All of my ranting about W being the dummy to the Dickster's ventriloquist act brought back memories of the most incredible radio show of the 1930s (before my time) and 1940s (after 1945 for me): "The Edgar Bergen (father of Candace) and Charlie McCarthy Show." Think about it. A ventriloquist act on the radio. Who could see Bergen's lips? He could flap his lips through an entire show and the radio audience at home would never see it. Come to think of it, W and the Dickster would like to perpetrate a similar sham on folks all over again. If this is (fair & balanced) paltering, so be it.
[x Wikipedia]
Ventriloquism
Ventriloquism is an act of deception in which a person (ventriloquist) manipulates his or her voice so that it appears that the voice is coming from someone or more often, something else. The most familiar type of ventriloquist today is a nightclub performer sitting on a stool with a wooden dummy on his lap. This comedic style of ventriloquism, however, is a fairly recent innovation, less than 100 years old.
The roots of ventriloquism are ancient. Some claim that possessed people mentioned in the Bible were just ventriloquists, and the case has been made that diviners in many religions, including perhaps the Oracle of Delphi, were ventriloquists, or as they were once called, "Belly Talkers."
The version of ventriloquism with which most people are familiar, ventriloquism as entertainment, began in the days of Vaudeville in the late 19th century. The vaudeville acts did not concentrate on humor as much as on demonstrating the ventriloquist's ability to deceive the audience and his skill in switching voices. For this reason, many of the performers used multiple figures, switching quickly from one voice to another. Jules Vernon was one of the more famous American vaudeville ventriloquists who used multiple figures. Perhaps the most famous vaudeville ventriloquist, however, The Great Lester, used only one figure, Frank Byron, Jr., and it is the Great Lester's success which paved the way for the one ventriloquist with one figure routine which is so common today.
Ventriloquism was immensely popular in the middle of the 20th century, thanks in great part to the work of one of the Great Lester's students, Edgar Bergen. Bergen popularized the idea of the comedic ventriloquist, and together with his favorite figure, Charlie McCarthy, hosted a radio program that, in the 1930s and early 1940s, was the number one program on the night it aired. Bergen continued performing until his death in 1979, and his popularity inspired many other famous ventriloquists who followed him, including Paul Winchell, Jimmy Nelson, and Senor Wences.
Copyright © 2004 Wikipedia
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Who's The Dummy?
W Is The REAL Revisionist!
The Bush on 9/11 Timeline is more powerful than Michael Moore's My Pet Goat segment in Fahrenheit 9/11. No wonder the 4 Moms of the 9/11 Families are making W's life miserable. If I had lost a loved one in one of the 9/11 attacks, I would be slightly ticked off at the Commander-In-Chump. Now, I know why W insisted on meeting with the 9/11 Commission in tandem with the Dickster. W probably sat on the Dickster's lap in the usual ventriloquist's arrangement. The Dickster talks out of the side of his mouth anyway. Who can tell if his lips are moving? With W, if his lips are moving, you're hearing another lie. The real revisionist in trying to find out the truth about 9/11 is W. If this is (fair & balanced) gagging, so be it.
9/11 Commission Gave W A Get Out Of Jail Card
I have gotten as far as the activities of W and the Dickster in the 9/11 Report. (The reviews calling the Report a good read are not hype; it is the best read of any government document I've ever encountered.) After reading (and rereading) that section, my first thought: That dog won't hunt. So, I went to the ol' search engine and turned up this piece. Not only did the 9/11 Commission give W a pass (let alone allowing him to have the Dickster sit at his side—or on the Dickster's lap, like a good ventriloquist's dummy) on his actions while Rome was burning, but the news media in the United States has become the Rightist version of Pravda in reporting the facts. If this is (fair & balanced) revisionism, so be it.
[x CounterPunch]
The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies
by Bernard Weiner
Don't know about you, but all this who-knew-what-when pre-9/11 stuff is mighty confusing. So once again, I head to that all-purpose reference series for some comprehensible answers.
