UPDATED: "A threat to national security!" - Deep State's excuse for doing whatever it likes, regardless of the Constitution or other laws

9/11 changed everything. Right? Everybody knows that. Until 9/11, America, having won WWII single-handed, was thought by its people to be impregnable. [= can't have children? Ed.] The idea of enemies, especially backward barbarians [= people with beards. Ed.] attacking and killing Americans on their own soil was inconceivable [= can't have children? Ed.]

Then 9/11 happened and the United States of America became what I call the Paranoid States of America. I am not alone in thinking that Americans panic easily. The late great George Carlin said those exact words in a bit about "germs", which he performed years before the Great Dempanic. 

But this is not about the threat to the nation's wellbeing posed by the Wuhan flu or monkeypox or whatever health crisis comes along tomorrow. This is about how the Deep State used 9/11 to take control of the administration and take away Americans' freedoms, all in the name of "national security".

What follows is excerpted from The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth in Bush's America, by Frank Rich (Penguin 2006). Talking about the Great Anthrax Scare -- remember that? -- which began just three weeks after 9/11, Mr Rich writes:

Bush said little about it, delegating the problem to ineffectual Cabinet members like [Tommy] Thompson, the secretaryof health and human services, and the attorney general, John Ashcroft.... They were Keystone Kops in the costumes of bureaucrats, ready at any time to slip on a banana peel....

Ashcroft often shook as if he'd just seen not only great Caesar's ghost, but perhaps John Mitchell's as well. In his disregard for the law, Ashcroft often did seem determined to emulate the Watergate-era attorney general, though on a grander scale.

It wasn't enough for Congress to enhance his antiterrorist legal arsenal legitimately by passing the USA Patriot Act before most of those on the Hill had taken the time or the trouble to read it; the attorney general changed other rules without consulting senators or congressmen of either party at all.

He abridged by decree the Freedom of Information Act, an esssential check on government misbehavior during peace and war alike, and discreetly slipped into the Federal Register a new directive allowing eavesdropping on conversaqtions between some lawyers and clients.

If the administration was really proud of grabbing "emergency" powers at wartime, why was it doing so in the dead of night? Ashcroft refused repeated requests to explain himself before congressional committees. At one House briefing where he did show up, he told congressmen they could call an 800 number if they had any questions about what his department was up to.

Remind you of anyone? Sounds to me like Merrick Garland, answering for the FBI raid on President's Trump's Florida home! Getting back to what Mr Ashcroft did, supposedly to protect national security, Mr Rich continues:

Ashcroft's Justice Department seemed to be squandering time and resources on wild goose chases that pumped up arrest numbers without making any progress on tracking down terrorists.... But Ashcreoft had been zealous and then some about warning of other terrorism attacks while the anthrax threat was proceeding under his nose. 

The first alert of a probable new attack was issued two weeks after 9/11. On the first month anniversary of 9/11, the attorney general and the FBI warned again that new attacks by terrorists either in America or overseas might happen in the "next several days." Bush endorsed this alert, but neither he nor anyone in the government explained how serious the threat was or what form it might take or when it might happen.

Before you say "So what? That's ancient history... and Bush was a Republican," please consider that the DOJ and other organs of the Deep State never gave back the far-reaching and unconstitutional powers they arrogated [excellent word -- look it up. Ed] to themselves in the aftermath of 9/11.

The Deep State and their bought-and-paid-for media say now that President Trump's keeping certain unspecified "top secret documents" mixed in with other papers at Mar-a-Lago represents a "threat to national security". I would like to know from whence comes that threat?!

Who is threatening the Paranoid States of America, now that Saddam Hussein has been killed, along with Obama Bin Laden and their successors. Who hates America and Americans enough to wage jihad against the Land of the Somewhat Free? 

OK, it's the Islamic extremists, right, the ones who pulled off 9/11 but haven't really done anything horrible on American soil since. Is the DOJ seriously suggesting that Mr Trump is somehow colluding with the mad mullahs and will reveal to them our plans to start the Gulf Wars again?

