always be there.

It is only the political naive that think they will voted out of power.

Green is right. US citizens have been cowed into simple obedience to the reigning executive, believing the fear-filled propaganda and concluding that only a heroic Man On A White Horse can save them. So they are willing to lash out in all directions, and invade anyone. They are willing to surrender their own rights to vest those rights in the president. A sad state.

The reason we're looking for a hero on a white horse in the executive seat of power is that we've seen the abuse and excess of congress carried on for decades and are desperate for someone who can step in and stop them. Bush looked like he might do it for a while, but he's failed, so now we look for someone else who can reign in the government and put it back on track.

Dave

Nonsense. The focus of US politics has been on WOT and Iraq for 6 years, NOT on anyones corruption.

And lest we forget, those events still have the stench of an inside job hovering over them

No they don't.

-- while Congress has yet to conduct any truly independent investigation over which the executive branch would have no control.

Yes they did. Read the report.

Please return to the real world sometime, Green.

Dave

Haha Nalle told you Green.

[Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor.]

Interesting Freudian slip on the part of Nalle, who wrote "reign" in the government, instead of the correct "rein" in the government.

He's just envious that nobody thinks HE should be the knight on a white horse.

Who was the last bald president, anyway?

So much navel gazing...

Mr. Green warns of an approaching dictatorship - or perhaps one that will throw off the mask of a "democracy" and just become a tyranny openly instead of in a hidden fashion.

I don't agree with all of his politics here - but that is not important - I do not live in the United States, so it is not my problem - at least not directly.

Dave,

As an intelligent individual who considers all information before drawing a conclusion, I would like to offer you an opportunity to consider information perhaps you have not heard or read before. Whether you accept all of the many hammer blows to the government's official theory or just one, it may help to at least scrutinize what you've been told by the government to at least the degree that you scrutinize those who criticize the government's explanations of 9/11.

Please take a look at this 8-minute video before you throw caution to the wind and profess faith in the 9/11 Commission.

And then consider the 10 items below:

PUBLIC LAW 107-306--NOV. 27, 2002 Title VI, Section 602: Purpose of 9/11 Commission

Item 4) "make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks" [of 9/11]

DID THE 9/11 COMMISSION MAKE A FULL AND COMPLETE ACCOUNTING? MOST AMERICANS WOULD SAY NO.

THE FACTS ALSO SAY NO.

Dave, your faith in the 9/11 Commission is troubling. It presupposes a number of things:

1. The Commission was created through an objective process and comprised of individuals who had an earnest resolve to answer every question in regard to the attacks of 9/11

2. The Commission's report is a complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks.

3. The Family Steering Committee, which claims the Commission's report is fraudulent, is itself merely a delusional organization without credibility

4. The elapsed time prior to formation of the Commission was merely incidental

5. The efforts of the 4 widows from New Jersey to pressure the government into investigating 9/11 wasn't necessary because the government had every intention of investigating itself anyway

6. The men appointed to head the Commission, who decided which areas were worthy of investigation and which were not, were men of impeccable reputation and beyond criticism or scrutiny

7. The Commission's report, which differs from the explanations offered by the White House, the Pentagon, the FAA and NORAD in various parts, is the "official" story regardless of what else was said by any other governmental agency or leader

8. The 9/11 Commission's declaration, to continue to address questions from the American public through hosted forums even after the dissolution of the Commission, was merely a suggestion and not a specific effort it intended to maintain.

9. The rampant criticism of the 9/11 Commission's report and its willingness to enable the president and vice president to obfuscate and avoid testimonies under oath, are simply wrong-headed criticisms made by folks who would never be satisfied with any investigation of 9/11.

10. The failure of the Commission to look into information that touched on hijackers being alive, evidence of demolition carted away, WTC 7, Pentagon anomalies and other such questions wasn't necessarily a failure of the Commission, but rather a scrupulous decision to ignore crackpot theories and remain on task.

Unfortunately, the leadership of this nation, as well as many editors in the national media, agree with you Dave. Nothing to see here. All is well. The notion that our leaders would lie and cover up a deliberate murder scene is unconscionable and ought never be thought of as worthy of respectful consideration.

So, who is really living in the land of delusion, Dave?

Thanks arcg conservative ...

Nalle ALWAYS tells me. Someday I might listen.

Dear Les,

Your analysis is quite reasonable and likely accurate. unfortunately, the constitution provides the people with only one power in the effort to change our government. That power is the right to vote out the leaders of Congress and overhaul the legislative branch.