Q. I've heard all these reports about the government knowing weeks and months in advance of 9/11 that airliners were going to be hijacked and flown into buildings, and yet the Bush Administration apparently did nothing and denied they did anything wrong. They claimed the fault lay in the intelligence agencies "not connecting the dots," or that it was the "FBI culture" that failed. Can you explain?
A. Most of the "it's-the-fault-of-the-system" spin is designed to deflect attention from the real situation. Bush and his spokesmen may well be correct in saying they had no idea as to the specifics -- they may not have known the exact details of the attacks -- but it is more and more apparent that they knew a great deal more than they're letting on, including the possible targets.
Q. You're not just going leave that hanging out there, are you? Just bash Bush with no evidence to back it up?
A. There's no need to bash anybody. There is more than enough documentation to establish that the Bush Administration was fully aware that a major attack was coming from Al-Qaeda, by air, aimed at symbolic structures on the U.S. mainland, and that among mentioned targets were the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the White House, the Congress, Statue of Liberty. (According to Richard Clarke, the White House's National Coordinator for Anti-Terrorism, the intelligence community was convinced ten weeks before 9/11 that an Al-Qaeda attack on U.S. soil was imminent.)
Q. If they knew in advance that the, or at least an, attack was coming, why did the Bush Administration do nothing to prepare the country in advance: get photos of suspected terrorists out to airlines, have fighter jets put on emergency-standby status or even in the air as deterents, get word out to the border police to stop these "watch-list" terrorists, put surface-to-air missiles around the White House and Pentagon, etc.?
A. The explanation preferred by the government is to admit, eight months late, to absolute and horrendous incompetence, up and down the line (although Bush&Co., surprise!, prefer to focus the blame lower down, letting the FBI be the fall guy). But let's try an alternate explanation. Think about it for a moment. If their key goal was to mobilize the country behind the Bush Administration, get their political/business agenda through, have a reason to move unliterally around the globe, and defang the Democrats and other critics at home -- what better way to do all that than to have Bush be the take-charge leader after a diabolic "sneak attack"?
Q. You're suggesting the ultimate cynical strategem, purely for political ends. I can't believe that Bush and his cronies are that venal. Isn't it possible that the whole intelligence apparatus just blew it?
A. Possible, but not bloody likely. There certainly is enough blame to spread around, but the evidence indicates that Bush and his closest aides knew that bin Laden was planning a direct attack on the U.S. mainland -- using airplanes headed for those icon targets -- and, in order to get the country to move in the direction he wanted, he kept silent.
Q. But if that's true, what you've described is utterly indefensible, putting policy ahead of American citizens' lives.
A. Now are you beginning to understand why Bush&Co. are fighting so tenaciously against a blue-ribbon commission of inquiry, and why Bush and Cheney went to Congressional leaders and asked them not to investigate the pre-9/11 period? Now do you understand why they are trying so desperately to keep everything secret, tightly locked up in the White House, only letting drips and drabs get out when there is no other way to avoid Congressional subpoenas or court-ordered disclosures? They know that if one thread of the coverup unravels, more of their darkest secrets will follow.
Q. You're sounding like a conspiracy nut.
A. For years, we've avoided thinking in those terms, because so many so-called "conspiracies" exist only in someone's fevered imagination. Plus, to think along these lines in this case is depressing, suggesting that American democracy can be so easily manipulated and distorted by a cabal of the greedy and power-hungry. But I'm afraid that's where the evidence leads.
Q. You mean there's proof of Bush complicity in 9/11 locked up in the White House?
A. We wouldn't use the term complicity. So far as we now know, Bush did not order or otherwise arrange for Al-Qaeda's attacks on September 11. But once the attacks happened, the plans Bush&Co. already had drawn up for taking advantage of the tragedy were implemented. A frightened, terrorist-obsessed nation did not realize they'd been the object of another assault, this time by those occupying the White House.
Q. This is startling, and revolting. But I refuse to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon until I see some proof. Bush says he first heard about a "lone" pre-9/11 warning on August 6, and that it was vague and dealt with possible attacks outside the U.S. Why can't we believe him? After all, the FBI and CIA are notorious for their incompetence and bungling. You got a better version that makes sense, I'd love to hear it.