If not the Arabs, then how about the Russians? The Dumbocrats already tried without success to portray Messrs Trump and Putin as co-conspirators against Democracy with a capital D. It didn't work. China, then? Couldn't be. China only does business with Hunter Biden and Mr. Big.

So I repeat... where is the threat to national security? If, anywhere in the three dozen boxes of papers which have now been taken away from the Trump residence, there is one single iota, jot or tittle of evidence proving that President Trump was planning to sell out or otherwise harm the US of A, I'd like to see it. 

UPDATE ADDED 28/8/22: A federal judge in Florida told the Justice Department on Saturday to provide her with more specific information about the classified records removed from President Donald Trump's Florida estate. and said it was her "preliminary intent" to appoint a special master in the case, as requested by the former president's lawyers, who complained that the Feds didn't disclose enough information about exactly what was seized when the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago on August 8th.

FURTHER READING: "Unsealed Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit reveals the government has no case against Trump", by Kevin Brock, The Hill, 28/2/22. 

Anti-Trumpers' hair all ablaze over Kavanaugh nomination

President Donald Trump (still loving the sound of it!) went one prime-time TV last night to announce his nominatin of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh has impeccable credentials, having clerked for outgoing Supreme Anthony Kennedy and served as White House Staff Secretary during the Presidency of George W. Bush. He also played a lead role in drafting the Starr Report, which urged the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

Predictably, the POTUS' signature was barely dry on the nomination when the (((controlled media))) and liberal bloviators began their campaign against Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation. Mere seconds after the conclusion of the presidential address to the nation, weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth were heard throughout the land. Typical was a statement released by the far-left PAC Democracy for America, which called Judge Kavanaugh a "reactionary ideologue" whose confirmation would "directly lead to the deaths of countless women with the dismantling of abortion rights."

Elsewhere, an organization (?) styling itself "the Women's March" said ominously: "Trump’s announcement today is a death sentence for thousands of women in the United States. Stripping a woman’s ability to make decisions about her own body is state violence. We cannot let this stand. We will raise our voices and take to the streets." In an embarrassing blunder, though, the Women's March statement began: "In response to Donald Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court" -- indicating that the group didn't expect to have to change its pre-written press release, no matter who was nominated.

Last night the Canadian Broadcorping Castration devoted nearly ten minutes of The National (its nightly newscast) to a panel (including a woman and a black man, of course) who "analyzed" the effect on Canada of the nomination of an "arch-conservative" to the American Supreme Court. And this morning the Clinton News Network weighed in with a piece headed "Red state Democrats can easily oppose Beltway Brett Kavanaugh".

And so it begins. The anti-Trump, anti-Kavanaugh ads have already been produced, and time and space booked, paid for by (((you know who))). Expect a down-and-dirty campaign against the President's nominee. But don't expect confirmation to fail! First Neil Gorsuch, now Brett Kavanaugh. A dramatic and long-lasting rightward shift on the Supreme Court -- that's what is beginning!

Further reading: "Hollywood Resistance Freaks over Kavanaugh Nomination: ‘Will Cement the First American Dictatorship’", by Jerome Hudson, Breitbart News, 10/7/18.

Aesop's fable: The Grasshopper and the Ant - politically correct version

Canada's self-styled "national newspaper", the Globe and Mail, is one of the chief practitioners of political correctness, second only (in that country) to the CBC. Recently, however, they ran an editorial -- "The threat of political correctness, real and imagined" -- commenting on an Angus Reid survey which revealed that the overwhelming majority of Canadians polled think political correctness has gone too far.

The irony of the oh-so-PC Groan & Wail questioning its goodself was not lost on the majority of those who commented. (Gotta give the Globcredit for at least allowing comments.) Someone who posts under the pseudonym "ForsterBarry" put up this rather lengthy piece, which Walt thinks deserves to be reposted in full. It's the PC version of Aesop's fable of The Grasshopper and the Ant.

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears as support on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing "It's Not Easy Being Green". ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the SEIU group singing "We shall overcome". Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper, while he damns the ants. President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the Grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally, the EEOC drafts The Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper. The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his freeloading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food, while the government house he is in -- which you may recall just happens to be the ant's old house -- crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug-related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighbourhood. The entire nation collapses, taking down the rest of the free world with it.

