bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘JD VANCE’

POPES AND TYRANTS: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, RELIGION, Social commentary on April 22, 2026 at 12:10 am

On April 12, President Donald Trump wrote on X:  “Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. We don’t like a pope who says it’s OK to have a Nuclear Weapon.”         

Despite his escalating attacks on Pope Leo XIV over the pontiff’s opposition to the Iran war, Trump’s approval rating among Republicans has climbed to 86%. The poll was conducted by The Economist and YouGov on April 15. 

This includes high-ranking Republican leaders like Speaker of the House Mike Johnson: “A pontiff or any religious leader can say anything they want, but obviously, if you wade into political waters, I think you should expect some political response, and I think the pope’s received some of that.” 

Mike Johnson

And not to be outdone, Vice President JD Vance-–a Catholic convert who often calls himself deeply religious—said: “I think it’s very, very important for the Pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology.”

So much for the current actions of a Right-wing dictator. Now for those of a past one.

In 2005, Avvenire (“Future”), a daily newspaper which is affiliated with the Catholic Church and based in Milan, Italy, carried a story about Adolf Hitler’s plots to kidnap Pope Pius XII in 1943 and 1944.

The plots were part of a wider plan to “abolish” Christianity and replace it with a religion in which Hitler would be worshipped as the savior of humankind.

But instead of kidnapping the Pope, SS General Karl Wolff, in charge of the SS in Italy, went to the Vatican to warn Pope Pius XII of the danger he faced.

Wolff, who survived World War II, revealed the affair in a March 24, 1972 written statement to Vatican officials weighing the case for setting Pope Pius on the road to sainthood. 

File:Wolff1942.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Karl Wolff 

Jmac66999, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

Previously, Wolff testified at the Nuremberg trials that Hitler had talked of seizing the Pope in 1943. With Italy in ruins from Allied bombings and Italian armies defeated or in retreat everywhere, Italians were desperate for peace.

On July 25, Hitler’s fellow Fascist, Italian Prime Minister Benito Mussolini—who had held power since 1922—was overthrown. Summoned to the royal palace by King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, he was arrested and taken to a police station in an ambulance.

He was eventually transferred to the Hotel Campo Imperatore, in Italy’s Gran Sasso mountain range.

On September 12, 1943, he was rescued through a daring German airborne operation. German paratroopers and Waffen-SS special forces landed to free him from his imprisonment.

Although he was officially restored to power, he remained strictly a puppet of Hitler. His symbolic reign came to an end on April 28, 1945, when he was executed by Italian partisans.

Black-and-white portrait photograph of Mussolini crossing his arms

Benito Mussolini

Hitler exploded in rage at the news of Mussolini’s arrest—and ordered German troops in Italy to take over the country: “Drive into Rome and arrest the whole Italian government! Get the King and the whole bunch right away! Arrest the Crown Prince and the whole gang! Pack them into a plane and off with them!” 

Several generals asked what should be done with the Vatican.

Hitler replied: “I’ll go right into the Vatican! Do you think the Vatican embarrasses me? We’ll take that over right away. The entire diplomatic corps are in there. That rabble! We’ll get that bunch of swine out of there! Later we can make apologies!” 

In September, 1943, Hitler decided to occupy the Vatican, “secure the archives and the art treasures, which have a unique value, and transfer the pope, together with the curia [the papal bureaucracy], for their protection, so that they cannot fall into the hands of the allies and exert a political influence.”

Hitler feared the Pope would speak out against the Nazis’ deportation of Jews, and wanted to eliminate the Church as a political force in Italy.

Head shot of Pius XII

Pope Pius XII

The plan allegedly involved 2,000 SS troops blocking all Vatican exits to seize the Pope and cardinals. Proposed destinations for the kidnapped Pope included Liechtenstein or Lichtenstein Castle in Württemberg, Germany.

Wolff talked the Fuhrer out of the scheme, warning that it would prove an international political disaster. But in 1944, Hitler returned to the subject.

