No End in Sight

[Michael Tee]

from an article on the documentary film, No End in Sight, about the Iraq war and the lies and stupidity that got the U.S. into it.

<<This weekend, thanks to Arianna Huffington, I had the opportunity to attend a screening of No End in Sight, Charles Ferguson's brilliant documentary about the Iraq war, the buildup, the fuck-up and the slide into chaos. . . .  Don't wait until it comes to Netflix because this is one film that must be seen in a theatre with a full sized theatre screen, not on a television set . . .  Only in the theatre will you see the true dimensions of the horror and the chaos that Bush brought down on the Iraqi people, and the criminal ignorance of the Bush administration that brought us to where we are today. It's Halloween -- a horror film in the shape of a fine documentary, one that lets events do the talking, the very best way to review history.

<<There is a point where incompetence and willed ignorance, infused with constant lying, becomes a criminal act. And this has happened to the Bush administration, where their mistakes have become crimes. This film is a stunning indictment of our President and his cohorts and the hell that they brought down on the Iraqi people, and its consequences for all Americans, beyond the insurgency -- the hatred that makes us so vulnerable today from any terrorists that our president created. It is hard to look at this film and not believe that Bush was a mole, a secret agent of Al Qaeda, for nothing those terrorist criminals might have done could have wreaked such havoc on the world and America as the acts of George Bush and company.>>

Read the whole review at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sherman-yellen/crimes-without-punishment_b_84826.html

Really, given the tremendous amount of right-wing drivel spewed out by the MSM, independent documentaries like this are the only way for the Amerikkkan people to learn the truth.  The problem of course is distribution, since none of the big theatre chains will touch this.  It's too bad film-makers can't showcase their products on the internet, free, for widest distribution and rely on world-of-mouth.  Of course they have to be paid for their efforts, maybe this could be done by foundations like Soros' or others.  Even though the Israeli and U.S. propaganda machines can outspend private foundations 10 to 1, quality and word-of-mouth have to count for something.  I've got the feeling that if the anti-war films continue to tell the truth and document it, that all the lies of the U.S. and Israeli governments, despite their deeper pockets, will come off looking shabby and the people will just know instinctively who are the bullshit artists and who are telling the truth.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Iraq is a dumber, more dangerous version of Vietnam.
Electing McCain in 2008 would be like electing that crook Nixon in 1968, a guarantee of more lives and treasure lost, ending in disaster.

[Michael Tee]

I don't think McCain will be elected, and the reason has nothing to do with Iraq (unfortunately) it's just that he's too fucking old.  The Chinese, who are supposed to venerate their elders, have a saying about guys like McCain:  "Old in vain."  Meaning, I guess, that he aged without acquiring any wisdom along the way.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Republican Party is quite good at being devious. The people are quite often moronic when it comes to politics, and they will do all they can to exploit Hillaryhatred and Blackhatred without actually calling it that, just as they managed to convince the sheeple that invading Iraq was a logical response to 9-11, despite the utter absence of Iraqi participation.

Reagan was ancient when he was elected, twice, and he had the shakes when he was elected the first time, and he got worse and worse as the years progressed. I don't think we can rule out election fraud, anthrax scares, bombings and even assassinations from what desperate Republicans might do to continue in control. After all, they need to cover up a ton of sh*t that Juniorbush and Cheney did.

[Amianthus]

After all, they need to cover up a ton of sh*t that Juniorbush and Cheney did.

Well, according to Mikey 8 months is enough to completely overhaul one of the largest industries in the US by the president, and apparently he can just override Congress to do it. I don't see why he can't accomplish a cover up in a much shorter period of time.

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't think we can rule out election fraud,>>

Rule it out?  It's a given.  The problem for the Republicans is that election fraud only helps in a tight race, and this one might be a Democratic landslide.