War endangers our freedoms! (Didn't you know?)

I can hardly wait to see Michael Moore's latest opus, Where to Invade Next, his first film in six years. Here's the trailer.



Where to Invade Next received much critical acclaim at TIFF and other film festivals, and is being much talked up by the lamestream media for being "funny" and not as dark and disturbing as his best earlier works. That got me thinking again about Fahrenheit 9/11, recommended here a few days ago in a message to Republican voters who might have been thinking about supporting JEB! in the primaries.

One of the main themes of Fahrenheit 9/11 is the way in which Dubya and his war-hawk cronies engineered the "War on Terror" and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to gain more and more power over the American people through the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and so on. The result is that now, more than ever before, the Paranoid States of America is a police state!

Which brings us to Democracy in America, by Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville, a French political thinker and historian. De La Démocratie en Amérique is a classic text, published in two volumes, the first in 1835 and the second in 1840, in which M de Tocqueville examines the democratic revolution that he believed had been occurring in Europe and then America over the preceding seven hundred years. He had something to say about the relationship between war and freedom. Here's a quote from a 1945 translation.

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.... War does not always give over democratic communities to military government, but it must invariably and immeasurably increase the powers of civil government; it must also compulsorily concentrate the direction of all men and the management of all t hings in the hands of the administration. If it does not lead to despotism by sudden violence, it prepares men for it more gently by their habits. All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and the shortest means to accomplish it.

I found that quote in The Ordeal of Total War, by Gordon Wright (Harper & Row, 1968). Here's Mr. Wright's commentary.

Tocqueville's dictum, appropriate enough in his own day, is even more applicable in the twentieth century. When nations must mobilize their total resources for a long struggle, the normal tensions between authority and liberty are intensified, and the trend toward dictatorship affects even the most democratic of nations. Where parliaments survive, their usual functions are sharply restricted; decision-making becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small executive group, or even in those of one man.

That was in 1968, before Americans learned the truth about Vietnam, before Nixon, before the Clintons and the Bushes. If Mr. Wright is still alive, he could justly say, "Don't say you weren't warned." Although it seems he doesn't stress the point in Where to Invade Next, Michael Moore can say the same thing.

Reflections on South Carolina and Nevada

There were no upset winners in yesterday's Democratic caucus in Nevada or South Carolina's Republican primary. There were, however, a couple of losers.

One loser was apparent and expected. That would be JEB! All the Establishment money couldn't save him, nor could his little big brother's endorsement. See "Republican voters: WATCH 'Fahrenheit 9/11'!" (WWW 17/2/16) So now JEB! has bid us a tearful farewell. Or has he?! How come no putative candidates quit any more? Why do they just "suspend" their campaigns? Are we to believe that if some horrible accident should befall the Donald (just sayin'), JEB! will rise Lazarus-like from his crypt in Coral Gables?

If you think about it, the big loser in the Republican primary wasn't JEB!, but Ted Cruz. At one point last night he was deadlocked with Marco Rubio, with exactly the same number of votes. In the end, Mr. Rubio squeaked into a distant second place, finishing ahead of TrusTED by just over 1000 votes. Mr. Rubio thus becomes the "moderate" or Establishment alternative to Mr. Trump, leaving Mr. Cruz, errr, nowhere.

Not really a surprise, since he was never going to get many MOR [= Middle Of the Road. Ed.] GOP votes. They hate him. To beat the Donald or even come close, Ted had to get the Tea Party voters, not just the happy-clappy Protestant fundamentalists. Too bad for him that the Tea Partiers hate him too.

Before we leave the Republicans, take a look at the results map appearing in today's Washington Post. The only counties who went for Mr. Rubio were around the state capital and along the coast near Charleston. Mr. Trump swept the rest. Those who think that the media darling SC governor's tearing down of the Southern Cross represented the true feelings of South Carolinians should give their heads a shake!

