The War Against the People
Moss David Posner M.D.
November 22, 2005
The War Against the People.
I feel a prickling in my thumbs
Something wicked this way comes”
(Medieval adage)
It was the best of times, and the worst of times.”
(Victor Hugo “Tale of Two Cities.”)
Each generation historically has been preoccupied with its own affairs and issues as largely unique to the times, and each generation has been aware of the vital necessity of good judgment in order to resolve them properly. With the passage of two World Wars, the Korean War, the Viet Nam War and several other skirmishes, each generation has had opportunity to appreciate this necessity. Today we again are presented with a rapid succession of events, and we find ourselves questioning our own security and survival, and are doing so with little to encourage us. We are even starting to question seriously our ability to survive at all.
We do not have the advantage of historical perspective by instinct. This truth is expressed in the German saying, “We grow too soon old, and too late smart.” Half of the solution to our problems can be found only in the study of history. This is needed because only history simultaneously gives us a retrospective basis with which to understand the present, and it provides us prospective wisdom to act on that understanding.
The other half of the solution lies in our ability to think clearly—in short, to reason. Despite the necessity of this ability as a primary means of survival, it is virtually never taught in school. It is, on the one hand, passed off as implicit, as “common sense” in high school, and, on the other hand, relegated to a formal study as “Logic” in college and university. You will be taught how to cook a meal or how to repair a car, but you will not be taught how to think.
The amalgam of historic perspective and its logical application to the present is known as critical thinking.
Critical thinking is our only primary means of survival. Animals have instincts, teeth, claws, fur, scales, and shells to protect them. We have reason and reason alone. The results of this failure to take reason seriously cannot be overestimated. In the area of politics, when the people cannot see the irrationality of their leaders, then they are impotent both to act and to feel motivated to act, and their very survival is in serious jeopardy. This is precisely the situation we find ourselves in today:
The Vice-President of the United States recently made the following incredible statement:
He said it had not been Washington's responsibility to prove Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before invading -- but Saddam's to show that he did not have them.
To be charitable to Mr. Cheney, this is a classic error in understanding fallacies of Logic: It is logically impossible to prove a negative. Also, it is not necessary—or even possible—to prove that Saddam “did not” have thus-and-such; On the contrary: it is incumbent upon Mr. Cheney to prove that Saddam did, in fact, have such weapons. “Dis”-proof lies in the successful attack on someone’s alleged “proof.” And if his intelligence was in error at that time, then unless and until he can demonstrate undeniably and of necessity that some major change in his thought or knowledge has taken place, a change that compels us subsequently to trust his judgment, then we are logically obligated to dismiss summarily whatever he says in this regard. Please note my choice of words: I didn’t say, “Option;” I said “obligation.”
In this same twenty-four hour period we are treated to another of Mr. Cheney’s contributions: He dismissed a call for a rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, calling it a dangerous illusion that would threaten the future security of the United States.
Again, the burden of proof falls on Mr. Cheney—together with the demonstration that the absence of such a withdrawal (which is to say, our continued presence in Iraq) would ensure success, either alone or in combination with some other proposed action (which, in turn, he would be obliged to prove) that would inevitably lead to success and security. Carrying this one step further, if anyone can offer evidence that our continued presence in Iraq—taken by itself--would or even could endanger us, then Mr. Cheney’s justification for our continued presence as necessary would be seriously damaged. Mr. Cheney also said:
"Any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false."
Again, the burden of proof is on Mr. Cheney to demonstrate that his intelligence was accurate. His failure to do so is proven by the present situation in Iraq, even by his own admission. It speaks for itself. It is the very “disproof” of his claims to accuracy.
He may maintain that the sources and the reasoning involved must remain secret for reasons involving national security. Fair enough; however this assertion also requires some proof or validation. The only evidence he could offer and we could accept would be to point to the total picture in Iraq and to assert that the proof is self-evident, that our glorious success in Iraq speaks for itself. In the absence of demonstrable successful progress, it is incumbent upon the people to reassess their leaders and if necessary to remove them. This then is not an option; it is a logical, compelling necessity.