A. Bush and his spinners want us to concentrate on who knew what detail when; it's the old magician's trick of getting you to look elsewhere while he's doing his prestidigitation. We're not talking about a little clue here and another little clue there, or an FBI memo that wasn't shared. We're talking about long-range planning and analysis of what strategic-intelligence agencies and high-level commissions and geopolitical thinkers around the globe -- including those inside the U.S. -- saw for years before 9/11 as likely scenarios in an age of terrorist attacks.
The conclusion about Al-Qaeda, stated again and again for years by government analysts, was basically: "They're coming, by air. Get prepared. They're well-organized, determined, and technically adept. And they want to hit big targets, well-known symbols of America." (There was a 1999 U.S. government study, for example, that pointed out that Al-Qaeda suicide-bombers wanted to crash aircraft into a number of significant Washington targets; during the 199 5 trial of Ramsi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he revealed plans to divebomb a plane into CIA headquarters, and earlier he had told FBI agents that the list was expanded to include the Pentagon and other D.C. targets.)
Elements in the FBI, all over the country, who suspected what was coming, were clamoring, begging, for more agents to be used for counter-terrorism investigations, but were turned down by Attorney General Ashcroft; Ashcroft also gave counter-terrorism short shrift in his budget plans, not even placing anti-terrorism on his priority list; John O'Neill, the FBI's NYC anti-terrorism director, resigned, asserting that his attempts at full-scale investigating were being thwarted by higher-ups; someone in the FBI, perhaps on orders of someone higher-up, made sure that the local FBI investigation in Minneapolis of Zacaria Moussauoi was compromised. All this while Ashcroft was shredding the Constitution in his martial law-like desire to amass information, and continues even now to further expand his police-state powers.
(Note: An FBI agent has filed official complaints over the bureau's interfering with anti-terrorism investigations; his lawyers include David Schippers, who worked for the GOP side in the Clinton impeachment effort; Schippers says the agent knew in May 2001 that "an attack on lower Manhattan was imminent." A former FBI official said: "I don't buy the idea that we didn't know what was coming...Within 24 hours [of the attack], the Bureau had about 20 people identified, and photos were sent out to the news media. Obviously this information was available in the files and someone was sitting on it.")
One can accept the usual incompetency in intelligence collection and analysis from, say, an anti-terrorist desk officer at the FBI, but not from the highest levels of national defense and intelligence in and around the President, where his spokesman, in a bald-faced lie, told the world that the 9/11 attacks came with "no warning." More recently, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, in a quavering voice, tried to characterize the many warnings as mere "chatter," and concerned attacks "outside the U.S." But the many warning-reports focused on terrorist attacks both inside and outside the United States; the August 6th briefing dealt with planned attacks IN the United States.
Not only were there clear warnings from allies abroad, but the U.S., through its ECHELON and other electronic-intercept programs, may well have broken bin Laden's encryption code; for example, the U.S. knew that he told his mother on September 9: "In two days you're going to hear big news, and you're not going to hear from me for a while".
And, the word of an impending attack was getting out: put options (hedges that a stock's price is going to fall) in enormous quantities were being bought on United Airlines and American Airlines stock, the two carriers of the hijackers, as early as September 7; San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was warned by "an airport security man" on September 10 to rethink his flight to New York for the next day; Newsweek reported that on September 10, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns"; many members of a Bronx mosque were also warned to stay out of lower Manhattan on September 11, etc. etc.
Q. You're giving me intriguing bits and pieces. Can't you tie it all together and make it make sense?
A. OK, you asked for it, so we're going to provide you with a kind of shorthand scenario of what may well have gone down, a kind of narrative that attempts to tie a lot of disparate-seeming events together. There is voluminous, multi-sourced evidence that establishes this scenario. It's scary, so prepare yourself.
