Chapter a Day
Grisham explores the political corruption that enables corporate crime through bribery, campaign contributions, lobbying, election chicanery, and manipulation of the news media. It's informative, and he makes the story interesting, though I doubt that I would read the book if it were not on the radio.
The story has a curious parallel here in Wisconsin, where in the recent state supreme court election a consortium of business interests backed a handpicked "conservative" to unseat a sitting justice, and won. Life imitates art.
On a much grander scale, a number of curious elements are converging to reveal - surprise of surprises - the criminality of the Bush regime. Most prominent is the unraveling of the attempt to posthumously convict former government researcher Bruce Ivins of the Anthrax attacks of 2001. First it was Glenn Greenwald of Salon who raised the question of a rush to judgement. He was interviewed on Democracy Now yesterday about his investigation into the matter. Also interviewed was a colleague of Ivins, Dr. Meryl Nass, and has her own blog right here on Blogspot. Bradblog has been digging into the story as well, exploring the story in all its sordid nuances.
Now even the mainstream corporate media are casting doubt on the Anthrax story. CNN/Time has a feature today that raises questions about Ivins's supposed guilt. The New York Times also has a story today that looks at the flimsiness of the case against Ivins.
For a little added perspective, Greg Palast reports on the various schemes around the country to disenfranchise voters in the upcoming presidential election.
Democracy Now also reports on a new book by Ron Suskind, "The Way of the World," in which he describes how the Bush criminal regime ordered the "CIA" to forge a letter connecting Saddam Hussein to "Al Qaeda."
When I was a boy scout I learned how to estimate a distance by "triangulating," using the length of a known distance and angles to form a right triangle. The same approach can be used to prove that the Bush regime was behind the Anthrax attacks, as well as many other crimes over the past eight years.
In order to make a case for invading "Iraq," the Bush regime claimed that he had weapons of mass destruction, that he was behind the Anthrax attacks, and that he was allied with "Al Qaeda," thereby implicating him in the attacks of September 11, 2001.
None of this was true, and the Bush regime knew that none of it was true. They intentionally lied in order to get the citizens of the "U.S." to support the invasion of "Iraq."
What no one seems to be doing is taking the next step, placing the blame where it belongs. In order to lie one must know the truth. If the Bush regime lied and is lying about who is responsible for the Anthrax attacks, then they know who is responsible, and have known from the beginning.
After the attacks they immediately placed the responsibility on Saddam Hussein. This was a lie, and if the Bush gang didn't know who was responsible, they would face ridicule and embarrassment if the real perpetrator was caught.
They knew the real perpetrator wouldn't be caught, which is why they accused Saddam Hussein with such confidence. The only way they could have known that the real perpetrator wouldn't be caught is if they either committed the crimes themselves, or could control the knowledge about who did it. The quickness of the accusation makes only one conclusion feasible: The Bush criminal regime is responsible for the Anthrax attacks.
The Bush regime also made a connection between Saddam Hussain and the attacks of September 11, 2001, mostly by inference, but also with court testimony to the effect. The only way they could have repeated this falsehood with so much confidence is that they knew who the actual perpetrator(s) was or were. Falsely accusing someone of a crime is done for two reasons: to deflect attention from the real criminal(s), and to advance a hidden agenda. In the case of the Bush regime, the deflection could only have been from themselves. The hidden agenda, of course, was the invasion of "Iraq."
Binding it all together is the planned theft of the 2008 election, which of course follows the thefts of the 2000 and 2004 elections, insuring impunity for the Bush criminal regime. I posted a letter to Salon about how the priority at this time should be making sure that the Bush regime leaves office on January 20, 2009. Since a McCain regime, or any "Republican" regime, would effectively be a continuation of the Bush regime, the only way to remove impunity is to elect someone from another party, either "Democratic" or alternative/independent.
I have recently learned the use of the term prima facie. It means that on first examination a case appears to be self-evident. What I have presented here is prima facie evidence of the culpability of the Bush regime in the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Anthrax attacks of 2001, the coverup of both crimes, and of the likelihood of its involvement in other crimes. This regime should be removed from office and its chief gangsters placed in prison at hard labor for for the rest of their lives, but it won't be under current conditions. It has too many accomplices in high places.
We are all living in our own Chapter a Day.
You can live a better chapter a day this way.
You can even join an army of like-minded people.
A look into a crystal ball might help.
Maybe it's time to stir it up, because the harder they come, the harder they fall, one and all.
We aren't just sitting in limbo. (This deserves an encore. Here's part 2).
Before long it will be a bright sunshiny day.
A blue sky appears after a long rain.