As for Nevada, Hellery Clinton's cries of victory seemed to me more relief than exultation. CNNPolitics calls her win "decisive", but they would say that, wouldn't they. Walt doesn't call 5.5% decisive, especially when you consider that just a couple of weeks ago her margin was expected to be in the double digits. Entrance and exit polls showed that Madame Clinton was backed by a majority of women, college-educated voters, those with annual incomes over $100,000, moderates, voters aged 45 and older and non-white voters. Bernie Sanders did best with men, voters under 45 and those less affluent and educated.

The once and (she hopes) future First Lady captured the backing of voters who said electability and experience were important. BERNie, however, did best with voters looking for a candidate who is caring and honest. That an aged socialist Jew from New England should come as close as he did in a state like Nevada tells me that Hellerey is far from home and dry. Keep looking over your shoulder, dear. The footsteps behind you aren't just Bill's!

France: Setback for le Front National; what if Islamists take over?

Walt admits to being not a little dismayed by the results of the runoff in France's regional elections, this past Sunday. Only a week before, I rejoiced -- a bit prematurely perhaps -- in the standings after the first round, which showed Marine Le Pen's Front National topping the polls, with as much as 40% of the popular vote. The remainder was split between the President François Hollande's socialists and the centre-right(ish) Union de la Droite, led by former president Nicolas Sarkozy.

Under the French system, where no-one gets a majority (50% + 1) in the first round of voting, another round is held, dropping off lesser candidates, until someone emerges a clear (majority) winner. It was widely believed -- or hoped, in some quarters including this one -- that Mme Le Pen had a good chance of winning the run-off in Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie, her region in the northeast of France, as did her niece Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, who had won the first round in the southeastern region of Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur.

Alas, it was not to be. What happened, in a nutshell, was that the socialists tanked, going so far as to actually withdraw their candidates in Mme Le Pen's region, telling their adherents to vote for the Union to stop the Front. Simple... and stupid... as that. So, the FN was defeated in all six regions where it had led the polls in the first round, and France is safe for democracy and multiculturalism. For now.

Let me draw an analogy here. Suppose Hellery Clinton gets the Democratic nomination -- hardly a long shot -- and Jeb beats out the Donald for the GOP nod, leaving Mr Trump to run as an Independent. And suppose Mr. Trump finishes first, with 40% of the vote, with Bush III second and Mrs. Bill third. What happened in France is like unto what would happen in the USA if there were a second round of voting and Queen Hillary told all the Democrats to get behind Jeb to stop Trump (thus to keep America democratic if not Democratic, etc). Got it?

For the French, there's always 2017, when it will be time once again for a presidential election. It may well come down to Hollande vs Sarkozy vs Le Pen. Then we'll see.

As long as we're supposing things about France, here's a thought. What if, by the time 2017 rolls around, enough Islamists are French citizens (or vice versa) that they can make or break one of the candidates. Maybe they could even form their own party and, supported by all those who denounce racism and celebrate diversity, win the election.

An Islamist government in France! What would that be like? In "What if the Islamists took France?", the National Post's Ian Hunter writes about Michel Houellebecq’s novel Submission, set in France in 2022 (the year of the next presidential election after that of 2017). "The message I took from the novel Submission", he says, "is that it is already too late. Western civilization has lost its core beliefs, and its will to survive."

Hm. Maybe Submission should be on Walt's required reading list. Or maybe not. After all, it's possible to imagine an Islamist takeover of France, but not, surely, Britain... or Canada... or the United States of America.

How our governments gull us into supporting unjust, unwinnable and STUPID wars

"Gull" is defined in Ed.'s Annadales's English Dictionary as "v.t. To make a fool of; to trick; to mislead by deception". Gulling the voters is a black art practised since time immemorial by politicians throughout the world. Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." But he and his successors have mostly succeeded in fooling most of the people most of the time.

This is particularly true when it comes to persuading peace-loving people that making war is in their best interests. Walt believes that most people would prefer not spend their fortunes and lives and fortunes waging war, not to kill or be killed. But our so-called leaders -- Obama, Bush, Harper, Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, Blair, Cameron, Harper (choose the one(s) you've been gulled into voting for -- tell us doing so is in the national interest, which means in our best interests. Total bullshit, but most of the people buy it, most of the time.

The sad thing is, they get away with it -- with sending our boys (and girls and "others") where they themselves would never go, with spending your (not their) tax dollars by the billions -- so easily. How do they do it? Here's a quote from Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring:

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship....