By May, 1944, American forces were advancing northwards through Italy, so Wolff had to shed his SS uniform when appearing in public.

On May 10, Wolff, wearing civilian clothes, met with Pope Pius XII in secret and warned him that he was in danger. He also assured the pontiff that he would not carry out the order. 

Pius asked Wolf to save the lives of two condemned prisoners, and this was arranged.

Nevertheless, fearing abduction, Pope Pius XII prepared a resignation letter to take effect immediately upon his arrest. The College of Cardinals would flee to neutral Portugal to elect a successor. 

The Germans evacuated Rome on the night of June 4-5, 1944.

Eighty-two years after Pope Pius XII faced the threat of terror by Adolf Hitler, an American-born Pope—Leo XIV—faces the threat of terror by Donald Trump.

POPES AND TYRANTS: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, RELIGION, Social commentary on April 21, 2026 at 12:10 am

It’s become commonplace for liberals to attack President Donald Trump as a reincarnated Adolf Hitler—and Republicans as Nazis.       

And Republicans furiously deny this, even as they embrace many of the same tactics—if not the goals—of Nazi Germany’s onetime rulers.

Throughout his first term as President, Trump adopted Hitler’s method of “negotiation” “Do what I want—or I’ll destroy you!” And it has remained so since his re-taking office on January 20, 2025. 

Opinion | Yes, it's okay to compare Trump to Hitler. Don't let me stop you. - The Washington Post

On February 28, Trump—in concert with Israel—launched a series of devastating, unprovoked airstrikes against Iran.          

Asked by a reporter how long the war would last, Trump arrogantly replied: “Any time I want it to end, it will end.” 

But then Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% to 30% of the world’s total daily oil supply passes.

Gas prices in the United States immediately rose. Analysts warned that if the disruption continued, gasoline prices could exceed $5 per gallon.

Strait of Hormuz

Facing an apparently unwinnable war that he had started, Trump found himself facing an unexpected opponent: Pope Leo X1V.

According to Christopher Hale, a political consultant and the editor of the popular Letters from Leo newsletter: Trump’s Pentagon has threatened to declare war on the Vatican.

“In January [2026], behind closed doors at the Pentagon, Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby summoned Cardinal Christophe Pierre-Pope Leo XIV’s then-ambassador to the United States—and delivered a lecture,” said Hale in an interview. 

“America has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world,” Colby and his associates told the cardinal. “The Catholic Church had better take its side.” 

One American official “reached for a fourteenth-century weapon and invoked the Avignon Papacy, the period when the French Crown used military force to bend the bishop of Rome to its will.”

Two weeks after the confrontation, the Vatican declined Trump’s invitation to host Pope Leo for the celebration of America’s 250th anniversary in July, 2026. 

The Vatican obelisk in St. Paul’s Square

Livioandronico2013, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

According to sources in the Vatican and Americans briefed on the Pentagon meeting: Colby’s team studied the Pope’s January state-of-the-world address. They decided it was an attack on Trump. 

What “enraged them most” was Leo’s line: “A diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force.” 

“The Pentagon read that sentence as a frontal challenge to the so-called ‘Donroe Doctrine’”Trump’s self-named update of the Monroe Doctrine.

Issued by President James Monroe on December 2, 1823, it officially prohibited European colonization and interference in the Western Hemisphere. And it was backed by the threat of an armed response to any such attempt.

On April 12, 2026, Pope Leo said that praying for peace was a way to “break the demonic cycle of evil” to build instead the Kingdom of God where there are no swords, drones or “unjust profit.

Photograph of Pope Leo XIV wearing papal regalia and glasses and slightly smiling. His dress consists of a white cassock with matching pellegrina and with white-fringed fascia, silver pectoral cross, and white zucchetto.

Pope Leo XIV

“It is here that we find a bulwark against that delusion of omnipotence that surrounds us and is becoming increasingly unpredictable and aggressive,” he said. “Even the holy Name of God, the God of life, is being dragged into discourses of death.”