Unfortunately, the American people don't have control over the White House, the debates of candidates for president, and the powers behind the scenes that regulate, manipulate and obfuscate. The American people have no control over the two parties that control this country with the financial backing of the wealthies folks and companies in the world.

Given the fact that most Americans are blithering idiots and apathetic when it comes to understanding American politics and the relationship we have with foreign governments, the power inherent in manipulating the minds of the masses through national media is a power that trumps all else.

To date, there has been more than $200 million "raised" by candidates for president. That money will be used to procure air time to persuade the masses to vote for people who have made the cut imposed by the two parties. The fix is in. We're just going through the motions now in order to pretend we're still a democracy.

And while the democratic process is being used, it is merely a tool of the rich and powerful to placate to the illusion we continue to maintain in the public arena.

nevertheless, the only option we have as a public is to use the voting process to replace those beholden to the criminal parties with honest folks who desire to recover this nation form its hijackers.

Unfortunately, the process of persuading the public to vote for honest folks costs even more money and massive organization that currently doesn't exist.

Ok, I watched the 8 minute video. It's just a catalog of theories which have been thoroughly discredited. Ridiculous stuff like the idea that 6 of the hostages are still alive, which has been extensively debunked, and the various crackpot theories about how the towers were brought down, which the science just doesn't support. It's nothing new. It's the same old bunk, but presented in a particularly boring style.

Dave, your faith in the 9/11 Commission is troubling.

It's not faith, it's just the ability to distinguish fact from fantasy.

It presupposes a number of things:

1. The Commission was created through an objective process and comprised of individuals who had an earnest resolve to answer every question in regard to the attacks of 9/11

I certainly haven't seen any reliable evidence to dispute this.

2. The Commission's report is a complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks.

I never claimed that it was. Obviously it's not entirely comprehensive. It could go into a lot more of the technical aspects and they could have gone on investigating even farther. But it's accurate as far as it goes.

3. The Family Steering Committee, which claims the Commission's report is fraudulent, is itself merely a delusional organization without credibility

Certainly no question about that.

4. The elapsed time prior to formation of the Commission was merely incidental

It was certainly typical of how long it takes to get these sorts of congressional investigations going.

5. The efforts of the 4 widows from New Jersey to pressure the government into investigating 9/11 wasn't necessary because the government had every intention of investigating itself anyway

Give me a break. The government wouldn't investigate anything if we didn't light a fire under them.

6. The men appointed to head the Commission, who decided which areas were worthy of investigation and which were not, were men of impeccable reputation and beyond criticism or scrutiny

No one is 100% impeccable, but they're certainly more believable and trustworthy than the people who are promoting the conspiracy theories.

7. The Commission's report, which differs from the explanations offered by the White House, the Pentagon, the FAA and NORAD in various parts, is the "official" story regardless of what else was said by any other governmental agency or leader

The commission report is certainly not the only take on the WTC attack, nor is it the only one which is basically sound, nor is it entirely perfect. But it doesn't differ from the other reports you noted in basic subdstance, only in some incidental details.

8. The 9/11 Commission's declaration, to continue to address questions from the American public through hosted forums even after the dissolution of the Commission, was merely a suggestion and not a specific effort it intended to maintain.

I imagine the forums got tiresome when idiotic conspiracy freaks started asking the same questions over and over.

9. The rampant criticism of the 9/11 Commission's report and its willingness to enable the president and vice president to obfuscate and avoid testimonies under oath, are simply wrong-headed criticisms made by folks who would never be satisfied with any investigation of 9/11.

That's about right, yes.

10. The failure of the Commission to look into information that touched on hijackers being alive, evidence of demolition carted away, WTC 7, Pentagon anomalies and other such questions wasn't necessarily a failure of the Commission, but rather a scrupulous decision to ignore crackpot theories and remain on task.

Most of these questions weren't raised to the commission or were dismissed almost immediately because they were patently ridiculous. Subsequent investigation of each of those issues is available which debunks the theories at great length.

Unfortunately, the leadership of this nation, as well as many editors in the national media, agree with you Dave.

Might be because we're not a pack of nuts.

Dave

Mike,

The last sentence in my #1 should have read:

It is only the politically naive that think they will allow us to vote them out of power.

I do believe we have democratic rights and we should defend and use them. I am attmpting to start a new political party to challenge those in power. It ain't easy though.

Les

Dave,

The president stated that he watched on TV the first plane hit the WTC tower. He then stated that he thought it was merely pilot error before he was whisked away.