We believe that the HardRight began serious planning for a 2000 electoral victory -- and then implementation of a HardRight agenda, and the destruction of a liberal opposition -- a year or two after Clinton's 1996 victory. (The impeachment of Clinton was a key ingredient to sully Democrat opposition.) The GOP HardRight leaders decided early to select George W. Bush, a none-too-bright and easily malleable young man with the right name and pedigree. They ran into a speed-bump when John McCain began to take off in the public imagination, and so with dirty tricks they wrecked his campaign in the South and elsewhere, and continued on their merry course.
For a while, they fully expected an easy victory over dull Al Gore, tainted goods for a lot of conservative Republicans and others because of his association with Clinton, but, given the obvious limitations of their candidate, they weren't going to take a lot of chances. In Florida, for example, where it looked as if the race might be tight, they early on arranged things -- through Bush's governor-brother Jeb, and the Bush campaign's Katherine Harriss, Florida's Secretary of State -- so that George W. couldn't lose. An example: removing tens of thousands of eligible African-American voters from the rolls.
As it turned out, Gore won the popular vote by more than a half-million votes nationwide, and, we now know, would have won Florida's popular vote had all the ballots been counted, but the U.S. Supreme Court HardRight majority, despite its longtime support for states' rights, in a bit of ethical contortionism did a philosophical reverse in midair and ordered the Florida vote-counting to stop and declared Bush the winner, installing a President rather than letting the people decide for themselves.
Q. That's ancient history. I'm interested in 9/11, not tearing at an old scab.
A. OK. We're merely trying to indicate that the HardRight's campaign to take power was not an overnight, post-9/11 whim but worked out long in advance. After so many near-chances to take total control, they would do anything to guarantee a presidential victory this time around -- which would give them full control over the reins of power: Legislature (where HardRightists dominated the House and Senate), the Courts (where the HardRight dominated the U.S. Supreme Court and many appelate courts), and the Executive branch, not to mention the HardRight media control they exerted in so many areas.
They had followed the news, they knew that the Al-Qaeda terrorist network was engaged in a maniacal jihad against America, and was quite capable -- as they had demonstrated on many occasions, from Saudia Arabia to East Africa to the first attempt on the World Trade Center -- of carrying out their threats. They also knew, from innumerable intelligence reports from telecommunications intercepts, and from various commissions, CIA and foreign agents that Al-Qaeda liked to blow up symbolic icon structures of countries targeted, and that Al-Qaeda, and its affiliates, had an affinity for trying to use airplanes as psychologic or actual weapons. (The French had foiled one such attack in 1994, where a hijacked commercial airliner would be flown into the Eiffel Tower.)
By early 2001 and into the Summer, warnings were pouring in to U.S. intelligence and military agencies from Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Israel, and other Middle East and South Asian intelligence sources, along with Russia and Britain and the Phillipines, saying that a major attack on the U.S. mainland was in the works, involving the use of airplanes as weapons of mass destruction.
Indeed, in June and July of 2001, the alerts started to be explicit that air attacks were about to go down in the U.S.; even local FBI offices in Phoenix and Minneapolis began passing warnings up the line about Middle Eastern men acting suspiciously at flight schools. In July, Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airliners and traveled only by private plane, and Bush, after but a few months in office, announced he was going to ground, spending the month of August on his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Cheney disappeared from view, and our guess is that he was coordinating the overall, post-attack strategy.
Under this scenario, in mid-Summer 2001, Bush&Co. decided this was it. Bin Laden unknowingly was going to deliver them the gift of terrorism, and they were going to run with it as far and as fast and as hard as they could. The various post-attack scenarios had been worked out, the so-called USA Patriot Act -- which contained various police-state eviscerations of the Constitution -- was polished and prepared for a rush-job (with no hearings) through a post-attack Congress, the war plans against the Taliban in Afghanistan were readied and rolled out, the air-base countries around Afghanistan were brought onboard, and so on. All during the Summer of 2001.