To make matters worse, our failure to challenge our leaders publicly then inevitably leads the rest of the world—including the Moslem population—to regard us as incapable of being reasonable--or worse--of deliberately maintaining a fiction, which for reasons we do not disclose, is to our unspoken advantage.
This latter point is critical. If we are to ask the world to believe that we are arguably better than our performance would indicate, we must show some evidence that we disapprove and that we are taking action. But we have challenged our leaders, haven’t we? Senator John McCain’s proposed amendment against torture passed with only three votes short of unanimity. Admiral Stansfield Turner, of unimpeachable integrity and a previous ranking administration official and ranking member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff referred to Mr. Cheney as the “Vice-president of Torture.” Strong statement---directed towards the second highest-ranking administrative official of the United States; but if anybody has the authority to make such a statement, Admiral Turner is that person.
Do not underestimate the power in confronting our leaders. There was a time when the Soviets were aggressive in Chechnya. Did we categorically hold the Russian people responsible? No, we did not; we held the leaders and their military responsible.
Similarly, Bush continues to assert that by arguing among ourselves, by challenging our leaders, we only encourage those that would support the Iraqi nationalists. He is absolutely correct—but not for the reason he would have us believe: Our disagreement encourages the people in the Moslem world to believe that perhaps there is real hope, and that perhaps our democratic institutions can actually work. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
And what has been the direct effect of the challenges of conscience directed towards our leaders? A snarling, vicious attack, impugning the patriotism and loyalty of the American people who disagree with Bush and Cheney has been the effect. Using what we are told is a letter from a military officer, Cheney quotes the writer as indicting Sen. McCain and those who see things as he does--as “cowards.” As disgraceful as this response was, it is truly an act of cowardice to use the alleged wording from a letter from someone else. The illegal exposure of a deep-cover operative was also a response. Valerie Plame was risking her life for her country, and her only crime was to be married to an official who did his job---Ambassador Joe Wilson, who reported the facts he was directed to obtain regarding Saddam Hussein’s capability to make nuclear weapons.
Ambassador Wilson served four presidents, two Democrat and two Republican. A similar attack was visited on Paul Kelly, who resigned as Secretary of the Treasury, and for similar reasons, and who also served four presidents, two Republican and two, Democrat.
We are not talking about two turnip truck occupants here. You would think that it would be precisely the information that these men of reputation had worked to obtain that the administration would desperately want to know. Why would Bush and his minions want to believe the worst?
Take this one step further. Why would this Administration want to spend us into bankruptcy, when we can least afford the financial strain? Why the apparent self-destructive run-away spending, simultaneous with this war, including Medication programs for the elderly, a notion that was never seen heretofore as an urgent necessity?
Why the continued tax cuts, the profligate spending in arbitrary ways. Why direct FEMA suddenly to change course (like Katrina) and cut any support out from under 150,000 people in the Louisiana-Texas areas who face permanent displacement and an inevitable and exponential drain on our economy?
Why would the Administration smuggle in almost unnoticed and as an attachment to a military spending bill, the permanent implementation of the “Patriot” act, with its destruction of the most crucial manifestation of our Bill of Rights, that of Habeas Corpus?
This is the first and only successful coup against the First Amendment in the history of the American Constitution. There was no public discussion or careful consideration of the consequences, immediate and remote, to justify reason to shred the most basic principle implicit in the Bill of Rights.
At this point, ask yourself a simple question: Why is this administration so dogmatic, so hell-bent on pursuing its course with no real attempt to defend, let alone justify, its actions? These are not inadvertent errors. These moves were planned, calculated and executed, and with a defiance and grit that gives us a clue to the real reason behind it all. Bush and Cheney act as if they are being attacked personally, as if dissent is a threat to their very survival.