He said this in an open forum speaking to the public. If he is to be believed along with his 9/11 Commission, then surely his version of what happened to himself that day is accurate and the facts are inaccurate.

In other words, the president DID see the plane hit the first tower on TV before he was whisked into the classroom filled with kids by the Secret Service. Apparently, that was the best place for the SS to put a president after witnessing on TV the plane hit the towers.

Secondly, the president saw footage that no media even had available until the following day. Given the president's predeliction toward ensuring such facts are told straightforward and honestly, it is apparent that the elementary school had a TV with closed circuit broadcast directly from the scene of the WTC when no other media broadcast was available.

Given the Pentagon's predeliction toward honesty and forthrightness, it is totally acceptable to believe that everything that could have gone wrong that day, did. In fact, during the FULL HOUR between the WTC towers being hit and the Pentagon's own building getting hit, the leaders of the greatest military on earth likely did nothing to ensure its defenses were at maximum and ensure NORAD was intercepting the planes still flying. Apparently, the pilot who maneuvered the gigantic passenger plane into one of the most difficult aerobatic maneuvers ever made in aviation history would have out-foxed the military as well, except the military seemingly had no idea what was going on even after an hour had elapsed.

And surely the FAA isn't to be believed when it stated that it did inform NORAD of the hijackings (the tape isn't to be believed either), since NORAD claims it did not receive the information.

Surely, the Defense Secretary is a liar when he mentioned that Flight 93 was "shot down" ... because the 9/11 Commission doesn't agree with that assessment.

And surely we can't believe the coroner at the scene of where flight 93 apparently disintegrated to the point where no jet plane parts could be found, when he claimed after 20 minutes that his work was done since he couldn't find even a drop of blood on the scene.

Yes, Dave. We're all just a bunch of weird crackpots and weirdos out here. And while we put every statement by the government to a test of scrutiny and intense questioning, you my friend, give our illustrious government a pass because it supports your belief that no one would do such a dastardly deed.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, the facts just don't line up on your side ... and neither does history.

I haven't read any of the reports but I find it hard to believe that the military was incapable of intercepting the Pentagon plane.

I have had experiences where it looked to me that the government did its best to make a mechanical failure look like a terrorist attack.

I don't know what you folks are smokin' but I really wanna get some. Maybe I can hide it under my frickin' tinfoil hat.

Damn lunatic reality-denying hippies:

Liberals cannot hold their smoke, dat's what it is.

"I haven't read any of the reports but I find it hard to believe that the military was incapable of intercepting the Pentagon plane."

Hundreds of drug aircraft slip through our radar defenses every year, so I think it's entirely possible.

But, there's another element to that particular flight: it was civilian and had civilians aboard. From what I've experienced of people who work for the government, finding someone willing to take the responsibility to shoot down an aircraft full of civilians wouldn't be easy.

Fact: British Butler commission still say's Iraq sought uraniam from Niger.

Fact: President Bush attributed Iraq's uraniam seeking to British intelligence.

Fact: Bi-partisan Senate intelligence commitee say's Joe Wilson's visit to Niger "bolstered" the belief that Iraq sought uraniam from Niger. Contrary to the treasonous editorial he presented in the treasonous New York Times.

Fact: A principle architect of the covert agent outing legislation testified that Valerie Plame was not covert.

Fact: No one was prosecuted or indicted for outing Plame. (most likely because she wasn't covert)

Fact: Libby was not the source of the original leak that identified Plame. (which wasn't illegal in the first place).

If you want to make a case for Presidential "tyranny" You need to set the record straight. But then you wouldn't have a case.

There actually could be a case for "Presidential tyranny", but parroting leftist media makes you look foolish. Smart people realize Libby's misfortune is purely political.

Ok, I just now read that apparantly Mike thinks 911 was an inside job. I get it now. Forget reason.

Clavos,

"Hundreds of drug aircraft slip through our radar defenses every year, so I think it's entirely possible."

All four of these planes were being tracked as abnormal as soon as they deviated from their flight plans.

"...finding someone willing to take the responsibility to shoot down an aircraft full of civilians wouldn't be easy."

It was clear that at least one plane was headed towards Washington. Any idiot would know it was up to no good. Fighter planes could have intercepted it.

I find it inconceivable that the command structure could be that paralyzed. I know Bush has cultivated an image of buffoonery, but it's just an image, and a false one at that.

After two planes were flown into the World Trade towers, it would not take too much political wisdom to know before hand, and with confidence, that a shoot-down would be a justifiable act to public opinion.

