Three years ago, Rumsfeld made a similar accusation when he suggested that administration critics were aiding American foes.

Why does Rumsfeld keep making these accusations?  Because he's the only guy in this Administration who can do so with a straight face.  You see, Rumsfeld is the only one in a position of authority with the current regime who is not a certified and proven draft dodger and/or military deserter. 

Yet, this past March, in a rare moment of candor, Rumsfeld admitted:  "If I were grading, I would say we probably deserve a D or a D-plus as a country as to how well we’re doing in the battle of ideas that’s taking place in the world today.  And I’m not going to suggest that it’s easy, but we have not found the formula as a country."  It's okay for him to fault America, but I'm a traitor if I do so?  What is wrong with this picture?

The Inevitable Consequence of Hubris

Incidentally, am I the only one who considers it the height of hubris for chickenhawk draft dodgers like Bush and Cheney to be prosecuting the endless war foreseen by George Orwell's prescient novel 1984?  A war that Bush announced in his 2002 State of the Union address to be prosecuted against the "Axis of Evil?" 

Perhaps I should mention in passing that the word "hubris" implies an overweening display of arrogance.  My dictionary defines hubris as:  "The excessive pride and ambition that usually leads to the downfall of a hero in classical tragedy."  It's the "downfall" part of that definition that deserves special attention.

The Iraq Lie

Bush and Blair marched America and Britain into Iraq and we confirmed what those UN inspectors had been saying all along:  No weapons of mass destruction.  We certified Iraq clean long ago, yet we continue to bombard and kill Iraqis and lose American soldiers in ever-increasing numbers.  Why?  Because we have so much invested in the war in Iraq, says Bush.  In other words, because your kid died there, now mine has to, as well.  Tell me, has the entire country gone through the looking glass or is it just me?

Well, here we are, four years later, actually in danger of losing the war in Iraq and losing ground yet again in Afghanistan.  We never found Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and we never found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  What's more, America now admits to never having had any evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 or Osama.  Nor did bin Laden mastermind 9/11 as initially alleged.

Dr. Kevin Barrett, America's foremost expert on Osama bin Laden, now has certified all those bin Laden tapes we saw on the six-o'clock news to be forgeries, likely fabricated by the very organization that "verified" them before they were released:  America's CIA.   However, there is one tape that cannot be examined.  Shortly after 9/11, bin Laden released a tape in which he denied having anything to do with the 9/11 World Trade Center bombing.  The CIA kept us from hearing it, claiming it might contain "secret codes" that might "activate terrorist cells."  But it released the other tapes in which bin Laden supposedly claims credit for 9/11 - tapes now proven to be forgeries.

Also of note was a letter released by bin Laden late in 2002, in which he explained in detail why Muslims had declared jihad (holy war) against America and what we must do to end it peacefully.

In an article entitled "The Lie of the Century," Michael Rivero does an excellent job of proving exactly how the American public and Congress were lied into supporting the Iraq war by the Bush and Blair administrations, a war that can be described only as what Mr. Rivero calls it:  A "war of conquest."

The 9/11 Lie

A literal mountain of evidence has been developed, with new revelations coming out almost every day, that 9/11 wasn't pulled off by Arabs at all, but rather was an inside job, involving both Israel and elements of America's own government and private sectors.  For example, just last week, I learned for the first time that New York's mayor Giuliani had been told that the World Trade Center Towers needed to be dismantled no later than 2007 because of corrosion and that controlled demolitions could not be employed because of the health hazard.  Though the twin towers cost 1.2 billion to build, the estimate to dismantle and remove them was ten times that amount!   Talk about having a motive to create a diversion which would cover controlled demolition, which could be accomplished for a tiny fraction of the cost of dismantling them! 

Now we know why "Lucky Larry" Silverstein bought the leases and insured the towers just weeks prior to their destruction!  With that condemnation order pending, nobody in his right mind would buy out the leases unless something akin to "Jewish Lightning" was forecast.  For an excellent recap of just some of the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, see James Patton's excellent article:  Seekin that Ol' 911 Truth.

Most disturbing, of course, is the tremendous loss of life sustained when New York's twin towers were taken down via planned, controlled demolition, under cover of the illusion of jetliners causing their collapse.  That is the thing that keeps people from believing any of the incredible truths about government that get dismissed as "conspiracy theories," such as the Oklahoma City Bombing, Waco and so many other  events that served as turning points for government action and policy changes that otherwise would not have been countenanced by the public. 