Think back to that morning on September 11th. An attack—on what? On two office buildings, with a smaller member falling down for literally no reason at all? An isolated shot at the Pentagon? National troops were dispatched to New York City for a “terrorist training exercise” and by an incredible coincidence at the same time all this destruction was going on?
I believe we narrowly escaped a highly elaborate planned attack on America—a war against the people. That is the reason why Bush and Cheney take this so personally.
There was one more crash: that of a plane, which went down in a field in Pennsylvania. Had that plane reached the White House, the combination of events would have lead to one inescapable conclusion—which we were under attack by an enemy power, and would have led to a declaration of Martial Law throughout our country. What we would not have known, however, and what we were never to question was---who is that enemy?
Had the plan worked, this country would have been placed under Marshal Law, and would have remained so to this very day. The physical absence of the White House as the functional symbol of power would have been eradicated.
That’s why there are so many loose ends: Our leaders never intended for us, the public, to be free enough and of the proper state of mind calmly to re-examine the events, one by one. That’s why the clumsy—even frantic—attempts to keep us on edge, to keep up the terror hype.
That’s why the snarling irrational attacks on people such as Messrs Kelly and Wilson. There are no declared reasons for what is being done to the people of this country; those reasons went down with the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.
Crazy? Paranoid? Unpatriotic? Hardly. No, this is actually quite the opposite.
In Inductive Logic—or inference—one attempts to derive a simple operating principle from a larger number of facts. As a consequence, you can have two or more possible conclusions reasonably derived from the same apparent facts. That’s because different people bring a history of different life experiences to bear when looking at the same facts. So how do you know which explanation or theory is correct?
There are three important things to keep in mind:
The first is that inference is not black or white, right or wrong. One explanation can appear to have more support for it than another. There are other rules, but I won’t bore you with them right now. The important thing to keep in mind is that two or more explanations might be reasonable, unlike Deduction, where at best there is one (and only one) right answer—if even that.
Inference is closest to the heart of critical thinking. The next step in inference is to go out and look for additional facts, which will either support or weaken one or more of the explanations. If there is no time to do this, then all one can do is to choose the best explanation and hope for the best. There is no “right” answer; there is only the “best” explanation available at any given time. Inductive (or inferential) proof is an ongoing process. And fortunately, two or more explanations may offer the same or similar choices of action. (More on this later.)
The second important thing to keep in mind about inference is that, even though it is less sure as deduction, it is more important in deciding on a course of action. So when your leaders shine you off by saying you don’t have enough “evidence” or “proof,” you can say that this is your best choice and challenge them to offer facts to support another one.
When you know your reasons, the burden of proof rests with those that challenge you to offer a better explanation together with the reasons that support that explanation. Always remember that the purpose of critical thinking is to help you make choices for yourself. When Mr. Bush or Cheney go on the attack ask yourself one question: Why are your choices such a threat to them?
Such attacks are so common historically that they are regarded as logical fallacies and are called “Ad Homonym,” arguments, attacks directed “at the man.” Another name for this is: character assassination.
The third important thing you have to consider is this: What could be the consequence if some other explanation is proven to be the best, and you are stuck with the one you chose? Putting it another way---what can be the worst thing that can happen if you don’t believe a particular explanation, and yet it turns out to be the best one?
When you are confronted with such a situation, chose a course of action which best covers both bases---the explanation that best fits the facts, and the explanation that you cannot afford to ignore if it turns out to be valid.
Whatever your explanation of the facts of 9/11 and of the behavior and choices of this administration, you cannot afford to ignore my proposed explanation. If my explanation is borne out by the facts, you won’t be left with any choices--period.
I can afford to be wrong and can live with more charitable explanations of this administration’s behavior. The only question you have to ask yourself is---in rejecting my explanation, can you afford to be wrong?
In such a grave matter, no one can afford to be wrong. Stay alert. Keep reading and thinking about what I am saying. Your life and your children’s lives depend upon it.