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brough to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country greater danger. It works the same way in any country.

Herr Göring said that in 1946, shortly before he was sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against humanity. The quote appears at p. 215 of Jon Krakauer's Where Men Win Glory (Doubleday 2009), which Walt recommends highly.

Where Men Win Glory is the story of Patrick Daniel "Pat" Tillman, RIP, killed by members of his own platoon on 22 April 2004 while on patrol in eastern Afghanistan. Before enlisting in the US Army, Corporal Tillman (he was promoted posthumously from the rank of Specialist) was a football player, who had a pretty good run in college ball and then in the NFL. He walked away from this $3.6-million NFL contract because he was deeply troubled by 9/11, and felt a strong moral obligation to join the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

In other words, he was gulled by Bush II, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and all the others who dragged America into the Muslim civil wars for the sake of... of what? Oil? Bringing civilization and democracy to the heathens? Or... what?

When Mr. Tillman signed on, the US military and its propagandists (Hello, Jim Wilkinson!) tried to make Tillman an inspirational emblem for their "Global War on Terror", but he refused to do any media interviews. Soon after beginning his first tour of duty in Iraq, the scales fell of his eyes. He openly declared the war was "illegal as hell". The more he saw of the American invasions of Iraq -- the "battle" of Nasiriyah, for instance -- and Afghanistan, the more disgusted he got, but he was determined to finish his three-year hitch as matter of duty and honour. Sadly, an inexperienced and trigger-happy US Ranger ended his life.

But did the US military's propaganda machine relent? Nooooooo! At first, the Army told credulous reporters that Corp. Tillman had been killed by enemy fire. It wasn't until 28 May 2004 that the Pentagon notified his family that he had died as a result of a friendly fire incident. The family and other critics allege that the Department of Defense delayed the disclosure for weeks out of a desire to protect the image of the US armed forces and portray Corp. Tillman as a hero of a just war.

In Chapter 33 of Where Men Win Glory, we read:
The White House was frantic to come up with something to divert attention from the deadly quagmire that Iraq had become, precisely as Osama bin Laden had gleefully forecast. The president [Bush II] was facing an increasingly tough campaign to win a second term in the White House, the election was barely six months away, and his approval ratings were plummeting. When Tillman was killed, White House perception managers saw an opportunity not unlike the one provided by the Jessica Lynch debacle thirteen months earlier....

Following Tillman's death, there was nothing to prevent the Bush administration from using his celebrity to advance its political agenda. [Jim Wilkinson's successors] wasted no time in concocting a narrative about Tillman that they hoped would distract the American public in the same way that Wilkinson's fable about Lynch had....

While he was alive, Tillman had been the object of tremendous public fascination, and White House officials guessed that selling him as a fallen war hero would send the media into an orgy of adulatory coverage. They were not disappointed.

Well, the Bush Wars in the sandpits of Iraq and Afghanistan are over. It's hard to say who won, but not so hard to say who list -- the people of America and the other members of the "Coalition of the Willing". And the American wars of empire (or oil, or whatever) didn't really end. They only morphed into the Obama War against terrorism, another "just war" to bring the benefits of civilization and democracy to the benighted... wait, didn't I write that before? Yes, we've seen this movie before -- there actually is a made-for-TV movie: The Tillman Story -- and we'll see it again... and again... until we listen to real leaders like Ron Paul and refuse to be gulled any more!

Mission accomplished... NOT! Iraq explodes again

Looks like the cradle of civilization is becoming even less civilized -- or more uncivilized -- this week, as the world lurches ever close to the Armageddon.

Walt refers to the looming disaster in Iraq, and suggests you have a look at the map of the "cradle" in "The Coffin of Civilization", posted here back in September of 2012. See the part of the "Fertile Crescent" labelled "Assyria"? That's modern-day Syria. "Akkad" roughly corresponds to Iraq. Here's a modern map, showing today's porous borders. Consult your programme while Walt explains who's killing whom.