Q. I don't understand how war against Afghanistan could have been anticipated so early.
A. Follow the money. Various oil/gas/energy companies had wanted a Central Asian pipeline to run through Afghanistan (costing much less to build, but also so it wouldn't have to go through Russia or Iran); that project was put on hold during the chaos in Afghanistan, but when the Taliban took over and brought stability to that country, the U.S. began negotiating with the Taliban about the pipeline deal. Even after sending them, via the United Nations, $43million dollars for "poppy-seed eradication," and inviting them to talks in Texas, the Taliban began to balk. At a later meeting, the U.S. negotiator threatened them with an attack unless they handed over bin Laden and reportedly told them, in reference to the pipeline, that they could accept "a carpet of gold" or be buried in "a carpet of bombs." (The later U.S. government spin was that the bin Laden issue and the pipeline issues were separate, and that the U.S. threats didn't mix the two and there were misunderstandings of what was said.) Shortly thereafter, bin Laden, hiding out in Afghanistan, initiated the September 11th attacks, and the U.S. bombing of that country began. Oh, by the way, in case you haven't noticed, under the new
Q. You're saying that U.S. war and foreign policy have been dictated by greed?
A. Among other pleasant motivations, such as hunger for domination and control, domestically and around the globe -- which always ties in with greed. That's why Bush&Co. play such political and military hardball. That's why the arrogant, take-no-prisoners, in-your-face attitude, to bully and frighten potential opponents into silence and acquiescence, even questioning their patriotism if they demur or raise embarrassing issues.
Q. But this is a democracy, people are still speaking their minds, right?
A. Certainly, there are areas of America's democratic republic that have not yet been shut down. But where there should be a vibrant opposition party, raising all sorts of questions about Bush Administration policy and plans, America receives mostly silence and timidity. However, as more and more of the ugly truth begins to emerge -- and Enron, Anthrax, and pre-9/11 knowledge are just the tips of the iceberg -- the Democrats (and moderate Republicans) are beginning to feel a bit more emboldened. But just a bit, preferring to run for cover whenever Bush&Co. accuse them of being unpatriotic when they raise pointed questions.
Q. You're so critical and negative about the Bush Administration. Can't you say anything good about what they're doing?
A. Yes. They have moved terrorism -- the new face of warfare in our time -- front and center into the world's consciousness, and have mobilized a global coalition against it. They may be making mistakes, which could lead to horrifying consequences, or acting at times out of impure motives, but at least the issue is out there and being debated and acted upon.
Now, having said that, we must point out that the institutions in this country -- the Constitution, the courts, the legislative bodies, civil liberties, the Bill of Rights, the press, etc. -- are in as much danger as they've ever been in. And the U.S.'s bullying attitude abroad may well lead to disastrous consequences for America down the line.
Q. So, what's to be done?
A. The most important thing at the moment -- even, or especially when, the inevitable next terrorist attack occurs -- is to break the illusion of Bush&Co. invulnerability. The best way to do that, aside from ratcheting up the Enron and Anthrax and 9/11 investigations (and it may turn out that those scandals are deeply intertwined), is to defeat GOP candidates in the upcoming November elections. If the Democrats hang on to the Senate and can take over the House, the dream of unchallengable HardRight power will be broken. Bush&Co. will become even more desperate, overt, nasty, and in their arrogance and bullying ways, will make more mistakes and alienate more citizens. The edifice will begin to crumble even more; there will be more and deeper Congressional and media investigations; resignations and/or impeachments (of both Bush & Cheney, and Ashcroft) may well follow.
Q. You're asking me to support ALL Democrats, even though in a particular race a moderate GOP conservative would be better?
A. Yes. In some cases, you may have to hold your nose and send money to, canvass for, and vote for a Democrat; we can get rid of the bad ones later. The objective right now -- for the future of the Constitution, and for the lives of our soldiers in uniform and civilians around the globe -- has to be to break the momentum of the HardRight by taking the House and keeping the Senate from returning to GOP control. Doing so would be even more important than what happened when that courageous senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords, appalled by the HardRight nastiness and greed-agenda of the Bush folks, resigned from the GOP and turned the Senate agenda over to the Democrats.