On April 12, in talking to reporters, Trump furiously attacked the Pope: “I’m not a fan of Pope Leo.”  He charged that the Pope was not “doing a very good job” and that “he’s a very liberal person.” He suggested that the pontiff should “stop catering to the Radical Left.” 

On X, Trump wrote: “Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. We don’t like a pope who says it’s OK to have a Nuclear Weapon.”

This from a man who was convicted of 34 felonies on May 30, 2024. A New York jury found him guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree to conceal hush-money payments made to porn “star” Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. 

And he continued:  

“Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician. It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church!

“I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela, a Country that was sending massive amounts of Drugs into the United States.

Head-and-shoulders shot of Trump with a serious facial expression, his right eye partly closed. He is wearing a dark blue suit, a pale blue dress shirt, a red necktie, and an American flag lapel pin. Parts of the image are slightly out of focus. The background is black.

Donald Trump

“I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do. 

“Leo should be thankful because, as everyone knows, he was a shocking surprise. He wasn’t on any list to be Pope, and was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump. If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.”

Just as the majority of Nazis rallied around Adolf Hitler, so have Republicans rallied around Donald Trump.

Despite his escalating attacks on Pope Leo X1V over the pontiff’s opposition to the Iran war, Trump’s approval rating among Republicans climbed to 86%. The poll was conducted by The Economist and YouGov on April 15.

ALBERT ANASTASIA HAS A MESSAGE FOR DONALD TRUMP: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 21, 2025 at 12:10 am

From June 15, 2015, when he launched his first Presidential campaign, until October 24, 2016, Donald Trump fired almost 4,000 angry, insulting tweets at 281 people and institutions that had somehow offended him— in politics, journalism, TV and films.

The New York Times needed two full pages of its print edition to showcase them. 

Among his targets:

  • Hillary Clinton 
  • President Barack Obama
  • Actress Meryl Streep
  • Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger
  • Comedian John Oliver
  • News organizations
  • The State of New Jersey
  • Beauty pageant contestants

Donald Trump

Recently, Trump resurrected his longstanding feuds with megastars Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen. 

On May 19, he spent several hours on his website, Truth Social, attacking Bruce Springsteen, Beyonce and Bono for having supported Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 Presidential campaign.

In a 2 a.m. post on May 16, he charged that Harris could have paid Springsteen for an “illegal campaign contribution”–without providing any evidence to support it:

“HOW MUCH DID KAMALA HARRIS PAY BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN FOR HIS POOR PERFORMANCE DURING HER CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT?,” Trump wrote. “WHY DID HE ACCEPT THAT MONEY IF HE IS SUCH A FAN OF HERS? ISN’T THAT A MAJOR AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION? WHAT ABOUT BEYONCÉ? …AND HOW MUCH WENT TO OPRAH, AND BONO???

“I am going to call for a major investigation into this matter. Candidates aren’t allowed to pay for ENDORSEMENTS, which is what Kamala did, under the guise of paying for entertainment. In addition, this was a very expensive and desperate effort to artificially build up her sparse crowds. IT’S NOT LEGAL! For these unpatriotic “entertainers,” this was just a CORRUPT & UNLAWFUL way to capitalize on a broken system. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!”

And he added: This dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that’s just “standard fare.” Then we’ll all see how it goes for him!” 

Bruce Springsteen performing in 2024

Bruce Springsteen 

Raph_PH, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

When a 34-times convicted criminal controls the Justice Department and threatens to investigate a singer for endorsing a political candidate, there is nothing to prevent him from persecuting anyone.

Trump’s rant was triggered by Springsteen’s comment to a crowd a week earlier in Manchester, England:  “In my home, the America I love, the America I’ve written about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration. 

“They’re rolling back historic civil rights legislation that led to a more just and plural society. They’re abandoning our great allies and siding with dictators against those struggling for their freedom.”