The yellow stain of violent Islamic extremism starts in north-eastern Syria where jihadist rebels are fighting the forces of "Basher" Assad's government, then spreads east into northern Iraq, where the majority Kurds -- also Muslims -- have been agitating for ages to establish an independent state. In fact they already have a government of sorts in the three Iraqi states shown in olive grey.

The insurgents coming in from Syria represent a new "organization", even worse than al-Qaeda, which they call "the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant". The abbreviation would seem to be "ISIL", but they have taken to using "ISIS", maybe because... well, who knows... Islam is not the monolithic religion many westerners think it is. Muslims like fighting with each other even better than waging war on infidels. [Maybe it's because we infidels are better fighters? Ed.] The ISIS jihadists are Sunni Muslims, and regard the Shia Muslims (the majority in Iraq) as, errr, also infidels.

The Kurds, as you can imagine, are encouraging the Sunni thugs to make their whey [Geddit? Kurds and whey? Ed.] quickly south to Tikrit and Baghdad, where the Shites [Ed., please check spelling] are, and leave "Kurdistan" to the Kurds. As of today, ISIS are in control of Mosul and Tikrit and are moving closer to Baghdad. Iraqi government troops are stripping off their uniforms and laying down their arms as fast as Egyptians fleeing from advancing Israelis.

Cue the inevitable "Something must be done!" from Western leaders, the Disunited Nations, etc etc. But what?! How about sending US troops in to restore order. Considering what a great job the American-led "coalition" did last time, maybe not! Even President Hussein Obama has learned (Walt thinks) that going in is one thing, getting out quite another. Won't be doing that again!

But cheer up. Iran is ready to step into the breach! President Hassan Rouhani has denied reports that three units of Iran's crack Presidential Guards have already been sent to Baghdad to bolster Iraqi government forces' defences. But, he said, Iran stands ready to intervene if things get worse. And they are sending a dozen tanks fitted with special transmissions -- four speeds in reverse and one forward... in case the Sunnis attack from the rear.

Iran has close ties with the Shia-dominated Iraqi leadership which came to power after the Americans toppled of President Saddam Hussein, whose power base was the country's Sunni minority. That little exercise cost over $1,000,000,000,000 -- that's a trillion -- and over 4000 American lives. But it was worth it, right? Errr, maybe not.

Note from Ed.: I'm reminded of the old Iraqi lovesong: I Want a Gal Just Like the Old Bag Dad Had.

9/11: US version of the Reichstag Fire? What about MH370?

The Reichstag was the German parliament in the 1930s. The name also referred to the building which housed it. On 27 February 1933 the building was destroyed by an arson attack. Like subsequent events which changed history, it was initially blamed on "just one man, acting alone" -- Marinus van der Lubbe, a somewhat retarded Dutch bricklayer who was caught at the scene. He was also a card-carrying Communist. Thus the Nazis were able to claim that the Communists were plotting against the German government, which was true enough but hadn't been confirmed by any overt acts until then.

The burning of the Reichstag was a turning point in the rise of Nazi Germany. Hitler, who had become Chancellor of Germany just four weeks before the fire, talked President Paul von Hindenburg into passing an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties in order to counter the "ruthless confrontation of the Communist Party of Germany".

After passing the decree, the government instituted mass arrests of Communists, including all of the Communist parliamentary delegates. With their bitter rival Communists gone and their seats empty, the Nazis went from being a plurality party to the majority. Subsequent elections confirmed this position and thus allowed Hitler to establish his Third Reich.

Some historians suggest that the Mr van der Lubbe, a mildly retarded and suggestible person, was put up to the arson by the Nazis themselves, as what is now called a "false flag" operation. It's a movie which the world would see again... and again...

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is one of many groups of "truthers" who believe that the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 11 September 2001 was caused by a controlled demolition. (The official investigation says falling debris from the nearby Twin Towers ignited fires in Building 7 and ultimately caused its collapse.)

One of AE911's members, architect Richard Gage, is on a speaking tour, "raising a red flag" (his phrase) not just in the USA but in Canada. "We're not trying to upset anybody," says the self-styled patriotic American, [but] "if there’s any question about what happened on 9/11, which created two wars and the loss of our civil liberties and massive economic hardship...then we’ve got to get to a real investigation and answer these questions."

