Thom Hartmann on Rummy/Wolfowitz/Cheney and their legacy of fear ...

[NVMojo]

Excellent commentary ....needs more coverage ....love that Thom Hartmann!!! He ain't afraid!!!

Explosive BBC Doc Exposes
Decades-Old Neocon Deceits
Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power
By Thom Hartmann
12-28-4

For those who prefer to read things online, an unofficial but complete transcript is here: http://www.silt3.com/index.php?id=573


What if there really was no need for much - or even most - of the Cold War?

What if, in fact, the Cold War had been kept alive for two decades based on phony WMD threats?

What if, similarly, the War On Terror was largely a scam, and the administration was hyping it to seem larger-than-life?

What if our "enemy" represented a real but relatively small threat posed by rogue and criminal groups well outside the mainstream of Islam?

What if that hype was done largely to enhance the power, electability, and stature of George W. Bush and Tony Blair?

And what if the world was to discover the most shocking dimensions of these twin deceits - that the same men promulgated them in the 1970s and today?

It happened.

The myth-shattering event took place in England the first three weeks of October, when the BBC aired a three-hour documentary written and produced by Adam Curtis, titled "The Power of Nightmares http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

If the emails and phone calls many of us in the US received from friends in the UK - and debate in the pages of publications like The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html are any indicator, this was a seismic event, one that may have even provoked a hasty meeting between Blair and Bush a few weeks later. According to this carefully researched and well-vetted BBC documentary, Richard Nixon, following in the steps of his mentor and former boss Dwight D. Eisenhower, believed it was possible to end the Cold War and eliminate fear from the national psyche. The nation need no longer be afraid of communism or the Soviet Union.

more ...

http://www.rense.com/general61/ddoc.htm

[Mr_Spock]

1. "What if our "enemy" represented a real but relatively small threat"

Even a relatively dense person could figure this out in 15 minutes if they weren't so goddamn lazy.

"Nation of Cowards, Nation of Cowards,

We all live in a Nation of Cowards"

[glitch]

2. Let us not forget the still lucrative War on Drugs

Here is the original source of Hartmann's article, btw:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1207-26.htm

[Supersedeas]

3. this is no myth

[The Judged]

4. How many heeded VP's promise of terror if Kerry is elected?

In my mind, this overstepped free speech and entered the fray of the screaming "fire, fire."

Can a free speech expert elaborate on any connection here?

Also, it is possible to draw an election tampering charge from his actions in using his elected office to instill an outright fear of the ramifications of voting for an alternative to his and the presidents candidacy and declaring that this country will be struck again in a terrible way by terrorists if Kerry and Edwards are elected?

This is way beyond emphasizing political differences on domestic issues such as the economy, it was an outright placement of fear in the electorate, without either evidence or justification, other than political motivation to achieve victory on Election Day 2004: the end justifies the means.

To say that Kerry's economic agenda will hurt America is to at least address the fact that Kerry had an economic agenda, while to make a prediction of terror strikes as we have never seen if Kerry is elected is blatantly unfounded in any regard to reality yet has been reported by MSM to be a substantial factor in the * re-election, according to exit polls.

I guess my point is: is it OK to mislead, even when the subject of terrorism is at hand, and to emphasize to the public that the country will be hit hard and like never before if the opponent wins?

Could Kerry have said that * was going to cause the US to be nuked in 1-2 years because he allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons? Could Kerry have said that Osama Bin Laden would absolutely strike us if we re-elect Bush, whereas we will be safe if we vote for Democracy and elect him?

Should these tactics that play on actual fears that have resulted from actual terrorist attacks on our public safety be allowed to be part of our political campaigns? OR do they not satisfy the free speech laws of our nation?

While dozens of people did not die trampling themselves trying to escape a theater in response to some prankster screaming "FIRE, FIRE," many Americans (and i refer to Republicans here and as an asside to the theft of the vote without verification) did vote contrary to their own economic, social, political, and cultural needs in order to be protected by the Republicans from a foe that Republicans placed into their mindset during their campaign: terrorists.

Again, is this supported by free speech laws? Should it be?

grrr rough draft...