I feel a prickling in my thumbs
Something wicked this way comes”
(Medieval adage)
It was the best of times, and the worst of times.”
(Victor Hugo “Tale of Two Cities.”)
Each generation historically has been preoccupied with its own affairs and issues as largely unique to the times, and each generation has been aware of the vital necessity of good judgment in order to resolve them properly. With the passage of two World Wars, the Korean War, the Viet Nam War and several other skirmishes, each generation has had opportunity to appreciate this necessity. Today we again are presented with a rapid succession of events, and we find ourselves questioning our own security and survival, and are doing so with little to encourage us. We are even starting to question seriously our ability to survive at all.
We do not have the advantage of historical perspective by instinct. This truth is expressed in the German saying, “We grow too soon old, and too late smart.” Half of the solution to our problems can be found only in the study of history. This is needed because only history simultaneously gives us a retrospective basis with which to understand the present, and it provides us prospective wisdom to act on that understanding.
The other half of the solution lies in our ability to think clearly—in short, to reason. Despite the necessity of this ability as a primary means of survival, it is virtually never taught in school. It is, on the one hand, passed off as implicit, as “common sense” in high school, and, on the other hand, relegated to a formal study as “Logic” in college and university. You will be taught how to cook a meal or how to repair a car, but you will not be taught how to think.
The amalgam of historic perspective and its logical application to the present is known as critical thinking.
Critical thinking is our only primary means of survival. Animals have instincts, teeth, claws, fur, scales, and shells to protect them. We have reason and reason alone. The results of this failure to take reason seriously cannot be overestimated. In the area of politics, when the people cannot see the irrationality of their leaders, then they are impotent both to act and to feel motivated to act, and their very survival is in serious jeopardy. This is precisely the situation we find ourselves in today:
The Vice-President of the United States recently made the following incredible statement:
He said it had not been Washington's responsibility to prove Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before invading -- but Saddam's to show that he did not have them.
To be charitable to Mr. Cheney, this is a classic error in understanding fallacies of Logic: It is logically impossible to prove a negative. Also, it is not necessary—or even possible—to prove that Saddam “did not” have thus-and-such; On the contrary: it is incumbent upon Mr. Cheney to prove that Saddam did, in fact, have such weapons. “Dis”-proof lies in the successful attack on someone’s alleged “proof.” And if his intelligence was in error at that time, then unless and until he can demonstrate undeniably and of necessity that some major change in his thought or knowledge has taken place, a change that compels us subsequently to trust his judgment, then we are logically obligated to dismiss summarily whatever he says in this regard. Please note my choice of words: I didn’t say, “Option;” I said “obligation.”
In this same twenty-four hour period we are treated to another of Mr. Cheney’s contributions: He dismissed a call for a rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, calling it a dangerous illusion that would threaten the future security of the United States.
Again, the burden of proof falls on Mr. Cheney—together with the demonstration that the absence of such a withdrawal (which is to say, our continued presence in Iraq) would ensure success, either alone or in combination with some other proposed action (which, in turn, he would be obliged to prove) that would inevitably lead to success and security. Carrying this one step further, if anyone can offer evidence that our continued presence in Iraq—taken by itself--would or even could endanger us, then Mr. Cheney’s justification for our continued presence as necessary would be seriously damaged. Mr. Cheney also said:
"Any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false."
Again, the burden of proof is on Mr. Cheney to demonstrate that his intelligence was accurate. His failure to do so is proven by the present situation in Iraq, even by his own admission. It speaks for itself. It is the very “disproof” of his claims to accuracy.
He may maintain that the sources and the reasoning involved must remain secret for reasons involving national security. Fair enough; however this assertion also requires some proof or validation. The only evidence he could offer and we could accept would be to point to the total picture in Iraq and to assert that the proof is self-evident, that our glorious success in Iraq speaks for itself. In the absence of demonstrable successful progress, it is incumbent upon the people to reassess their leaders and if necessary to remove them. This then is not an option; it is a logical, compelling necessity.
