Kurt Haskell is interviewed by Alex Jones of infowars.co. Haskell reveals information omitted by the mainstream media that the bomber suspect was perhaps allowed to board the plane even though he had no passport by a man seen with him who insisted he could be boarded. Was he passed through by intelligence people as part of a conspiracy to fake an attempted terrorist bombing? Why were the passengers of the plane left on the plane for 20 minutes after the plane landed and officials had apprehended the alleged terrorist suspect? Why is the right claiming that this kind of thing would only happen under an Obama administration? The whole thing smells of right wing conspiracy. But don’t dare say that to people because you’ll be labeled as a conspiracy nut.

Highlight any portion you want:

Think about that for a minute. What kind of world is it where we agree to accept war just to balance the political spectrum? Why isn’t war horrifically wrong and something that should never ever be resorted to as long as people can talk things out. It’s not like the middle ages where in order to negotiate you have to travel thousands of miles to meet with your foes. Every nation in the modern world has an open dialog with every other one. The fact that we attack territories like Iraq or Afghanistan to rid ourselves of “terrorists” is absurd. No group of people or enemy lives within the borders of any single country. If you attack them, they simply pick up and move to another territory, just as Al Qaeda exists in countries all over the world.

Paul Krugman - Nobel Prize Winning Economic Scholar

But back to the media pundits. Paul Krugman is one that I find a little less “balanced.” That’s a good thing. He attacked Obama for the selection of the same assholes that brought down our economy as the people to run our treasury and economics. He was left out to dry by the media for that, which indicates to me that he was doing something right. The media is owned by conservatives, even MSNBC, the one thought of as progressive. Olbermann and Maddow take their stories from their higher ups at MSNBC based on what is marketable to the progressive leaning audience. The fact that MSNBC is bent as far as it is toward progressives, indicates that progressives are actually close to center and not on an extreme end of the political spectrum. But when Olbermann talks about Limbaugh or the Fox News dickheads, he’s just giving them free advertising. If he truly thought they were of as little importance as they really are, he’d ignore them completely. They are nonentities and don’t exist in my world.

Now the Senate just passed a healthcare bill and Krugman is applauding that as a great step forward. Is Krugman trying to get back into the media spotlight by going middle of the spectrum here?

Krugman writes in the New York Times article, Tidings of Comfort, about the split of people into three distinct areas of the political spectrum: the far right teabaggers, the fiscal conservatives and the progressives, as if this defines left, right and center.

First, there’s the crazy right, the tea party and death panel people — a lunatic fringe that is no longer a fringe but has moved into the heart of the Republican Party. In the past, there was a general understanding, a sort of implicit clause in the rules of American politics, that major parties would at least pretend to distance themselves from irrational extremists. But those rules are no longer operative. No, Virginia, at this point there is no sanity clause.

A second strand of opposition comes from what I think of as the Bah Humbug caucus: fiscal scolds who routinely issue sententious warnings about rising debt. By rights, this caucus should find much to like in the Senate health bill, which the Congressional Budget Office says would reduce the deficit, and which — in the judgment of leading health economists — does far more to control costs than anyone has attempted in the past.

But, with few exceptions, the fiscal scolds have had nothing good to say about the bill. And in the process they have revealed that their alleged concern about deficits is, well, humbug. As Slate’s Daniel Gross says, what really motivates them is “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, is receiving social insurance.”

Finally, there has been opposition from some progressives who are unhappy with the bill’s limitations. Some would settle for nothing less than a full, Medicare-type, single-payer system. Others had their hearts set on the creation of a public option to compete with private insurers. And there are complaints that the subsidies are inadequate, that many families will still have trouble paying for medical care.

Unlike the tea partiers and the humbuggers, disappointed progressives have valid complaints. But those complaints don’t add up to a reason to reject the bill. Yes, it’s a hackneyed phrase, but politics is the art of the possible.

The truth is that there isn’t a Congressional majority in favor of anything like single-payer. There is a narrow majority in favor of a plan with a moderately strong public option. The House has passed such a plan. But given the way the Senate rules work, it takes 60 votes to do almost anything. And that fact, combined with total Republican opposition, has placed sharp limits on what can be enacted.

There may not be a Congressional majority in favor of single payer, but there is (I think) a popular majority among all Americans in favor of it, or would be if they understood what it really is and were not misinformed by conservative owned media.

And that’s at the heart of what’s wrong in the U.S. government. It doesn’t act on the will of the majority. It’s not representative. This is one fact that pretty much all of these three groups agree on. Taxation without representation is alive and well.

The other point here is that progressives are painted as far left of center, when in fact they are more middle. With the extreme right moving into the spotlight in the Republican party it makes progressives perceived as being far right only because of a popular obtuse sentiment that these two groups have to be balanced.

Nothing could be farther from reality. Progressives don’t balance with right extremists any more than right balances with wrong. You might think that right does balance with wrong, and if so then you exemplify my point. If right balances with wrong then we should allow just enough crime to balance with the good that people do. If a hero saves a life then it should be OK to murder someone for balance.

And so for Obama and others to say we have to compromise and balance the political spectrum is completely absurd, irresponsible, and morally corrupt.

Highlight any portion you want:

Investigators knock on doors of Hasan's neighbors at Ft. Hood TX

The pervasive racism toward Muslims in the military is obviously at the heart of why Nidal Malik Hasan went to the breaking point. This is all too familiar as we have seen with the kids at Columbine.

