I assume all of bush's opponents have been threatened with death.

Going by the long lost anthrax murder letter writer who has yet to be found. When dick and dubya arrived, they threatened to kill all of their opponenents.

Too far fetched?

The point that it really dawned on my that there has to be some threat was when Jimmy Carter criticized the bu$h regime only to retract it. That blew my mind and woke me up to see things that have happened.
Late night votes in Congress that looked like they were going to go against bu$h politics and suddenly switched to support?
A media that is so totally compliant?

There is just too much evidence that makes me think that the regime is using some sort of threat. I don't know if it is just death for those that they need to coerce or a larger overall threat of terror.

Or even that it is a threat against the people.

You know, go along with this or we'll unleash a nuke on California and New York.

Seriously, what has stopped any President since the dawn of the nuclear age from doing this? It shows a little bit of heroism in each President who has stepped down to make way for his successor.

that's a good assumption.

Scary thought.

You threaten their loved ones.

Much more effective psychologically and far more difficult to guard against.

"You have such beautiful grandchildren, it would be a crying shame if something were to happen to them".

"How much do you love your grandchild?"

At first I thought there must not be a honest elected representative to be found in Washington, but now I think the ones they can't get in their wiretapping, they just threaten to "off" whoever they love the most. They truly do operate like the mafia, with the US military as their enforcers.

:puke:

threats. Very effective. Patrick Leahy is still trying to get proof for who sent him the anthrax letter. And as Vinyl Ripper points out, threatening families is even more effective.

American Media Inc.

Could it be any more blatant?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067576/

And one of the pictures that went with the article that most likely got those people at American Media killed.



That's right, it couldn't have been more blatant. Except when the Democrats got attacked and all of a sudden the Bushies can't find a thing!

was the one who took that picture.

When they want somebody HIT, they get HIT.

Obviously, they did not really wnat any oftheir other targets dead, only scared shitless for two months along with the rest of the nation.

Mission Accomplished, Royal Bushies.

I'd like to see evidence myself, but what do I know.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

When's the last time you heard ANYTHING about the "investigation" into a Terrorist Attack that paralyzed the Nation with fear for TWO MONTHS in 2001?

I mean, other than Democrats like Leahy, Holt and Fazio trying to get information about the status of said investigation AND BEING DENIED.

No, there's no arrow of method, mode, and opportunity in these facts:

1) Only Democrats and "Liberal" Media Received the attacks,

2) oh, and the first attacks were levelled against the tabloid reporters who printed an expose and photos of drunken Bush daughters.

3) The anthrax was typed as Ft. Detrick Labs - Made in the USA.

Nope, how could any investigator pyramid such unrelated facts, nor connect these dots into anything pointing at Loyal Bushies carrying out orders of Royal Bushies?

There is absolutely no need to look into this further and therefore no evidence can nor will be gathered. You can rest easy that in all likelyhood, you will never have to modify your stance and continue to drip with contempt the way no doubt a Good German dripped with contempt in 1942 at the "conspiracy theorists" who posutlated that Enemies of the Reich were being liquidated by the millions.

'Cause there was no evidence in the public sphere at that time, right? Oh, we can look back now with contempt but that was the fact. In 1942 there was plenty of CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that could have easily been investigated and "broken open", but nothing concrete yet existed for a guy like you to examine and be convinced by.

Just like now. Some things, like the human dynamic, simply don't change a lot over the centuries, do they?

Finally, and by that same token, you will never see the evidence you seek because those who attempted to gather it would shortly lose their job.

and Bryant, if you DARE call that last line :tinfoilhat:, the I will fucking scream ATTORNEYS SCANDAL ATTONRNEYS SCANDAL ATTORNEYS SCANDAL ATTORNEYS SCANDAL until you stop spouting your conspiracy theory nonsense that the Bushies would NEVER do...well what they have already BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE DONE in other departments.

But I'm tempted to figure out how - because it would be amusing to see you type ATTORNEYS SCANDAL over and over again.

Anyway even in words I tend not to use the words Tin Foil Hat - I think they are over used. I prefer fairy tale. Like the MIHOP/LIHOP fairy tale.

Bryant

with nonsense.

The question, which you have and will continue to fail to answer is

how is there no arrow of method, mode, and opportunity in these facts, which are ironclad:

1) Only Democrats and "Liberal" Media Received the attacks,

2) oh, and the first attacks were levelled against the tabloid reporters (American media Co.) who printed an expose and photos of drunken Bush daughters.

3) The anthrax was typed as Ft. Detrick Labs - Made in the USA.

Nope, how could any investigator pyramid such unrelated facts, nor connect these dots into anything pointing at Loyal Bushies carrying out orders of Royal Bushies?

Now, as the smart, detached, ultra-rational guy you no doubt perceive yourself as being, answer why a reasonable investigator would find nothing in those facts to connect, nor lead them to further avenues of investigation.