Les

You all know I'm reluctant to believe in conspiracies, but the one theory connected with 9/11 which seems to make a bit of sense is that Flight 93 may have been shot down by the Airforce. Ordering the shoot-down makes sense. It doesn't contradict any established facts. And a coverup of that one event isn't such a large conspiracy as to be improbably difficult to keep secret.

Dave

so, yer saying that the Administration might do something, then lie about it for propaganda purposes?

oh noes!!

what would Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman say?

/end sarcasm

Excelsior?

"You all know I'm reluctant to believe in conspiracies, but the one theory connected with 9/11 which seems to make a bit of sense is that Flight 93 may have been shot down by the Airforce."

Except for one thing Dave. All the evidence points to this not having been the case.

Please, tell me you aren't joining the "truthers" (what a misnomer that is), even if only in a small way.

Dave,

"You all know I'm reluctant to believe in conspiracies..."

I saw one in the making. Actually several came out of it. TWA 800.

Starting 10 days after the accident, the Seattle Times ran a series of articles explaining the history of fuel tank explosions on 747s. In particular, the TWA 800 747 was operated by the Imperial Iranian Air Force in 1976, the same year that another 747 in their fleet exploded near Madrid under circumstances quite similar to TWA 800. The NTSB concluded that it was a wing tank fuel pump electrical failure that caused the explosion.

In the early stages of the 800 investigation the FBI had muscled out the NTSB from leading the investigation. Their spokesperson consistently gave the impression that they were going on the theory that there was a bomb on board or the plane was hit by a missile.

I read the Seattle Times article from their website, but heard absolutely nothing about prior history of 747 fuel problems from any other source. It was a consistent problem that the FAA repeatedly warned about and issued directives.

I was living in Boston at the time and called the Globe news office and asked if they were aware of the Seattle Times articles. They referred me to their lead reporter on the scene on Long Island and gave me his email address. I contacted him and he said he was unaware of these articles. He was interested and asked if I could forward any of the articles. I did.

The next day he was replaced as their reporter on the scene and I never got a response from him on my inquiries as to what happened.

There was never any reporting by mainstream media about issues raised in ST articles.

Byron Ocohido got the 1997 Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting for His Seattle Times, 'Iran owned TWA jet same year one of its other 747s exploded' article dated July 27, 1996.

One of the problems we are struggling with is that a large proportion of the public distrusts government investigations like the 9/11 commission. Especially since the Warren Commission.

Many people believe that the government regards the US Citizenry as children who must be protected from the truth lest rebellion break out. Lying to children is largely regarded as a Good Thing, witness all the crap about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, etc. Or the constant deluge of TV dramas where parents lie to their injured/diseased child and say "everything is going to be alright" in spite of certain knowledge otherwise.

Imagine the arrogance of these people who believe themselves so smart as to be entitled to lie to everyone to manipulate their behaviour.

Blif: "Many people believe that the government regards the US Citizenry as children who must be protected from the truth lest rebellion break out."

Sorry Blif, with respect but I think that's absolute bollocks. That might be how a proportion of the US citizenry sees it, but if it's anything like what happens here (and I think it's virtually identical), it's not reality.

Here's what really happens: governments and administrations are elected, and because of that think they then have a mandate to do whatever they like (within reason)- and nearly always do, and it nearly always involves lying.

Then once the citizens get a whiff of it, they vote 'em out and the whole process starts over again.

That's what's been happening over your way for, what? a bit over 200 years. I don't think they're worried in any way shape or form about another revolution.

There's a logical explanation to it all, and it doesn't involve conspiracies. Like all governments, they lose touch after a while with the common people and become arrogant. That doesn't, however, mean they are engaging in the kinds of conspiracies thrown up here and elsewhere.

We had a situation here with the currentv government where they kept breaking their election promises.

When challenged on that, the PM kept saying (smugly): "Oh, that wasn't a core promise ... it was non-core." The word mandate was also bandied about with sickening regularity.

So at the last election campaign, every time the PM made a promise, a reporter from our newspaper was briefed to follow him around and ask him, in public, if the promise was "core or non-core" - which resulted in him showing his risky second facial expression and speaking like Porky Pig.

Mate, it's just what governments do to stay in power in a democracy. They are nothing if not pragmatic, since they can't rule us by force.

"...which resulted in him showing his risky second facial expression and speaking like Porky Pig."

You wouldn't happen to have a link to some video of that, would ya, mate?