Q. And you think if the GOP gets its nose bloodied in the November election, that will convince Bush to resign or lead to his impeachment? I don't get that.
A. Churchill once told the Brits during World War II that "this is not the beginning of the end, but it is the beginning of the beginning of the end." There is a lot of hard work and organizing and educating to be done, but the recent exposure of Bush coverup-lies about pre-9/11 knowledge is "the beginning of the beginning of the end." With a GOP defeat in November, Democrats will be emboldened to speak up more, investigate deeper, and those inquiries will unlock even more awful secrets of this greed-and-powerhungry administration. And that will be the beginning of the end -- and the beginning of the beginning of a new era of more humane values for America and the rest of the world.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught American government & international relations at Western Washington University and San Diego State University; he was with the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly 20 years.
Copyright © 2004 CounterPunch
Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves Receives Reader Mail!
Wow! In this morn's e-mail was the message below. In posting a response on the blog, there is the risk of getting too techie for most tastes. However, it isn't the first technical complaint received from Wisconsin, either. The first complaint revolved around the interaction between the blog software and Internet Explorer. (Full disclosure here: I have stopped using Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser. The cyberpunk hackers are relentlessly attacking Microsoft's software and Internet Explorer is a malware writer's delight. Worms, viruses, Trojan Horses, spyware can invade your computer through the swiss cheese code that Microsoft engineers have written for Internet Explorer.) For some reason, Internet Explorer renders a blog page like mine in a font size that doesn't allow an entire post to appear on a computer screen. So my first reader mail asked: How can I view an entire, untruncated blog entry? And, of course—geek that I am—a fix was suggested: go to View in the topmost prompts in the browser screen. Click on View and then click on Text Size. In the popup menu, choose Small instead of the default Medium. Thereafter the full blog entry will be rendered by the Internet Explorer browser. Moving smoothly on to the most recent complaint, I must disclose that I do NOT write the code for this blog. Instead, I use "canned" (preformatted) templates supplied by Blogger. When I first started this blog on June 22, 2003 (More than 1 year of ranting & raving!), the software was available from Pyra Labs. Sometime later in 2003, Pyra Labs was acquired by Google and converted to freeware by the latest Internet behemoth. All of this history of Blogger aside, real computer nerds can modify or rewrite the Blogger code if that is their wont. (More full disclosure: I have very limited code-writing abilities.) So, I have changed preformatted templates for the third time in an attempt to find a format that will render clearly in all browsers (including Internet Explorer). There is a another quick and dirty workaround, though. Use Internet Explorer for the last time to visit the following sites:
- Download Deepnet Explorer 1.1
- Download Firefox 0.9.2
- Download Avant Browser 9.02 Build 101
- Download Opera 7.53 for Windows.
Choose your poison (I have all of the above installed and available and I never use Internet Explorer any more.) and read this blog in visual comfort. The Firefox browser is a faster version of Netscape. The Deepnet browser is based on the Internet Explorer look. The Avant browser is sui generis and doesn't resemble any other browser. Finally, the Opera browser was the first option other than Internet Explorer or Netscape to appear on my scope. All of the above browsers seem to render the newest format of this blog without a hitch. (Final disclaimer: the Deepnet browser pushed my profile and the archive links down to the bottom of the page; ditto for the Avant browser.) Final word: the Firefox and Opera browsers render this blog as the good Lord intended. Neither are under attack by cyberpunks, either. If this is (fair & balanced) self-promotion, so be it.
I thoroughly enjoy your site. It feels perfectly "left" for me.
Your recent format change has been nice. For some reason, however, it doesn't do well on my computer. For the first week or so everything was fine, all the print falling in the light tan area. Since then all the text is shifted way to the left of the screen (Is this an intentional effect?) so half the printing is in the brown field, and the other half on the lighter, easier to read light tan region. Have you had any other mention of this problem, or am I going to have to buy a Windows (ugh) computer to read your blog in visual comfort?
Keep up the entertaining work. It is much appreciated and enjoyed.
Regards,
A Reader