Nor was Springsteen the only celebrity Trump declared war on. On May 16, he posted: “Has anyone noticed that, since I said ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,’ she’s no longer ‘HOT?’”  

At least in the past, Trump clearly had a soft spot in his pants for Swift. In November, 2023, he told  Variety co-editor-in-chief Ramin Setoodeh: “I think she’s beautiful—very beautiful! I find her very beautiful. I think she’s liberal. She probably doesn’t like Trump. I hear she’s very talented. I think she’s very beautiful, actually—unusually beautiful!”  

Swift glancing towards her left

Taylor Swift 

iHeartRadioCA, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

That apparent one-sided infatuation ended on August 18, 2024, when Trump posted AI-generated images that falsely suggested that Swift endorsed his presidential campaign. The images showed  women wearing “Swifties for Trump” t-shirts. 

In turn, Swift posted on Instagram: “Recently I was made aware that AI of ‘me’ falsely endorsing Donald Trump’s presidential run was posted to his site. It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation.

“It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter. The simplest way to combat misinformation is with the truth. I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them.”

Five days after Swift endorsed Harris, Trump, like a spurned lover, posted on Truth Social in all caps, “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!”

Republicans have shown they’re willing to tolerate—if not enthusiastically support—Trump’s

  • Brazen pardoning of about 1,500 criminals for attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021;
  • Supporting Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine;
  • Attacking America’s allies Canada and Greenland;
  • Slashing Medicaid, which provides medical care for the poor.

But they might—at last—be unnerved by the spectacle of Trump’s unhinged attacks on musical superstars Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen.

Both are more than entertainers; they are role models who command huge influence among even conservative voters Republicans fear alienating.

When Albert Anastasia threatened to become a liability to the ruling chieftains of the Mafia, they decided it was time for him to go—in a hail of bullets.

House and Senate Republicans won’t put a contract out on Trump. But they may decide that it’s time to stop reflexively supporting his every act of aggression, cruelty and egomania.

It’s also possible that members of his Cabinet—including his ambitions Vice President J.D. Vance—may decide it’s time to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment. They could issue a written declaration that Trump is emotionally unable to discharge his duties.

And cite his increasingly erratic behavior—such as his feud with Springsteen and Swift—as evidence.

Only time—and Right-wing ambition—will tell.

SALUTING THE AMERICANS WHO GAVE US 9/11: PART THREE (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 16, 2024 at 12:11 am

Colonel Brandt: “I wonder what we’ll do after we lose the war.”
Captain Kiesel: “Prepare for the next one.”

–-“The Cross of Iron,” film by Sam Peckinpah    

On September 12, 2001, President George W. Bush attended a meeting of the National Security Council.   

“Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just Al-Qaeda?” demanded Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense.

Vice President Dick Cheney enthusiastically agreed.

Secretary of State Colin Powell then pointed out there was absolutely no evidence that Iraq had had anything to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. And he added: “The American people want us to do something about Al-Qaeda”—not Iraq.

On November 21, 2001, only 10 weeks after 9/11, Bush told Rumsfeld: It’s time to turn to Iraq.

Related image

Liars Club: Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld

Bush and his war-hungry Cabinet officials knew that Americans demanded vengeance on Al-Qaeda’s mastermind, Osama bin Laden, and not Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. So they repeatedly fabricated “links” between the two:

  • Saddam had worked hand-in-glove with Bin Laden to plan 9/11.
  • Saddam was harboring and supporting Al-Qaeda throughout Iraq.
  • Saddam, with help from Al-Qaeda, was scheming to build a nuclear bomb.

Yet as early as September 22, 2001, Bush had received a classified President’s Daily Brief intelligence report, which stated that there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11.

The report added that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al-Qaeda.

Even more important: Saddam had tried to monitor Al Qaeda through his intelligence service—because he saw Al-Qaeda and other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime.