I hear this is a popular technique among law enforcement trying to figure out who committed crimes, odd though it may seem.

Can you answer the question?

One more: If no investigations occur because the criminals are withing the government, how can a rational person get "evidence" in a repressive society?

Like waiting for the SS to expose cruelty at the concentration camps. Nazis are such useful examples when discussing Bushies, because they are so similar of mind and intent (Bushies being MUCH kinder and gentler, that cannot be denied, their Final Solutions, having not yet been seen, cannot be judged)

One last question: Ever hear of samizdat, and would you have opposed it had you lived in Communist Russia? If you would have supported samizdat, please explain why your support of the "Russian Conspiracy Theorists" of the 1970s should have been believed then, but not today's samidat?

Hint: I am guessing another customary short declarative smear evading the quetsion will be the answer in reply, just as your last post was.

I make no accusations at you, however I will note that a common methodology of all trolls, paid and otherwise, is to reply to longer, reasoned posts (especially posts asking them direct questions which answering would cause "short circuit") with a short declarative smear of the O'Reilly type.

So, I await your specific answers to my specific three questions. Because your answers will be very revealing of yourself.

But you should take a grammar class.

IN particular this sentence baffles me. "Nope, how could any investigator pyramid such unrelated facts, nor connect these dots into anything pointing at Loyal Bushies carrying out orders of Royal Bushies?" It seems to suggest that those three facts point undeniably towards these acts being carried out by loyal Bushies on behalf of President Bush. That's not true - they do suggest it as a possibility. I won't deny that. But it's just as likely to be a "lone gunman" in my mind. This nation has no shortage of right wing nut jobs, and not all of them are on the Bush family payroll.

As for why the Government wouldn't prosecute/investigate, I'm not sure they haven't? But this administration has gone very softly in persecuting/pursuing right wing terrorists of all stripes (I'm thinking of the anti abortion terrorists as well), so, whether or not they were directly involved in sending around the anthrax letters, it seems likely they wouldn't pursue the presumably right wing anthrax sender with much energy.

As for the Samizdat analogy, you aren't in any danger participating at DU so the analogy doesn't hold. I know there are some who believe that the order to round us all up and put us in camps is coming any moment; I don't believe that. And I'm not likely to start pretending like I do.

Was that enough of a response to prove that I'm not a troll? You reference answering 3 questions, but there are 5 questions in your post, so I am not sure I answered them all or not.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

But I definitely disagree with your assertion that the samizdat analogy breaks down simply because the imminent physical danger is not yet here.

What does the fact that one samizdat entailed imminent physical danger vs. that one, for the time being, carries no threat of imminent physical danger?

What does that have to do with the quality of samizdat, American or Russian, without any kind of quality control, versus the quality of Pravda or FOX/CNN, with legions of fact-checkers?

Are you sure the defining characteristic of the validity of a national samizdat is proportion to the level of imminent physical danger?

Before 2000, I might have agreed with you, but watching the New Totalitarianism unfold has educated me about how that isn't nevessarily true, given recent advances in mass psychology, advretising, PR, and in general how the adavance of the psychological sciences have lead to the manipulation of large amounts of people (actually, the larger the group the better, in terms of psychological manipulation, because outliers tend to even out with larger sample size).

We will have to agree to disagree on this, if indeed that is what you are asserting, that physical danger and risk of publishing is the biggest determiner in the validity of a given samizdat.

As to my grammar, what a non sequitur. I am typing fast.

As to the statement itself, I merely point out that the facts do in fact point directly in to a certain group of people the way certain killers specifically murder their victims give away the perpetrators.

You yourself seem to agree with that in the next paragraph, where you cite the Bushies' reluctance to pursue ANY Right-Wing Terrorist.

I actually find that more frightening, in a "KKK Sheriff investigates Mississippi civil rights murders" sort of a way, because you actually made my point for me.

How much worse are things if this isn't a specific coverup, but so ingrained institutionally are these kinds of attitudes, that such "inept investigating" will be applied to almost any Loyal Bushie scrutinized that would reflect badly on THE PARTY. I disgree with you on that one. That's too much of a conspiracy theory for me, Bryant.

I mean, they caught Abramoff and Cunningham, didn't they? I hope your wild assertion isn't true, and this is not as pervasive and systemic as you seem to think.

is how close we are to a totalitarian regime. I think things are bad, no question, and President Bush has been an awful president. But, and this is a big but, things are turning around. The 2006 elections, the departure of Rove and Rumsfeld, the ongoing investigations, the strong crop of candidates for the Democratic nomination; all point to hope. Could things be better? Could things move faster? Yes to both questions.