To make matters worse, our failure to challenge our leaders publicly then inevitably leads the rest of the world—including the Moslem population—to regard us as incapable of being reasonable--or worse--of deliberately maintaining a fiction, which for reasons we do not disclose, is to our unspoken advantage.
This latter point is critical. If we are to ask the world to believe that we are arguably better than our performance would indicate, we must show some evidence that we disapprove and that we are taking action. But we have challenged our leaders, haven’t we? Senator John McCain’s proposed amendment against torture passed with only three votes short of unanimity. Admiral Stansfield Turner, of unimpeachable integrity and a previous ranking administration official and ranking member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff referred to Mr. Cheney as the “Vice-president of Torture.” Strong statement---directed towards the second highest-ranking administrative official of the United States; but if anybody has the authority to make such a statement, Admiral Turner is that person.
Do not underestimate the power in confronting our leaders. There was a time when the Soviets were aggressive in Chechnya. Did we categorically hold the Russian people responsible? No, we did not; we held the leaders and their military responsible.
Similarly, Bush continues to assert that by arguing among ourselves, by challenging our leaders, we only encourage those that would support the Iraqi nationalists. He is absolutely correct—but not for the reason he would have us believe: Our disagreement encourages the people in the Moslem world to believe that perhaps there is real hope, and that perhaps our democratic institutions can actually work. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
And what has been the direct effect of the challenges of conscience directed towards our leaders? A snarling, vicious attack, impugning the patriotism and loyalty of the American people who disagree with Bush and Cheney has been the effect. Using what we are told is a letter from a military officer, Cheney quotes the writer as indicting Sen. McCain and those who see things as he does--as “cowards.” As disgraceful as this response was, it is truly an act of cowardice to use the alleged wording from a letter from someone else. The illegal exposure of a deep-cover operative was also a response. Valerie Plame was risking her life for her country, and her only crime was to be married to an official who did his job---Ambassador Joe Wilson, who reported the facts he was directed to obtain regarding Saddam Hussein’s capability to make nuclear weapons.
Ambassador Wilson served four presidents, two Democrat and two Republican. A similar attack was visited on Paul Kelly, who resigned as Secretary of the Treasury, and for similar reasons, and who also served four presidents, two Republican and two, Democrat.
We are not talking about two turnip truck occupants here. You would think that it would be precisely the information that these men of reputation had worked to obtain that the administration would desperately want to know. Why would Bush and his minions want to believe the worst?
Take this one step further. Why would this Administration want to spend us into bankruptcy, when we can least afford the financial strain? Why the apparent self-destructive run-away spending, simultaneous with this war, including Medication programs for the elderly, a notion that was never seen heretofore as an urgent necessity?
Why the continued tax cuts, the profligate spending in arbitrary ways. Why direct FEMA suddenly to change course (like Katrina) and cut any support out from under 150,000 people in the Louisiana-Texas areas who face permanent displacement and an inevitable and exponential drain on our economy?
Why would the Administration smuggle in almost unnoticed and as an attachment to a military spending bill, the permanent implementation of the “Patriot” act, with its destruction of the most crucial manifestation of our Bill of Rights, that of Habeas Corpus?
This is the first and only successful coup against the First Amendment in the history of the American Constitution. There was no public discussion or careful consideration of the consequences, immediate and remote, to justify reason to shred the most basic principle implicit in the Bill of Rights.
At this point, ask yourself a simple question: Why is this administration so dogmatic, so hell-bent on pursuing its course with no real attempt to defend, let alone justify, its actions? These are not inadvertent errors. These moves were planned, calculated and executed, and with a defiance and grit that gives us a clue to the real reason behind it all. Bush and Cheney act as if they are being attacked personally, as if dissent is a threat to their very survival.