Bush administration officials repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed huge quantities of chemical and biological weapons, in violation of UN resolutions. And they further claimed that US intelligence agencies had determined:

  • the precise locations where these weapons were stored;
  • the identities of those involved in their production; and
  • the military orders issued by Saddam Hussein for their use in the event of war.

Among other lies stated as fact by members of the Bush administration:

  • Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, in west Africa.
  • Thousands of aluminum tubes imported by Iraq could be used in centrifuges to create enriched uranium.
  • Iraq had up to 20 long-range Scud missiles, prohibited under UN sanctions.
  • Iraq had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, including nerve gas, anthrax and botulinum toxin.
  • Saddam Hussein had issued chemical weapons to front-line troops who would use them when US forces crossed into Iraq.

Consider the following:

August 26, 2002: Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”

September 8, 2002: National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice said on CNN: ”There is certainly evidence that Al-Qaeda people have been in Iraq. There is certainly evidence that Saddam Hussein cavorts with terrorists.”

September 18, 2002: Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee, “We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons—including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.”

October 7, 2002: Bush declared in a nationally televised speech in Cincinnati that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

March 16, 2003: Cheney declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “We believe [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

March 30, 2003: On ABC’s “This Week” program, 10 days into the war, Rumsfeld said: “We know where they [weapons of mass destruction] are.”

Bush never regretted his decision to invade Iraq, which occurred on March 20, 2003.

Even as American occupying forces repeatedly failed to turn up any evidence of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs), Bush and his minions claimed the invasion a good thing.

In fact, Bush—who hid out the Vietnam war in the Texas Air National Guard—even joked publicly about the absence of WMDs.

He did so at a White House Correspondents dinner on March 24, 2004—one year after he had started the war.

Related image

George W. Bush at the 2004 White House Correspondents’ dinner

To Bush, the non-existent WMDs were nothing more than the butt of a joke that night. While an overhead projector displayed photos of a puzzled-looking Bush searching around the Oval Office, Bush recited a comedy routine.

Click here: Bush laughs at no WMD in Iraq – YouTube 

“Those weapons of mass destruction have gotta be somewhere,” Bush laughed, while a photo showed him poking around the corners in the Oval Office.

“Nope–no weapons over there!  Maybe they’re under here,” he said, as a photo showed him looking under a desk.

Meanwhile, an assembly of wealthy, pampered men and women—the elite of America’s media and political classes—laughed heartily during Bush’s performance. It was a scene worthy of the court of the ancient Caesars, complete with royal flunkies.

Ultimately, the war that Bush had deliberately provoked

  • Took the lives of 4,484 Americans.
  • Cost the United States Treasury at least $2 trillion.
  • Created a Middle East power vacumn.
  • Allowed Iran–Iraq’s arch enemy–to eagerly fill it.
  • Killed at least 655,000 Iraqis.
  • Bush retired from office with a lavish pension and full Secret Service protection.
  • He wrote his memoirs and was paid $7 for the first 1.5 million copies.
  • Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice retired to private business, wrote their own memoirs, and lived in comfort as respected elder statesmen.

SALUTING THE AMERICANS WHO GAVE US 9/11: PART TWO (OF THREE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 13, 2024 at 12:17 am

September 11, 2024, marked the 23rd anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on United States soil. Inevitably, this is a time to remember all those whose lives were so cruelly snuffed out.    

But it should also be a time to remember those who made this atrocity inevitable—by refusing to acknowledge and address the impending threat from Al-Qaeda.

British historian Nigel Hamilton has chronicled their arrogance and indifference in his 2010 biography: American Caesars: Lives of the Presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush.

Hamilton noted that Richard Clarke, the national security advisor on terrorism, was certain that Osama bin Laden had arranged the [USS.] Cole bombing in Aden on October 12, 2000.

Richard Clarke

For months, Clarke tried to convince others in the Bush Administration that Bin Laden was plotting another attack against the United States—either abroad or at home.

But Clarke could not prevail against the know-it-all arrogance of such higher-ranking Bush officials as Vice President Dick Cheney; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz; and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.