I'd love to see that.

Mate, any video of Howard is a laugh. Here's my bet though - you'll never see his top lip move, and if he smiles, it looks like he's just eaten his young.

[adjusting tin foil hat]

Ahem! Fellow truth-seekers and those others who seek to believe whatever the current contrived propaganda is being promoted by "official" liars.

May I have your attention, please.

Feb. 1, 2007: Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (whose daughter smiles for the news camera on MSNBC) testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that a plausible scenario for the U.S. ramp-up toward attacking Iran would be: Failure of the Iraqi Government to meet the benchmarks set by the U.S. government which would be blamed on Iran, and a massive terrorist attack staged by the U.S. government either in Iraq or on American soil and blamed on Iran.

The Associated Press

July 5, 2007: Bush says it's no time to withdraw from Iraq

July 9, 2007: Iraq warns of civil war if U.S. leaves

July 9, 2007: Official: Iraq government missed all targets

Forget the debate over the uranium in Niger, the outing of Plame, the Libby fallout, etc. That's all the sideshow.

The real facts getting sidestepped here regard the ongoing U.S. war in Iraq that began in 1991 and never ended. Even the Congressional Research Service, in its report in 2004 to Congress, expressed that Gulf War was downgraded to a "cease-fire," not an END.

The U.S. military NEVER left Iraq from the day it invaded in January 1991 to this very day. It merely withdrew most of its ground troops, while the Air Force, Navy and Marine contingents remained. In fact, Iraq has been continually bombed every year (except 94 and 95) since 1991.

The load of crap about Saddam seeking uranium is irrelevant since Iraq isn't beholden to the U.S., the U.N. never authorized use of force by the U.S. or any other nation to enforce its goals, and the presumption that Saddam had or was seeking nuclear weapons of mass destruction is EXACTLY the mantra used by GEORGE H. BUSH.

The facts show that the U.S. was seeking an EXCUSE to send a massive ground invasion back into Iraq in order to take over the country.

The U.S. has already set in motion commitments with Great Britain, which has publicly stated it plans to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan through 2012 at a minimum. Meanwhile, the U.S. military and its contractors are building permanent bases in Iraq.

Iran, which has long been a target of the U.S. (1953 through 1979 controlled by U.S. via Shah; 1980 - 88 invaded and at war with U.S. through auspices of Iraq's Saddam Hussein), understands the U.S. desire to control Iraq's oil and its sovereign territory in the process of a long-term goal toward re-establishing control over Iran and its oil.

This game of control the oil has never ended. And today, we hear the drumbeat of war stated by Bush and echoed by his puppets in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the "benchmarks" set by a complicit and compliant Congress are being used as the fulcrum upon which war decisions are being made. These benchmarks are neither democratic nor legitimate. They are contrived facades erected to fail as yet another excuse to augment U.S. troops in Iraq even moreso than the recent increase.

The U.S. needs control of Iraq if it ever intends to gain a foothold in Iran. And Iran must ensure the U.S. never finds safety or security in Iraq or the beast will be sitting upon the doorstep of Iran yet again awaiting an opportune time to invade.

And Brzezinski articulated exactly how that opportune moment would occur.

[making tin foil hats for everyone]

well laid out, mike. now what's your problem with all of that/

dave

Dave,

First of all, ever increasing use of oil is not necessary. Second, these countries do not need occupations to get them to sell oil.

It is not in the interest of the majority of people in the U.S. to acquire this oil at the barrel of a gun.

Les

i was just being sarcastic, les. green's obsessions make me want to poke fun at him and do a bit of taunting because there's no talking to him on a basis of normal, rational discussion.

i've said many a time that if we really cared about oil we'd have made a deal with saddam. clearly oil isn't the primary motive for what's going on in the middle east or for our involvement there.

dave

Nonsense, Nalle.

The Bush Gang (since when did it become WE??????) did not make a deal with Saddam because they were arrogant assholes who thought they did not HAVE to make a deal with him.

They thought grabbing the oil of Iraq was going to be a walk in the park.

Plus, they believed that the deal that was made years ago with the Saudis was enough deal-making.

By your squirrely thinking they are not making any deals with Chavez because they don't care about the largest petroleum reserves on the planet.

Thanks for my laugh of the day!

It's not clear that oil isn't a factor. Bush called Maliki and said the most important task before Iraq is the IraqOilBill, which cuts USA oil companies into the Iraqi oil pool at 60cents a barrel, while everyone else pays 60 dollars.