T Nation

Congressman Denied Access

WASHINGTON �?? Constituents called Rep. Peter DeFazio’s office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

As a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom’’ in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.

http://www.newhouse.com/congressman-denied-access-to-post-attack-government-continuity-plans.html

I’d bet its because: There is NO plan.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’d bet its because: There is NO plan.[/quote]

Why would they deny him access if they had nothing to hide? Privacy don’t apply to government.

I would go directly to a judge and force Bush to get the hell out of my way

[quote]SouthernBrew wrote:
I would go directly to a judge and force Bush to get the hell out of my way[/quote]

Wasn’t judges being “loyal Bushies” what drove the whole Gonzales row?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I’d bet its because: There is NO plan.

Why would they deny him access if they had nothing to hide? Privacy don’t apply to government.[/quote]

They’re hiding the fact that there is no plan. Big government attracts people who enjoy lording their power over others, not making rational plans.

Just about every gov’t that ever existed has become rotten at the core. The exceptions are those that deliberately keep the power of government small, hence not attracting scum into politics.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
They’re hiding the fact that there is no plan. Big government attracts people who enjoy lording their power over others, not making rational plans.

Just about every gov’t that ever existed has become rotten at the core. The exceptions are those that deliberately keep the power of government small, hence not attracting scum into politics. [/quote]

How your paragraphs relate to the first sentence is a mystery.

[quote]lixy wrote:
SouthernBrew wrote:
I would go directly to a judge and force Bush to get the hell out of my way

Wasn’t judges being “loyal Bushies” what drove the whole Gonzales row?[/quote]

No.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
They’re hiding the fact that there is no plan. Big government attracts people who enjoy lording their power over others, not making rational plans.

Just about every gov’t that ever existed has become rotten at the core. The exceptions are those that deliberately keep the power of government small, hence not attracting scum into politics.

How your paragraphs relate to the first sentence is a mystery.[/quote]

I thought you would understand. The people who’re supposed to have a plan in place really have no plan. If someone discovers that fact, then the game is up.

Its kind of like Saddam and his WMDs. He said he had massive quantities, so no one would attack him (he hoped). We attacked him anyway, so it didn’t work for him.

The Congressman is denied entry because the head thug-in-charge doesn’t want anyone to know that there’s no plan in there.

How simple can I make it?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The Congressman is denied entry because the head thug-in-charge doesn’t want anyone to know that there’s no plan in there. [/quote]

Maybe you should read the bloody article already.

Constituents called Rep. Peter DeFazio’s office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.
[…]
"Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right,’’ DeFazio said.

Ergo, it’s not about whether there’s a plan or not. What’s Bush gotta lose if it was discovered that there’s “no plan in there”? His popularity is already down the drain. On the other hand, revealing unconstitutional abuses might get him to court. Get it?

And what’s with calling him the “head thug-in-charge”? Who did you vote for last time? Nader? :slight_smile:

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The Congressman is denied entry because the head thug-in-charge doesn’t want anyone to know that there’s no plan in there.

Maybe you should read the bloody article already.

Constituents called Rep. Peter DeFazio’s office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.
[…]
"Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right,’’ DeFazio said.

Ergo, it’s not about whether there’s a plan or not. What’s Bush gotta lose if it was discovered that there’s “no plan in there”? His popularity is already down the drain. On the other hand, revealing unconstitutional abuses might get him to court. Get it?

And what’s with calling him the “head thug-in-charge”? Who did you vote for last time? Nader? :-)[/quote]

Lixy,
A very important fact you need to understand, with regard to why we elected Bush: for YEARS, we Republicans dreamed of the day when we would have the Presidency and the Congress, so we could pass term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and all sorts of GOOD things. Bush betrayed us, as did the Republican Congress. They perpetrated an historical fraud of monumental proportions.

It demontrates clearly that ‘We the People’ is now a warm and fuzzy memory.

We are, therefore and IMHO, turning into Plato’s Republic. Further, this crime is being done by huge tax-free Foundations, like the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller, Guggenheim, Carnegie, and so on. Between the foundations and the CFR, we have no more control over our destiny than you have over our destiny.

So, when you rip on America and Bush’s War and all the evil crap associated with Washington, realize that we basically are powerless and HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Plans for a post-terrorist attack? LMAO!!!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We are, therefore and IMHO, turning into Plato’s Republic. [/quote]

No. Plato’s city in speech was a meritocracy, and the Philosophers had to be compelled to rule.

This is old-fashioned oligarchy, if you want to go down that road.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
So, when you rip on America and Bush’s War and all the evil crap associated with Washington, realize that we basically are powerless and HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. [/quote]

While I can clearly see the erosion of the “We the people” vision, I don’t despair that your system is good in essence. I wouldn’t like there to be a revolution in the US (for the obvious cost in human lives), but if I were you, I’d keep my guns close by.

Res publica non dominetur.

Headhunter, when people bury their heads in the sand and say, oh well, then they absolutely have something to do with the sad state of affairs.

You can work to correct it or you can accept responsibility through apathism.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
We are, therefore and IMHO, turning into Plato’s Republic.

No. Plato’s city in speech was a meritocracy, and the Philosophers had to be compelled to rule.

This is old-fashioned oligarchy, if you want to go down that road.[/quote]

Plato’s Republic tries to offer philosophical justification for there to be rulers and ruled. The people do not choose their government and the view is that they are incompetent and incapable of so doing. It is in this sense that I refer to the Republic.

I do admit that it has been years since I’ve read and studied Plato. My understanding of him may therefore be off somewhat.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
So, when you rip on America and Bush’s War and all the evil crap associated with Washington, realize that we basically are powerless and HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

While I can clearly see the erosion of the “We the people” vision, I don’t despair that your system is good in essence. I wouldn’t like there to be a revolution in the US (for the obvious cost in human lives), but if I were you, I’d keep my guns close by.

Res publica non dominetur.[/quote]

Orwell says it best when he discusses how humanity always seems to return to the same hierachical structure, no matter how a system may be disturbed by war, disease, revolutions, and such.

Our Founding Fathers snatched human liberty from the jaws of this historical trend. The Enlightenment Philosophy that was the source of our freedoms was about to be overshadowed by the statism of Kant, Hegel, and Marx, and the irrationality of Fichte, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsce.

Those ‘gents’ are the primary philosophical influences today. Where do you think the ideas of a nanny state and big government come from? The idea that there are no objective principles of Justice, and that you can do whatever you feel like?

If you teach people that they are irrational wild animals, you get that and the requisite powerful gov’t to keep the animals from stampeding.

We’re doomed.