No doubt they learned a fair amount from the ’smart guys’ at Enron. Or vice versa?

The propaganda we’ve heard for years has been directed not just at a passive audience, but to the doers who must have layer after layer of rationalization to keep their eyes so tightly wide shut.

This is a helpful piece. Yes, it explains better than anything why the nonsense needs to continue – loud and clear. Why the majority of repub candidates also need to continue spouting that. Thanks!

You have my sympathy regarding the sleep problem. It has taken me the better part of 20 years to get to the point where I can hear about torture and know it’s “there” but keep myself from being pulled into that place of horror. I’ve worked hard to remain “vulnerable” while becoming “stronger.”

Problem about “buying” your allies. If they are middle east chieftains or dictators, even people like cheney may be over their heads and can be double-crossed. I’m not sure they were counting on Bhutto’s murder… and if via Musharaff (most likely, in my view), they will never let on to that, because it would mean Musharaff is more shrewd/powerful than deadeye. Can’t have that!

In my view it’s the well-intentioned idealists (fundamentalist or whatever, Monica Goodling, Blaire etc.) who may be most corrupted by the “blood pact” Mary described. In my book the other players, who can be “bought,” are as likely to have other agendas and be playing along temporarily, but ready to double-cross down the road. JMHO here.

And then you have leaders of many “free countries” also becoming “blood brothers.”

I think the blood pact we are looking at is SFOR, with the exception of Asian states and those in the Mid-East/Africa region who are outsourcing third parties. Has never escaped me that Elliott Abrams said a key learning of Iran Contra was that they “cannot rely on friends”; we therefore must rely on those who can be bought (outsourcing entities whether nation/states or contractors), and on those “blood brothers”. In this case, they are already well-exercised, having worked together for years in tracking the terrorist/criminals of Serbia; this WOT extends that relationship beyond the now-forgotten Karadzic.

And then extend it. Because it also fits the idea of these rendition flights and the other countries that allowed them. And then you have leaders of many “free countries” also becoming “blood brothers.”

It’s horrifying. Simply horrifying.

I know exactly what you mean about the power of the secrecy. The sense of power in that “secret knowledge.”

Are we a doomed world, or what?

At that point, they not only do they not use their training and education to prevent themselves from becoming party to evil, but they become active recruiters to that evil and they really take on all the aspects of a gang – with the kinds of “validation” activities that occur in those kinds of social settings. Blood brothers (and sisters) bonding, not over thei blood from their own cuts, but over the blood from their victims. So that no one can denounce the actions without denouncing all their “good patriotic friends” and so even when you pull away from an evil yourself, your first response is to protect your “friends” who helped make sure torture took place, widows were created, children left to die.

Because even more automatic than the “routine actions” of evil, is the now ingrained response: This Is Not Our Fault.

1) Bushco has said one thing and done another in regard to democracy. Their behavior does not support the values of democracy. (elections in the u.s, treatment of people in Iraq, lack of following our own constitution).

2) Bhutto kept saying that she had no protection and that Musharraf was not protecting her. I do not believe Bushco would be naive about this. They had to have known and they clearly did not publicly pressure Musharraf. They could have taken Bhutto’s concerns that were voiced publicly before she was killed and pressured him. There were no signs that the U.S made this effort.

3) Bhutto went to two democrats. She did not seek out any republican support which says something to me.

4) This administration clearly favors the behaviors of power and control as evidenced by their use of torture, tough talk, and threats. They have voiced a serious desire to “control” pakistan. They would pick the leader who is willing to use power and control.

5) There have been many violent events that Bushco had advanced notice of, but did nothing to prevent. However, they use power and control in Iraq, threats to Iran. They have no problem with using violence to prevent violence. I also think they have no problem with allowing violence instead of “causing” it, if it supports their agenda.

For these general reasons, I believe Bushco was behind the assasination. Did they do it?? No, but they did nothing to stop it. And may have been actively ‘wink, wink’ nod, nod, supporting musharaff because he demonstrates a form of government that Bushco “believes” in.