Bush on the Offensive

Bush on the Offensive

January 27, 2006

President George Bush appeared on the news this past week before employees of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the American people via the broadcasting of his remarks, in an attempt to justify what many legal scholars are calling his illegal (if not criminal) eavesdropping activities on conversations of American citizens.

Bush claims these activities are for the safety of America, and contends he is doing nothing illegal and that he fully intends to continue this activity; further contending that putting anything in writing, such as Congress passing a law regarding the eavesdropping activities, would jeopardize the program, releasing information beneficial to the terrorists.

Of course, Bush’s intonation is that a terrorist is an evil person, part of an organized effort, bent on destroying America. Well, put that way, who could possibly disagree?

But wait, is there more to this than meets the eye? Maybe a rush to judgment, based on what we are led to believe—versus what we know—isn’t in our best interests.

How is “terrorist” or “terrorism” defined? Wikipedia, the free, on-line encyclopedia has this to say:

“More precise definitions of terrorism tend to be relativist, because views toward particular acts of political violence are often only subjective, and rarely show satisfactory objectivity.”

It is easy to see that defining “terrorist” or “terrorism” is problematic — in the “eyes of the beholder” type thing. In other words, what one defines as terrorism, another might not.

From the United States Department of Defense comes this definition:

“the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”

Well, now doesn’t that just give us a warm and fuzzy feeling all over? So, if a group or individual foretells violence as the result of government action or the actions of society, based on political, religious, or ideological beliefs, could that not be construed as a threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear?

Remember that he who makes the rules, defines the terms. In this case, the one making the rules and defining the terms is the government of the United States, a government the American people are increasingly coming to understand no longer represents them or their interests, but is self-serving and oppressive.

Remember when

“academic” meant reading, writing, and arithmetic?
“test” was an objective measure of knowledge and the ability to use it?
“gay” meant happy or animated?

Under the new paradigm, these terms have taken on a whole new meaning, one that is subjective, not objective. They join a multitude of others affected by the shifting paradigm where up is down, down is up, left is right, and right is left and the meaning of words and phrases have taken on a whole new meaning that the American people, by and large, are not aware of, and the powers that be certainly don’t want them to be aware of.

In this same vein, how “terrorist” is defined today may not be how it is defined tomorrow given the shifting sands of flux. And since it is the government defining the terms, it could very well encompass anyone who opposes what the government wants, including any American who stands for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

FBI publications put out in the last ten years tend to characterize those

believing in the Constitution and Bill of Rights,
the Second Amendment,
who want the United Nations out of the United States and the control of the United Nations over United States sovereignty stopped,
who want the globalist policies of the economic elitists, as the policies pertain to the United States, stopped

… as extremists who might engage in violent activities to assert their political, ideological and religious beliefs.

There aren’t too many people, who understand the content and purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, who don’t fall into the FBI definition of extremist. In understanding the content and purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there aren’t too many people, who have studied the history of the United Nations, it ideological, political and religious proclivities, who don’t understand the threat the United Nations presents to Americans and American sovereignty.

The obvious conclusion—intended or not—is that the FBI tends to label as extremist anyone who does not agree with the current ideological, political, and religious positions taken by the current government in Washington, DC. This shifts the purpose of the FBI from that of protecting the Constitution and Bill of Rights (a.k.a., the people) to that of protecting the ideological, political and religious positions of the United States Government. The result of that shift made itself apparent at Ruby Ridge in Idaho and the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas.

The CIA, as the agent of the United States Government, is well known for engaging in and supporting terrorist activities (as defined by the US DOD) for many years. For instance,

the Guatemalan death squads (mid-80’s),
the violent overthrow by Baathists (the party of Saddam Hussein) of Iraq in the 60’s,
the arming and financing of the Contras (the infamous Iran-Contra affair),
the backing of the Taliban in Afghanistan (first friend, then enemy),
the training of Osama bin Laden in terrorism camps in Afghanistan,
the invasion of Panama to remove CIA operative General Manuel Noriega (first friend, then enemy) from power,
the mining of the Corinto harbor in Nicaragua (1984),

… to name a few. Then, of course, there is Operation Northwood which came to light recently with the release of formerly held top secret documents. Another of those “created crisis” our government is becoming well-known for. And, too, there are many questions surrounding the events of September 11, 2001, which the United States Government has never satisfactorily answered.

This type of activity is known as “state sponsored terrorism.” So when we talk about nations sponsoring terrorism, and the pointing of fingers at Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran and other middle-eastern countries, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? How can Bush and company justify state sponsored terrorism by the United States while at the same time pointing an accusatory finger at other countries engaged in the same activity?

Or is it okay for the United States Government to sponsor terrorism in other countries if that terrorism furthers the imperialist goals of the U.S. Government but not necessarily those of the citizens of those countries being terrorized?

A spade is a spade, folks. As I stated in “Slip Sliding Away” many of these terrorists groups, taking their vengeance on America are doing so because of the imperialist policies the United States Government has exercised against those people and the countries they live in. Those imperialist policies have garnered the United States a laundry list of enemies.

The connections between the Bush family and Osama bin Laden have been long since established. Kinda makes you wonder, given Bush’s botched justification for invading Iraq and the lack luster search for bin Laden, just what the connection between the two might still be that the American people don’t know about.

Bush’s contention that exposing his illegal (if not criminal) eavesdropping activities will give valuable information to the enemy necessitates asking “who is the enemy?” Is it really “those terrorists” or is it the United States Government who has visited upon the people of this nation heinous acts of violence because of the imperialist policies of the United States Government?

President George Washington, in his farewell address to the people, stated,

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with as little Political connection as possible.—So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.—Here let us stop.”

So strongly did President Washington feel on this topic that he spent almost half of his speech delineating the pitfalls awaiting the United States should we fail to heed the warning.

But stop we have not; the result being imperialist policies implemented by our government, the consequence being retaliatory measures against the American people by other nations.

George Washington understood what people today do not—that our nation, as established, was unique in its structure and foundation. To maintain that structure and foundation would require that we remain strong in defense and independent of the agendas and politics of other nations.

One of justifications of despots and tyrants for secrecy is to keep valuable information out of the hands of the “enemy” who remains nameless and faceless. How is that any different than what Bush is trying to justify doing? The old adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely comes to mind.

And, of course, his justification for eavesdropping continues to fall flat in the face of the open borders, north and south.

Bush has a credibility problem, one of his own making.