As far as assassination goes, that's a measure of last resort, when there's no other way to undermine a popular government.  It wasn't necessary to go that far with Clinton or Carter, and it wouldn't be necessary with Hillary either.  They were rather easily sidetracked and distracted.  If Barak wins, and is serious about real change, and smart enough to avoid the legislative roadblocks and PR disasters that befell Carter and Clinton, and articulate enough to keep a wide measure of popular support, it will become apparent that he is in fact capable of taking the country in a new direction, and then, unfortunately, he will meet the same fate as the "K brothers," JFK, RFK and MLK.  I kind of feel the "lone nut gunman" meme has just been taken about as far as it can go, so perhaps some illness will have to carry  him away, rather than a bullet.  Bullets have stretched the sheeple's credibility to the limits as far as what was really going down at the time, and I fear they won't swallow it a fourth time.

Whatever form the removal takes, a President who is serious about real change and capable of bringing it about will not be allowed to finish his term.  Unfortunately the need to "balance the ticket" means that he WON'T be succeeded by another agent of change.

[The_Professor]

"Whatever form the removal takes, a President who is serious about real change and capable of bringing it about will not be allowed to finish his term."

And the solution is?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Who says there is a solution?

But if there is one, it would be that the new president, anticipating his/her removal, would use the FBI and the CIA and every other means to root out the conspiracy to discredit and/or remove him/her.

Carter was set up by Kissinger to cater to the dying Shah and at the same time, keep a major number of staffers, including spies, in the Teheran Embassy.

Clinton was set up with Monica.

It would be an error to assume that the oligarchy would hire a boob as incompetent as Juniorbush to set up the next Democratic president.

As for the 'lone crazed gunman' scenario, it seems to have worked for Sirhan Sirhan. Virtually nothing about him or his motivation was ever divulged to the press. James Earl Ray was obviously hired by a cadre of racists, who may well have been empowered and/or set up by the oligarchy. Ray was not a racist, but more like a rather incompetent common thief. He alone would have not had all the money that allowed him to get a Canadian passport and to fly to Portugal and Africa and buy that new Mustang.

If Lee Harvey Oswald was simply a 'crazed gunman', there is still the difficulty presented by his being assassinated by Jack Ruby before there could be any sort of trial which would have revealed more about Oswald than might have been convenient. Oswald, of course, might well have been a tool without being aware of it, and the same could be true for Ruby.

A foreign crisis in any one of several countries could easily be used to set off a series of distractions for a President Hillary or a President Obama. The CIA (and other more secret agencies) are quite capable of causing a crisis and blowing it out of proportions.

[Plane]

As for the 'lone crazed gunman' scenario, it seems to have worked for Sirhan Sirhan. Virtually nothing about him or his motivation was ever divulged to the press.

He was working for Yassir Arafat.

[Michael Tee]

It was a remote possibility that Sirhan Sirhan was Arafat's agent.  If so, it was a real miscalculation on Arafat's part, but an understandable one.  There was a much more visible and powerful Jewish influence in the Democratic Party and practically none in the Republican Party.  Nixon was a real anti-Semite, which might not have been known at the time to Arafat, although hints of it had surfaced as far back as Nixon's campaign for Governor of California against Helen Geohagen Douglas.  Since RFK was the last great hope of the Democratic Party, Arafat may have figured that removing him from the picture would in effect lead to a Nixon administration less beholden to Jewish interests at that time than the Democrats were.

However, against that, you have to balance the interests of the Amerikkkan establishment, which had the entire direction of the country at stake (or could have had, if RFK was what he appeared at the time to be) as well as an infinitely greater in-country ability to plan and execute the hit.  The repercussions for Arafat, had it ever become known that he was behind the assassination would have been drastic, whereas the "CIA" (my shorthand for whatever national security agencies and/or personnel were involved) would have been confident of its ability to cover up after the fact, seeing as how they had done just that in the King and JFK assassinations.

On balance, I believe that the "CIA" was much more likely than Arafat to have ordered the hit, but Arafat can't be entirely ruled out.

[Plane]

It was a remote possibility that Sirhan Sirhan was Arafat's agent. 

I would have called this possibility remote also , except that Arafat once kidnapped an American ambassador and demanded Sirhans release for the ambassadors life.

This upgrades the possibility from remote to probable in my estimation.