“In mid-August, just a few weeks after moving to Killeen, Texas USA, Hasan had a run-in with a soldier living in apartment No. 12. One night after he had been drinking, John Van de Walker scraped a key along the full length of the passenger’s side of Hasan’s car. Then he removed and destroyed a bumper sticker that read, ‘Allah is Love,’ according to several residents, including live-in managers John and Alice Thompson.”

Troops at Fort Hood in the aftermath of the shooting.

The U.S. military has a long standing policy of racism toward the peoples of countries we are “at war with.”. It is standard procedure to dehumanize these foreign populations so that soldiers can more easily deal with the rampant death of innocent people that they see in war. I use the term racism loosely here as it actually applies to the Muslim religion. But few make the distinction between the Muslim religion and Arab ethnicity.

Hasan was known to his comrades in his apartment complex as “number 9″, a reference to his apartment number. Many are calling him a terrorist because he is a Muslim, and in the context of the wars against Muslim nations that we are engaged in. Has Tim McVeigh ever been called a terrorist? Perhaps. But that hasn’t given white middle-state Americans the stigma of terrorism.

I think Hasan has a lot more in common with Timothy McVeigh than he does with Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan. They are (or were) both U.S. military members who were disgruntled enough with the military to retaliate and kill innocent victims.

Every religion has the concept that people should not kill. We don’t know for sure and probably never will, but in addition to be driven to the brink by the incessant tormenting he suffered, I believe it was this devotion to his religion that may have lead him to open fire upon deploying troops to an unjust war that dehumanizes and kills the innocent as a matter of policy. But that is purely my conjecture in trying to explain the unexplainable. Killing is not justified in civilian life or even in war when the innocent die. But this may help to explain what happened, why it happened, how it might have been prevented, and could be prevented in the future.

The BBC reports that Hasan had long wanted to leave the military due to suffering harassment because of his religion, and that many Muslims in the U.S. military suffer harassment and this shooting has raised fears among them:

According to the Pentagon, there are 3,572 Muslims in active service. However, some Muslims in the military say the real number is as high as 20,000.

The US government has made no secret of the fact that it would like to see more people from Arab and Muslim communities joining the armed forces.

More American Muslim troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan has long been seen as a vital part in helping the US in its missions to win hearts and minds in those countries.

“They are a great asset to the army,” Lt Col Nathan Banks, army spokesman for the Pentagon, told the BBC.

“When they do deploy they help facilitate a lot of our missions. American Muslims in the army work hand in hand with local Muslims, and we welcome that.”

He said the army did not foresee heightened tensions within its ranks as a result of Fort Hood. Meanwhile tensions have risen sharply around the country, as we see on internet posts like this one, where many accuse Hasan of being a terrorist, sympathetic to the Muslims we fight against. This BBC article also reports that Muslims in the U.S. military now have a growing fear of harassment as a result. It’s obviously very hard for people to distinguish between Muslims in general (including those in our own military) and the Muslims we fight as members of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

Hasan likely suffered from secondary PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) in listening to the many troops’ horrid stories of war as they came to him after returning from war. Fort Hood Private Michael Kern who knew of Hasan tells of his own problems dealing with his killing a child, and how stories like this had to effect Hasan. Hasan had tried in vain to leave the military but there was no way once you are deployed as the private says.

Hasan’s cousin tells Amy Goodman, “About a week before the incident, he hired a lawyer in order to leave the Army, get married, and live his life. But they rejected his request and asked him to go to Afghanistan. This was the biggest shock for him. So, there

Highlight any portion you want:

In other words Obama is wondering, along with the rest of us that have brains, what the hell are we doing there?

We have no exit strategy. We have questionable support from the Afghanistan government amidst its recent fraudulent elections. Pakistan and Iran are said to be helping the Taliban. Meanwhile, the Taliban never attacked the U.S. Al Queda did, which makes this a preemptive illegal war. Add racism to that since our military has a standing policy of overt racism, as reported by returning U.S. troops.

‘”I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan . . . or sending a message that America is here for the duration,” Obama said.’

Now about that head thing. “The rekindled debate came as a shock to some officials who considered broad U.S. strategy in Afghanistan to be a settled issue. Military officials were scrambling Monday to determine how drastic any changes might be.” I guess they just figure we’re all going to just go along with their failed military policy of never ending war spending. Wakie! Wakie!

The new strategy being considered, which requires no more troops for this debacle, is to get out of Afghanistan and go after Al Queda. Duh. Oh yeah, weren’t they the guys that actually destroyed the twin towers? You remember. That whole 9/11 thing that we went to war over in the first place, at the the cost of 5000 American lives and over a million innocent civilian Iraqi and Afghan lives. The same innocent civilians whose survivors became insurgents in retaliation, just as Americans would do in the same situation.

What was that guys name? Bin laden. Yeah that’s it. Let’s go get him and his operatives. Gee ya think our military might need some remedial critical thinking education? Maybe a special day class. It only took seven years to figure this out. And you wonder why Greece elected a socialist government (as opposed to failed capitalism).

__________________________________________________
Do something!

The administration and Congress need to know that regular Americans are paying close attention and that we want a clear military exit strategy.
That’s why I signed a petition urging the President and Congress to lay out a plan with a military exit strategy. Will you join me at the link below?
http://pol.moveon.org/afghan_exit/?r_by=17429-17264405-e6frX8x&rc=confemail

Highlight any portion you want:

Source: Iraq Body Count

Highlight any portion you want: