1. Daniel Sunjata of TV show Rescue Me:
“And if you look at the collapse of Building 7, it looks exactly like a controlled demolition. It falls just like those old casinos that they bring down in Nevada, Las Vegas. It fell in 6.8 seconds, it fell evenly, you see the penthouse fall first, which is indicative of the core column of the building having been taken out and fell in on itself in a concise, small, neat pile of rubble. And that happened by chance? I mean, fire causes slow, creeping deformations in architecture. It doesn’t cause global, top-down collapse like that, and even if they say, well, you know, Tower 7 sustained some light damage … some damage from the, you know, collapse of the North Tower. Um, okay, but if that’s true … you know, if you broke your left leg, you would probably fall to the left. You would favor the injury. You would not fall, you know … you wouldn’t just crumble straight down.
So, I mean, there’s just … and then you have reports of firefighters hearing many, many, many, many explosions going off as the building was coming down. If you look at it, you can see squibs ripping up the side of the building or things that appear to be squibs. Again, I feel like all of the circumstantial pieces of the puzzle are there, but a real investigation has not been conducted. What they did was, they started out with a conclusion and then they only entertained evidence that led them to the conclusion that they started with, and that is not an investigation. That is a whitewash.“
2. Pakistan:
“The aspect of the new strategy I find hardest to believe is that none of the goals involve keeping the Islamofabulists from getting control of Pakistan’s nukes or the oil pipeline that runs through Afghanistan. Those are the only real national security concerns we have in that region, ones we can decisively address with military power by blowing up the nukes and the pipeline, declaring victory, and bringing everybody home.
Alas, that would be counter to the real objective of the neoconservative agenda, which is progressive military entanglement. If you’re not yet convinced that’s what the war mongrels are after, take a look at what their most prominent pundits are saying about Obama’s new strategy. Bill Kristol cries, “All hail Obama!” Kristol’s partner Bob Kagan cheers, “Hats off to President Obama for making a gutsy and correct decision on Afghanistan.” Charles Krauthammer calls the Obama strategy one that you can imagine “John McCain having adopted had he been elected.”
This is the clearest signal I’ve seen to date that America’s collective brain activity has flat-lined. Obama’s election was above all a national rejection of the militaristic adventurism of the previous regime. Yet here we are, not only continuing Bush-era foreign policy but expanding it, and America is watching it unfold dumbly, like a dazed Jake LaMotta, clinging to the top rope and rasping, Come on, hit me. Harder.“
http://original.antiwar.com/huber/2009/04/06/raging-bull-feathers/
3. “Af-Pak Escalation May Be Democrats’ Undoing
Top Democrats and many prominent supporters – with vocal agreement, tactical quibbles, or total silence – are assisting the escalation of the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The predictable results will include much more killing and destruction. Back home, on the political front, the escalation will drive deep wedges into the Democratic Party.
The party has a large antiwar base, and that base will grow wider and stronger among voters as the realities of the Obama war program become more evident. The current backing or acceptance of the escalation from liberal think-tanks and some online activist groups will not be able to prevent the growth of opposition among key voting blocs.
In their eagerness to help the Obama presidency, many of its prominent liberal supporters – whatever their private views on the escalation – are willing to function as enablers of the expanded warfare. Many assume that opposition would undermine the administration and play into the hands of Republicans. But in the long run, going along with the escalation is not helping Obama; by putting off the days of reckoning, the acceptance of the escalation may actually help Obama destroy his own presidency.
Ideally, in 2009, Democratic lawmakers would see as role models the senators who opposed the Vietnam War – first Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening, and then (years later) others including Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. Earlier and stronger opposition from elected officials could have saved countless lives. The dreams of the Great Society might not have been crushed. And Richard Nixon might never have become president.
…
For those already concerned about Obama’s reelection prospects, such war realities may seem faraway and relatively abstract. But escalation will fracture his base inside the Democratic Party. If the president insists on leading a party of war, then activists will educate, agitate, and organize to transform it into a party for peace.“
http://original.antiwar.com/solomon/2009/04/06/af-pak-escalation-may-be-democrats-undoing/
4. “Geithner Hoses Economy to Help Banks
CNN says that Geithner will delay the results of the “stress tests” on banks “until after the first-quarter earnings season [ends for most banks on April 24] to avoid complicating stock market reaction”.
In other words, instead of closing the insolvent zombie banks in order to save the economy (leading economists say that we have to let the banks fail or the economy will not recover), Geithner will delay announcing that the banks are broke so that their stock remains artificially high. Indeed, in Washington parlance, “delaying” the release of information often means burying them forever.
We may never see the results of the stress tests. This could just be a ploy from Geithner to buy time, just like the tobacco company scientists said they had to conduct further studies on whether or not cigarettes were harmful, and that they would announce the results as soon as the studies were complete.“
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/geithner-to-hose-economy-to-help-bank.html