Think back to that morning on September 11th. An attack—on what? On two office buildings, with a smaller member falling down for literally no reason at all? An isolated shot at the Pentagon? National troops were dispatched to New York City for a “terrorist training exercise” and by an incredible coincidence at the same time all this destruction was going on?
I believe we narrowly escaped a highly elaborate planned attack on America—a war against the people. That is the reason why Bush and Cheney take this so personally.
There was one more crash: that of a plane, which went down in a field in Pennsylvania. Had that plane reached the White House, the combination of events would have lead to one inescapable conclusion—which we were under attack by an enemy power, and would have led to a declaration of Martial Law throughout our country. What we would not have known, however, and what we were never to question was---who is that enemy?
Had the plan worked, this country would have been placed under Marshal Law, and would have remained so to this very day. The physical absence of the White House as the functional symbol of power would have been eradicated.
That’s why there are so many loose ends: Our leaders never intended for us, the public, to be free enough and of the proper state of mind calmly to re-examine the events, one by one. That’s why the clumsy—even frantic—attempts to keep us on edge, to keep up the terror hype.
That’s why the snarling irrational attacks on people such as Messrs Kelly and Wilson. There are no declared reasons for what is being done to the people of this country; those reasons went down with the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.
Crazy? Paranoid? Unpatriotic? Hardly. No, this is actually quite the opposite.
In Inductive Logic—or inference—one attempts to derive a simple operating principle from a larger number of facts. As a consequence, you can have two or more possible conclusions reasonably derived from the same apparent facts. That’s because different people bring a history of different life experiences to bear when looking at the same facts. So how do you know which explanation or theory is correct?
There are three important things to keep in mind:
The first is that inference is not black or white, right or wrong. One explanation can appear to have more support for it than another. There are other rules, but I won’t bore you with them right now. The important thing to keep in mind is that two or more explanations might be reasonable, unlike Deduction, where at best there is one (and only one) right answer—if even that.
Inference is closest to the heart of critical thinking. The next step in inference is to go out and look for additional facts, which will either support or weaken one or more of the explanations. If there is no time to do this, then all one can do is to choose the best explanation and hope for the best. There is no “right” answer; there is only the “best” explanation available at any given time. Inductive (or inferential) proof is an ongoing process. And fortunately, two or more explanations may offer the same or similar choices of action. (More on this later.)
The second important thing to keep in mind about inference is that, even though it is less sure as deduction, it is more important in deciding on a course of action. So when your leaders shine you off by saying you don’t have enough “evidence” or “proof,” you can say that this is your best choice and challenge them to offer facts to support another one.
When you know your reasons, the burden of proof rests with those that challenge you to offer a better explanation together with the reasons that support that explanation. Always remember that the purpose of critical thinking is to help you make choices for yourself. When Mr. Bush or Cheney go on the attack ask yourself one question: Why are your choices such a threat to them?
Such attacks are so common historically that they are regarded as logical fallacies and are called “Ad Homonym,” arguments, attacks directed “at the man.” Another name for this is: character assassination.
The third important thing you have to consider is this: What could be the consequence if some other explanation is proven to be the best, and you are stuck with the one you chose? Putting it another way---what can be the worst thing that can happen if you don’t believe a particular explanation, and yet it turns out to be the best one?
When you are confronted with such a situation, chose a course of action which best covers both bases---the explanation that best fits the facts, and the explanation that you cannot afford to ignore if it turns out to be valid.
Whatever your explanation of the facts of 9/11 and of the behavior and choices of this administration, you cannot afford to ignore my proposed explanation. If my explanation is borne out by the facts, you won’t be left with any choices--period.
I can afford to be wrong and can live with more charitable explanations of this administration’s behavior. The only question you have to ask yourself is---in rejecting my explanation, can you afford to be wrong?
In such a grave matter, no one can afford to be wrong. Stay alert. Keep reading and thinking about what I am saying. Your life and your children’s lives depend upon it.
Print
Email