Rice initially refused to hold a cabinet-level meeting on the subject. Then she “insisted the matter be handled only by a more junior Deputy Principals meeting” in April, 2001, writes Hamilton.

Wolfowitz, the number-two man at the Department of Defense, said: “I don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden.”

Even after Clarke outlined the threat posed by Al-Qaeda, Wolfowitz—whose real target was Saddam Hussein—said: “You give bin Laden too much credit.”

Wolfowitz insisted that bin Laden couldn’t carry out his terrorist acts without the aid of a state sponsor—namely, Iraq.

Wolfowitz, in fact, blamed Iraq for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Clarke was stunned, since there was absolutely no evidence of Iraqi involvement in this.

“Al-Qaeda plans major acts of terrorism against the United States,” Clarke warned his colleagues. He pointed out that, like Adolf Hitler, bin Laden had actually published his plans for future destruction.

Related image

Osama bin Laden

And he added: “Sometimes, as with Hitler in Mein Kampf, you have to believe that these people will actually do what they say they will do.”

Wolfowitz heatedly traded on his Jewish heritage to bring Clarke’s unwelcome arguments to a halt: “I resent any comparison between the Holocaust and this little terrorist in Afghanistan.”

Writing in outraged fury, Hamilton sums up Clarke’s agonizing frustrations:

  • Bush’s senior advisors treated their colleagues who had served in the Clinton administration with contempt.
  • President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz seemed content to ignore the danger signals of an impending Al-Qaeda attack.
  • This left only Secretary of State Colin Powell, his deputy Richard Armitage, Richard Clarke and a skeptical Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, to wage “a lonely battle to waken a seemingly deranged new administration.”

Clarke alerted Federal Intelligence agencies that “Al-Qaeda is planning a major attack on us.” He asked the FBI and CIA to report to his office all they could learn about suspicious persons or activities at home and abroad.

Finally, at a meeting with Rice on September 4, 2001, Clarke challenged her to “picture yourself at a moment when in the very near future Al-Qaeda has killed hundreds of Americans, and imagine asking yourself what you wish then that you had already done.”

Seven days later, Al-Qaeda struck, and 3,000 Americans died horrifically—and needlessly.

Neither Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld nor Wolfowitz ever admitted their negligence. Nor would any of them be brought to account.

Disgustingly, these were the same officials who, afterward, posed as the Nation’s saviors–and branded anyone who disagreed with them as a traitor, practices the Right continues to exploit to this day.

Only Richard Clarke—who had vainly argued for stepped-up security precautions and taking the fight to Al-Qaeda—gave that apology.

On March 24, 2004, Clarke testified at the public 9/11 Commission hearings. Addressing relatives of victims in the audience, he said: “Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you.”

Yet even worse was to come.

On the evening after the September 11 attacks, Bush took Clarke aside during a meeting in the White House Situation Room:

“I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam [Hussein, the dictator of Iraq] did this. See if he’s linked in any way.”

Clarke was stunned: “But, Mr. President, Al-Qaeda did this.”

“I know, I know,” said Bush. “But see if Saddam was involved. I want to know.”

Hussein had not plotted the attack—and there was no evidence proving that he did. But the attack gave “W” the excuse he wanted to remove the man he blamed for the 1992 defeat of his father, President George H.W. Bush.

Bush believed that his father would have been re-elected if he had “gone all the way” into Baghdad during the 1991 Gulf War.

He would finish the job that his father had started but failed to compete.

On September 12, 2001, Bush attended a meeting of the National Security Council.

“Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just Al-Qaeda?” demanded Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense.

Vice President Dick Cheney enthusiastically agreed.

SALUTING THE AMERICANS WHO GAVE US 9/11: PART ONE (OF THREE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 12, 2024 at 12:09 am

It’s that time of year again–-yet another anniversary celebration of September 11, 2001.

The day when Islamic terrorists slammed two jetliners into the World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon.

