Previous post is on wrong thread

Why would the evidence for war have to be secret?

If they attacked us it wouldn't have to be a secret.

If they attacked an ally it wouldn't have to be a secret.

If they are building nuclear weapons and their fundamentalist leaders are suicidal secrecy would not be necessary.

If they are committing genocide it wouldn't have to be a secret.

If the enemy committed terrorist acts against the U.S. it wouldn't have to be a secret.

Satelite photos of a massive military build-up need not remain secret for long.

If "they" committed war crimes or crimes against humanity it would not have to be a secret.

What is secret evidence for war?

Could it be that a legal, moral, or necessity for war did not exist; therefore, the lack of evidence had to remain secret?

Israel may have had a reason for war, but U.S. politicians would not put Israel's interests ahead of those of the U.S. would they? Would that be considered secret evidence?

Did defense contractors want war for profit? That might be a secret.

Did other commercial interests hope to benefit from a war, any war? That might be a secret.

Profit is not an evil in itself, but to kill for it is.

It is fear of the masses that drives them toward fascism. More than any other consideration the knowledge that one day the masses will put its interests first drives them batty.

I put your name in the title only because of the artistic look of "wall" coming two times in a row, hope you do not mind as nothing was intended.

Since the Wounded Knee Massacre we have acted as an imperial power or as a full, dominate empire. How did America which started its national life with the Articles of Confederation get to this point? There are many reasons, events, ideologies, and so forth that one can point to in trying to explain this phenomenon.

I contend that the average Joe in the street never wanted to dominate South America or the Caribbean. I contend that invading and taking Hawaii from its people and ruler was never the idea of common folk like my working class bunch. I contend that a semi black opp that tore Panama off from Colombia and gave us the Canal was not highly favored by the main street small 'mom and pop' business.

Who then gains? A whole host of demonic players. However, I think a few of the main players and their motivations can be determined. Rothbard back in 84 (in full anti-Republican mode) blamed Bankers and Industrialists. Many of the so-called "free market" men in America are not in favor of Laissez-faire or "free-market" at all; perish the notion.

Businessmen or manufacturers can either be genuine free enterprisers or statists; they can either make their way on the free market or seek special government favors and privileges. They choose according to their individual preferences and values. But bankers are inherently inclined toward statism.

Commercial bankers, engaged as they are in unsound fractional reserve credit, are, in the free market, always teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Hence they are always reaching for government aid and bailout.

Investment bankers do much of their business underwriting government bonds, in the United States and abroad. Therefore, they have a vested interest in promoting deficits and in forcing taxpayers to redeem government debt. Both sets of bankers, then, tend to be tied in with government policy, and try to influence and control government actions in domestic and foreign affairs. ...

After that he launched into a history of our economic driven actions abroad from around 1890 on until his day in 1984.

When people try to figure out who may have done a thing, often you hear the the question, "who benefited from this event?" I think it high time to start asking these questions and listening to all who might have some answer, just like on the anthrax thread. As a young man, Rothbard tried to get the "new left" to join a 'fusion' of groups to oppose the prevailing political rulers. I hope Glenn does better with his 'strange bedfellows' idea that Rothbard did a generation ago.

Our country has never been one where "the people" controlled everything; that is a controlling myth. The people vote between competing lackeys and the choice matters little. The people rarely have ever had the unvarnished truth in front of them to decide, even before the modern era of high levels of government secrecy.

The key is in understanding that money is a commodity, like any other, and thus subject to the laws of the market. A government-granted monopoly in this, the very lifeblood of the economic system, is a recipe for inflation, a debased currency – and the creation of a permanent plutocracy whose power is virtually unlimited. I think I remember that the currency has been debased so that a dollar in 1900 is worth 4 cents today --- but I read that a while ago; may be worse now.

Many of the so-called "free market" men in America are not in favor of Laissez-faire or "free-market" at all; perish the notion...

...A government-granted monopoly in this, the very lifeblood of the economic system, is a recipe for inflation, a debased currency – and the creation of a permanent plutocracy whose power is virtually unlimited.

While overwrought, I can agree with the basic idea. The part you aren't getting, is that for most other countries, political favoritism is the MOST important aspect of business. There is no human system anywhere, that doesn't require the natural form of monopoly, or political favoritism. We just happen to have some of the least.

P.S. the dollar is surging. Perhaps you can lighten up some on response. The world is not going to end tomorrow no matter how much you weep, wail, and gnash your teeth. We are doing just fine in the good old US of A.

What a surprise. Tsk.

Our Government has shown itself incapable of handling basics of governing in a Constitutional Republic -- such as oversight, nonpoliticized investigations and so forth. The Executive department lies and dissembles as automatically as it breathes. The Legislative department huffs and puffs and sends stern letters, and then does nothing but huff and puff some more when defied. The Judiciary propounds and opines and is often ignored or subverted because -- in part -- it, too, is a politicized agent of the overthrow of the Republic it always is at such pains to aver it "supports".

We therefore have -- or should have -- a severe crisis of confidence in Our Government, a Government that truly, rationally no longer belongs to We, the People, that does not represent us, that literally and arrogantly refuses to, and in the context of the Anthrax Attacks, cannot investigate and report what happened truthfully and fully.

Calling for a Congressional investigation is silly under the circumstances. They cannot do it. One reason, I suspect, is because of who was attacked. Throw this in the mix: supposedly the 9/11 flight that went down or was shot down in Pennsylvania was headed to the Capitol. Congress was in session that morning. If the flight was shot down, it was shot down because Cheney ordered it shot down. If so,he saved their lives. They owe him. They've been paying their debt ever since. By not turning over too many rocks that could make his life miserable.

But when they balked on passage of the Patriot Act, oh lookie. Another attack on them, a very serious one. Not only were members of the Senate targeted directly, the upshot of the attack was the evacuation (and "decontamination") of the House and Senate office buildings, a process that divorced the Honorable Members from their entire support apparatus.

If there is any suspicion on their part that the Anthrax Attacks came from some other part of the Government, they will understandably tread very carefully when questions arise. Indeed, they might not tread on those paths at all. Because they have no way of protecting themselves from future shennanigans by interests and agents unknown.

If We, the People, can ever recapture Our Government then we might have a chance of exposing and coming to grips with the interests that have been allowed to seize and control it for their benefit, not ours.

But we're not even remotely close to that point yet.

Better, it seems to me, for now, to acknowledge the truth of our situation: that the Government does not -- and at the moment cannot -- represent us, has no interest in doing so, is obsessed with preserving, protecting and defending itself against the People and the Public Interest, cannot and will not investigate and report on wrongdoing at the highest levels and will do nothing of consequence about wrongdoing at lower levels.

Then it is up to us to decide what to do about it, no longer up to them.

When the Government refused to look in to the many questions that surrounded the Florida presidential vote in 2000, a media consortium was formed to do so in its stead. Of course its report was delayed and then largely buried by the events of 9/11. But at least they did what Government could not or would not do on its own, and that report is still available.

Some version of that process is probably what we need in this case.

Sorry, LWM, the Government of the United States is no longer of, by or for the People; hasn't been lo, these many years. Let's stop pretending it is.