But DU as a Samizdat resisting the Bush Admin? It's a bit much just now. Finally, while I disagree with your assessment, I'm not stopping you from publishing them. In the forum of ideas we are competing, but neither of us is shutting up the others - frankly we don't have that power.

As for it being too much of a conspiracy theory - look at anti-abortion harrassment and terrorism as it is under the Bush Administration.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

We do disagree, you and I, but civility is not outside our grasp.

It is hard to quantify something which is new in human history (by that, I mean this possible new incarnation of totalitarianism that is rising as BushPutinism) unfold before one's eyes, not knowing in hindsight what the ultimate outcome will be, as with other forms of Totalitarianism that have been exposed and their full cycle seen from beginning to end.

I know you don't agree, but right now I sort of view our nation as like a palimpsest, like a painting beneath which another resides beneath the paint on top. The Bushies are applying turpentine to that painting, but not evenly. In splotches and smears, the painting which lies beneath becomes clearer, but the end result cannot be seen, especially because the removal of the top layer of paint is uneven and those who are removing it are repeating over and over again, metaphorically speaking, "We aren't removing paint. There is no other painting beneath. This is the same painting as it always has been."

Because of this patchy mosaic of liberty and tyranny, of free people/institutions and those which are partly or completely enslaved (not the old fashion way, with whips and chains), the daily contradictions of living in such a place are manifest. Will the parts of Free America respond, as with Abramoff and Cunningham, or will the Loyal Bushies move in with a "splotch of turpentine" to wipe out the Anthrax Investigation in the short term while that FBI Division is now Bushified inthe long-term?

I can't answer that question. It is as confusing and surprising to me to watch it happen, because it is so inconsistent and jumbled.

Are we a Free Nation or under the thumb of the New Totalitarianism (which may or may not require great amounts of imminent physical danger to opponents, though it could be just as easily like the book Fahrenheit 451, which was a Kinder and Gentler Totalitarianism that is closer to what I expect the Bushie's Final Solution will eventually be)?

I believe, like that slowly turpentined painting, we are 60% Free and 40% Tyranny right now. I also think they know that putting massive and imminent physical danger onto opponents is not something they dare try until we are at least 70% Tyranny and 30% Free, or perhaps even higher depending on how cautious they are.

But this patchwork quilt of a nation in transition to something new who's final form can only be guessed at? I can see how both sides of this "conspiracy theory" arrived at their conclusions.

Depends on which parts of the painting you are looking at. I am looking at the trend and composition of the painting itself.

But we must agree to disagree, ultimately.

bush is an asterisk

That would be hundreds, if not thousands of people, who received a death threat. They have been so successful, not one hint has leaked out. Thank you, Philosoraptor, for having the courage to post this, knowing it will only put you on their radar. :yourock:

Screw it, add me to the mailing list with this theory........ I think the reason Rove is resigning, is that with bushes approval numbers free-falling, he needs more time to go around putting horse heads in people's beds. :think:

Indirection is the name of the game.

Politicians have very sensitive antennae for implications, the anthrax attacks were an obvious threat to those who would stand in the way of the cabal.

If you knew you were dealing with a serial killer who wanted you to do something and he were to say "How is your wife doing?", how would you take that?

On the face of it, it is simply a casual inquiry into the health of your spouse, coming from a serial killer who is making demands of you it has far more ominous implications.

And make no mistake, the neocons are serial killers of the very worst sort. They even publicly call for the nuking of millions of innocent people with not the slightest hint of embarrassment.

you might have a point. How many people would we be talking about? How many Representatives, how many Senators, former Congress members, media personalities, outspoken critics, etc.

Let's just take current members of Congress... are you telling me every one has been threatened, and have kept quiet about it? Here's how to defeat that....


"I'm Representative So-and-So, of district #. I have received what I feel is a direct threat to myself and my family. I believe the threat is politically motivated, and while I have no hard evidence to place before you, I ask only that this statement be recorded, in the event of a personal crisis."

If such a statement was issued, and it was a echoed by other members (remember, we are talking about a LOT of people not doing anything, and of course, the only reason could be..... ) how could it possibly be ignored? :shrug:

*Indirect* threats are far more effective.

And impossible to prove.

A statement that would be perfectly innocuous coming from one person may have extremely ominous overtones coming from another.

Do you have children?

Would you risk their lives with no guarantee that there would be a positive outcome from the risk?

Leahy and Daschle both have been directly threatened and would be dead but for the warning notes in the anthrax letters.

Do you not see how this casts a chilling effect over all opponents of the cabal?

and cheney IS a terrorist

the anthrax letters were sent to Leahy and Daschle, the two people who opposed the patriot act and could have been the deal breakers in having it passed.

Considering what we KNOW they've done; it's probably true.

remember when the hazmat suited people went into the congressional office bldgs. to 'clean' up the anthrax?

all those empty offices to snoop in.