They would have crashed a fourth jetliner into the White House or Capitol Building except for the heroic resistance of passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93.

In the years immediately following 9/11, politicians of both parties used this anniversary to wave flags and make self-serving patriotic speeches.

This was especially true for officials of the administration of President George W. Bush—which, even as the rubble was being cleared at the Pentagon and World Trade Center, was preparing to use the attack as an excuse to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Hussein had not plotted 9/11, and there was no evidence that he did.  But that didn’t matter to Bush and those planning the invasion and conquest of Iraq.

World Trade Center on September 11, 2001

So here it is, 23 years later, and, once again, politicians are using 9/11 as a prop to advance their careers.

Donald Trump, fresh from his disastrous debate with Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris the previous night in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, attended the commemoration event at Ground Zero in Manhattan. 

Joining him was President Joe Biden, Vice President Harris and Trump’s running mate, JD Vance.

As on past commemorations of 9/11, those who died were remembered by friends and relatives of those who knew and loved them.

Image result for Images of memorials for 9/11 victims

Tribute to 9/11 World Trade Center Victims

It is in fact appropriate to remember the innocents who died on that day—and the heroism of the police and firefighters who died trying to save them.

But it’s equally important to remember those who made 9/11 not simply possible but inevitable.

And that does not mean only the 19 highjackers who turned those planes into fuel-bombs. It means the officials at the highest levels of the administration of President George W. Bush.

Officials who, to this day, have never been held accountable in any way for the resulting death and destruction.

And who have been allowed to blatantly lie that they “kept us safe” from terrorism.

Obviously, such an indictment is not going to be presented by TV commentators today—not even on such liberal networks as CNN and MSNBC. And most definitely not on the right-wing Fox network.

Fortunately, British historian Nigel Hamilton has dared to lay bare the facts of this disgrace. Hamilton is the author of several acclaimed political biographies, including JFK: Reckless Youth and Bill Clinton: Mastering the Presidency.

In 2007, he began research on his latest book: American Caesars: The Lives of the Presidents From Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush.

Nigel Hamilton pic.jpg

Nigel Hamilton

By Nigel Hamilton (Nigel Hamilton picture)

The inspiration for this came from a classic work of ancient biography: The Twelve Caesars, by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus–-known as Suetonius.

Suetonius, a Roman citizen and historian, had chronicled the lives of the first twelve Caesars of imperial Rome: Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian.

Hamilton wanted to examine post-World War II United States history as Suetonius had examined that of ancient Rome: Through the lives of the 12 “emperors” who had held the power of life and death over their fellow citizens—and those of other nations.

For Hamilton, the “greatest of American emperors, the Caesar Augustus of his time,” was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led his country through the Great Depression and World War II.

His “”great successors” were Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy—who, in turn, contained the Soviet Union abroad and presided over sustained economic prosperity at home.

By contrast, “arguably the worst of all the American Caesars” was “George W. Bush, and his deputy, Dick Cheney, who willfully and recklessly destroyed so much of the moral basis of American leadership in the modern world.”

Among the most lethal of Bush’s offenses: The appointing of officials who refused to take seriously the threat posed by Al-Qaeda.

And this arrogance and indifference continued–right up to September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center and Pentagon became targets for destruction.

Among the few administration officials who did take Al-Qaeda seriously was Richard Clarke, the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council.

Clarke had been thus appointed in 1998 by President Bill Clinton. He continued in the same role under  President Bush—but the position was no longer given cabinet-level access.

This put him at a severe disadvantage when dealing with other, higher-ranking Bush officials—such as Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.

These turned out to be the very officials who refused to believe that Al-Qaeda posed a lethal threat to the United States.

“Indeed,” writes Hamilton, “in the entire first eight months of the Bush Presidency, Clarke was not permitted to brief President Bush a single time, despite mounting evidence of plans for a new al-Qaeda outrage.”  [Italics added]

Nor did it help that, during his first eight months in office before September 11, Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, 42% of the time.