The Why of Lies

You say that you can't get past the notion that our own government willingly kills its own citizens?  Recall, if you will, how the pre-written "Patriot Act" sailed through Congress after 9/11 on a voice vote without being read by a single congressman.  Recall, also, how a bare allegation of involvement by Osama bin Laden and Iraq by our intellectually-challenged President served to cause Congress to delegate to him the unbounded ability to declare war whenever and wherever he chooses.  Recall "Lucky Larry's" twin insurance payoffs (two towers, donchaknow).

Lies and the lying government officials who tell them.  That is the recurring, consistent theme running through all government pronouncements since long before George W. Bush stole his first presidential election.  The most recent big lie concerns those phony "liquid bombers" allegedly foiled in London.

"But, why?" you ask.  "Why should we even want to invade Iraq and Afghanistan unless they attacked us first?"  I previously have explained this at great, even excruciating, length:  Because of Israel, of course.

This is not about George Bush.  He is as much a puppet to our real rulers, the Council on Foreign Relations, as Britain is a poodle to America.  And for the overwhelmingly Jewish CFR,  Israel is everything, it seems.  George Bush is expendable and infinitely replaceable.  Israel needs America more than America needs Israel, which is why George Bush needs Israel more than Israel needs George Bush.

We have "rescued" both Iraq and Afghanistan largely by destroying them, just as we did to Viet Nam in another generation.  And, just as we did in Viet Nam, we are losing.  So, naturally, what are we about to do?  Withdraw?  No.  Incredibly enough, now we are gearing up to invade Iran, though it appears that we intend to let Israel pick the fight first, due to overwhelming opposition by Americans and Britons. 

Israel, of Course!

Israel - you recall it - that sh***y little country whose much-vaunted, numerically-superior military got cut to ribbons by a bunch of Arabs with carbines and RPGs, popping in and out of holes in South Lebanon.  Yet another fight picked by Israel that it cannot finish by itself.  Over a couple of their soldiers taken prisoner while on Lebanese soil.

In response to the world outcry against the carnage being wrought by Israel in south Lebanon during last month's aggression, and while standing alongside Hillary Clinton at a New York rally, Israel's UN ambassador Dan Gellerman said, "(T)o those countries who claim we are using disproportionate force, I have only this to say: you're damn right we are!"   Nor is Gellerman the only Israeli possessed of world-class levels of hubris.  For example, there is Israel's current Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, whose presumption I discussed a couple of weeks ago.  Israeli racism toward Arabs is endemic, even pandemic.

In a truly breathtaking display of hubris, and before it dawned upon Israel that it was losing to Hezbollah, Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon justified the genocide then taking place in Lebanon by saying, "All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah."  Mr. Ramon did not address the issue of Israeli jets bombing Lebanese civilians as they attempted to flee to the North, just as instructed by Israeli leaflets.

When it did become clear that it was losing, and losing badly, Israel suddenly decided that a cease fire was in order, something the US refused to demand, contrary to near-unanimous world (and American) opinion.  What did Israel learn in South Lebanon?  Why, that it needs to kill more Lebanese, of course.  That comes next, along with Iranians and more Iraqis.  The Israeli eradication of Palestinians, meanwhile, continues unabated.

The Axis of Hubris

I have spoken of American hubris before.  And I wrote an extended piece entitled "Holy Holocaust," in which I argued that hubris really should be a Yiddish term, since it is so intertwined with the Jewish group mentality, particularly as manifested by Israel.  I have mentioned before that America has become a Jewish country, just as the Arabs believe.  Most Americans think I am joking when they hear me say so, but I will dispel that impression when I finish a piece now in progress wherein I make the argument that we Americans essentially have become Jews.

Yesterday, I had "lunch with the boys," so called because I keep trying to talk them into allowing me to record our lunch conversation for broadcast over the Internet.  If ever they consent, then you will understand why I think you might find it fascinating to listen in.  My buddy Al, who has taught me so much about Jewish hubris, expressed his disbelief that America still might invade Iran, given its experience in Iraq and Israel's recent humiliation in Lebanon.  "Ahh," said I, "so, the pupil becomes the teacher at last:  Because both countries are Jewish, of course."

If Iraq, Iran and North Korea comprise the "Axis of Evil," then surely America, Britain and Israel qualify as the "Axis of Hubris."  "Excessive pride and ambition," don't forget.  Oh...and that part about hubris usually leading to one's "downfall."  That last part is of particular significance.

Not simply defeat, either:  Downfall.

America as Villain

During his speech to the American Legion, mentioned at the outset of this column, Mr. Rumsfeld also asked:  "(C)an we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles?  These are central questions of our time, and we must face them honestly."  Obviously, he meant it rhetorically, intending to silence those of us, like myself, who might answer with a resounding, "Yes!" 

among private individuals and groups, post on all Internet

sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit publications.