 |
Back Democracy's Clock |
|
By Stephanie Donald
"To those who scare peace loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists." Ashcroft told the subcommittee. This message was crystal clear to all who question the loss of U.S. freedoms: You're either with the United States or you're against it. Accept the Bush-Ashcroft doctrine or you're guilty of treason. If developments within the U. S. government were a drama about Nazi Germany and if Bush were to be cast in this play as Adolph Hitler, Ashcroft would certainly be his Goebels. Ashcroft sits as the head of the singularly most powerful domestic police force the world has ever known and under his command it is slowly fanning the flames of domestic suspicion and fear and promoting an increased surveillance of all Americans, not just those who seek to do us harm us through terrorism.
By his own admission Bennett's task will be to approach young people and to arm them with "patriotic" information in an attempt to quell any enthusiastic dissent. One must wonder why these targeted youth are being blatantly referred to as "Bush Youth". The team of Bennett, Ashcroft and former head of the CIA James Woolsey are setting up a special 800 number at the Justice Department for the specific purpose of giving these young people the chance to report "un-American" activities to the FBI for investigation. Bennett claims that the number is only to be called if young people see "terrorist" activity but he blithely notes that other forms of unpatriotic activity will also be investigated. The most disturbing news of the last two weeks came when two French investigative reporters released a book containing "irrefutable" proof that as early as February of this year the Bush Administration sent political envoys to Pakistan and Afghanistan to demand that U.S. oil companies be allowed to put a pipeline through those two countries.
Only the ^New York Times ~, however, noted the existence of the tape in it's Sunday edition. But the morning of the attack this article was suddenly removed from the ^Times'~ archives, not to be seen again, except by those who'd printed an online copy or who'd saved a hard copy edition. Most certainly, such information had reached President Bush months before the attack. Looking at the chain of events leading up to the attack itself one can only wonder if Bush had actually wanted the attack to occur to whip up American sentiment for war, thus giving him a reason to take Afghanistan by force and an excuse to carry out his January quip that Americans have too many freedoms and that he'd seek to curb them. Along with that quip he'd made an even more frightening comment: America isn't a dictatorship, he said, but if it were he would be The Dictator. As most historians would be quick to point out about Hitler's rise to power, the Fuhrer showed an evil brilliance as he planned world domination. He meticulously executed each step in his seizure of power, using a like-minded cabinet and a "heroic" rhetoric that the people could admire. His closure of civil liberties in Germany prior to World War II was slow and methodical. He convinced Germany's citizens that these liberties were being quelled in their own best interests. Can Americans see such history repeating itself? Or are we so wrapped up in flag waving that we're blind to anything that appears to oppose Bush and his administration? Could such developments be mere coincidences or are they a calculated plan based on the old saw: "ignorance is bliss?" Recent studies reveal that American students' knowledge of history shows they've no concept of when, how and why the wars of the 20th century took place. Looking at all we've suffered in the year since the U.S. Supreme Court decided America's leadership, how could anyone come to any other conclusion than that we're being herded into a pen and being directed down a chute to the slaughterhouse? Only sheep don't pay attention to the knife approaching their throats. |
Is the Bush administration reversing the progress of democracy while claiming to preserve it 
Ashcroft: Either you are with us or against us 