George W. Bush And His Pals Killed Liberty With Crazy Terror Wars

Politico has declared this guy, Michael Morell, former deputy spy-master at CIA, to be the sharpest critic of US anti-Islamic-State policy. Morell argues it is time to have the anti-Snowden debate in America, by which Morell means one defined by fear of another Paris-style attack, and so one enabling the US government to have complete control of encryption keys employed by commercial companies. The attack-clampdown process is an essential ingredient of the Bush-style erasure of American liberty.
Dubya didn’t do it all alone. 

He had lots of accomplices, from jackasses like US Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), who infamously asked what good your stupid civil liberties were if you were dead—Patrick Henry already answered that long ago—to craven (or just dumb?) politicians like Hillary Clinton (and lots of Democrats), who voted to plunge the world and not just America into Iraq’s long death dance.

You think it was just Islamic State that killed a bunch of rich French in Paris a few nights ago? Nope, American taxpayers helped out too, by carving out with blood and the stupidest kind of vengeance plenty of hate-space for Islamic State to be born and to flourish.

And as the clampdown came on poor collateral Muslims all over the Middle East and the world, so did it come to the liberties of the allegedly free peoples of the West. So anxiously did Americans rush to the alter to worship the vain, hideously foolish, alter of George W. Bush and his evildoers, they had no problem surrendering all their meaningful liberties to anti-Constitutional trash-laws like the ironically-titled Patriot Act.

So horrible was George W. Bush’s assault on the very core of what Americans had thought they believed in, that in 2008 voters actually elected a black man to be president! Now that’s some change, people hopefully chanted, as Barack Obama came into power. Again, hope was smashed by the cynical reality of the state. Whatever Obama might have believed about significantly changing things, he kowtowed to power, and basically did things Bush-style, continuing and even expanding massive, and Constitution-destroying, invasions of privacy that made a complete joke of the idea of liberty. 

Only when Edward Snowden took up the mantle of latter-day patriot, standing up to the entire power of the United States government, which no doubt would love to assassinate Snowden, did the world learn of the extent of the crimes of the Bush-Obama tag-team of tyranny. 

Even American corporations responded to these revelations, finally made public, by demanding that government should not have the power to invade their most sacred investments—the products they peddle for profit! Companies like Apple vowed they would redesign their products to lock out the NSA. Encryption that the governments of the world could not break became the new, best, way to protect the remnants of liberty.

Of course, the governments of the world were not going to accept that outrage against their power. One by one, attack after attack, terrorists (who might as well be on the payrolls of the state security agencies), argued in favor of erasing privacy altogether and enabling the establishment of a great—oh what should we call it?—Big Brother of protection. 

After all, the Inner Parties demanded: what good are your rights if you are dead?

Patrick Henry would have an answer and in these dark, last days of liberty, he would be in an American prison—or assassinated by the American government.

On Sunday, ex-CIA deputy chief, Michael Morell, articulated the government's argument against liberty:
I think what we are going to learn is that these guys are communicating via these encrypted apps, right, the commercial encryption, which is very difficult if not impossible for governments to break, and the producers of which, don’t produce the keys necessary for law enforcement to read the encrypted messages...So, we need to have a public debate about this. We have, in a sense, had a public debate. That debate was defined by Edward Snowden, right, and the concern about privacy. I think we’re now going to have another debate about that. It’s going to be defined by what happened in Paris.
"Defined by Paris" means of course, tyranny enabled once again by widespread panic at the idea that liberty has enabled death and mayhem at the hands of the terrorists.

But once again, a reasoned response to this will ask—but which terrorists? And where is this terrorism HQ truly located? Raqqa? Or Washington DC? And is liberty the real problem here? Or insanely self-destructive government policy?

Comments