Who would have been behind this controlled demolition and perhaps the whole 9/11 outrage? Fingers were naturally pointed at Muslim terrorists. But there were those -- including the creators of South Park-- who painted a different picture. Could it not have been the government of Bush the younger, seeking to create a "casus belli" as an excuse to start Desert Storm II and create a police state in America?

Consider what followed in the aftermath of 9/11:
- legislation like the Patriot Act in the USA (and similar "security" laws in Canada, the UK, and elsewhere)
- a de facto police state where the power of the military and "security forces" is unquestioned
- the drastic curtailment of the freedoms we used to take for granted: to bear arms, to criticize the government, to travel in our countries
- the invasion and brutal occupation of Afghanistan by NATO of Iraq and Afghanistan, and
- a resurgence of American imperialism in the guise of being the world's policeman.

Suggested reading: "Too Many Years Of Lies: From Mossadeq to 9/11" by Paul Craig Roberts, author of How America Was Lost: From 9/11 to the Police/Warfare State (just released) and The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Which brings us to MH370, still unaccounted for as the guesses and theories multiply. The words "Muslims" and "terrorism" are on the tips of many tongues.

The pilot and co-pilot of the ill-fated plane were Muslims. (Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim country.) MH370 might have been hijacked by Uighur (Muslim) terrorists as part of an attack on China. (Unlikely, but who knows.) Or the Taliban or al-Qaeda might have diverted the plane to a secret airstrip to turn it into a giant flying bomb!

Nothing can be ruled out! For Walt, "nothing" includes the possibility that the American military may have diverted MH370 to a location they control, like Diego Garcia, which should have been within range.

Why would they do this? To divert attention from the failure of Obama's foreign policy in the Crimea? Or -- far worse -- to set that stage for a catastrophe in Afghanistan -- not a long flight from Diego Garcia -- which would "require" the Americans to stay in the sandpit for another couple of years, even if the Afghans don't want them there. You read it here first.

See also: MH370: Three guesses from Walt

Extraordinary topiary in Windsor, Canada

You remember George Bush, right? Did you know he had a brother named "Richard"? Or "Dick", for short. That's the affectionate nickname given by city parks employees to this cleverly trimmed shrub, located in a riverfront park in Windsor ON.

Unfortunately for "Dick", some of the local blue-stockings found its shape too stimulating. Complaints were made to city hall, and Dick is no longer in such good form. Click here to read the full story -- complete with better pix -- in the Windsor Star.

Yes, that's all I have for you today. I want to get in at least 9 holes before it rains. [I think Walt must be talking about golf. Ed.]

Krazai Afghan president calls NATO mission "failure"

Maybe Afghan president Mohammed Karzai is not so crazy after all. Maybe he's just telling it the way it is. Or maybe he's trimming his sails to run with the prevailing wind. The krazai guy is quoted in British Forces News today as calling the US-led "NATO" mission to save his country from the Taliban "a failure". Who can argue with that?

You might ask, a failure of what? Walt will tell you. Western intervention in Afghanistan -- for which the Excited States of America must take the lion's share [eagle's share? Ed.] of the blame -- is a failure of foreign policy, a failure of interventionism, a failure of modern military technology, a failure born of ignorance of other cultures and religions... I could go on. How much time have I got? [That's enough failure. Ed.]

If that's not enough to make Dubya and Tony Bliar choke on their cornflakes this morning, Karzai now says he intends to negotiate a power-sharing deal with the Taliban. "I will only be letting the camel's nose half-way in the tent," says the krazai guy, "and I'm sure they will abide by their Islamic promise not to take over everything." Kula haga mumkin!

Walt is only going to say this one more time... today. The rest of the world (particularly the Middle East) doesn't want American-style democracy. You don't have to look beyond the current standoff in Washington to understand why. And there's no reason why America should be the world's policeman. Particularly when it has proven incapable of doing so.

Walt says: forget about the Middle East! It's a sandpit full of heathen savages. Let them duke it out until Mohammed returns... or however the world is supposed to end, according to the Quran. Meanwhile, the money (and lives) saved can be usefully employed right here at home.