The RW has co-opted “Connect the Dots”. Result we lose liberties….

[Junkdrawer]

The Let It Happen On Purpose (LIHOP) community coined the phrase “Connect the Dots” to counter a disturbing trend. That trend was that each damning piece of information coming out about 9-11 was considered and rationalized in isolation. So bureaucrats stopped Rowley’s FISA, Ashcroft refused to fly commercial because of domestic threats, no interceptors were sent up to investigate the hijackings because no-one could anticipate such a threat, etc. etc. We asked that you take all the evidence, “connect the dots”, and then consider the possibility that this government may have strategically ignored warnings.

But the RW and the mainstream media have adopted a different use of the phrase: Because of rules that handicapped cooperation in the name of civil liberties, mid-level FBI and CIA operatives were unable to “connect the dots”. Thus, the “solution” to the problem was to pass legislation that erodes civil liberties.

How could they do this? Because the thought that the Bush administration could possibly allow a terror attack has been deemed “unthinkable. And so the more unthinkable the LIHOP assertion, the more likely that the current scandal will boomerang and result in a loss of liberty. Want to make sure the current scandal sticks? Work to make your scenario believable!

[saltara]

1. let's get to work

You are so right about the co-opting of "connect the dots" with regard to an agenda that will result in further loss of civil liberties and reinforcing the narrow parameters that have been set with regard to the investigation.

Both Clarke and Rice lectured about the importance of the Patriot Act (without giving examples as to what couldn't be done before it was passed - citing a lack of "information sharing" abilities or the need for "structural changes" is not a concrete example).

If we want to head off Patriot II at the pass or the idea that was floated during Rice's testimony that we need a domestic spy agency, we'd better get to work making our case concrete and believable - you're right again. For example, in another recent DU thread, someone mentioned that over a thousand FISA warrants to investigate the threat of foreign terrorism were granted during the Clinton administration. So it's ridiculous to accept the idea that some of those midlevel agents couldn't get their warrants because of legal impediments. What, the toplevel FBI officials would turn down the requests for warrants because Ashcroft's Justice Department doesn't want to risk overstepping the boundaries of the law, even in an investigation of terrorist threats to our country? Yeah, right! And as you point out, the "no interceptors" sent up has nothing to do with the ability to anticipate the threat but has everything to do with not following standard operating procedures. And when is the Commission going to ask someone about the numerous warnings from foreign governments? Who heard these warnings and who passed them on to which agencies?

For those who are concerned with the developing agenda to convince the public that we need to give away more of our civil liberties in order to "win" the "war on terrorism," better start doing some productive sleuthing, research, and preparing talking points. Talking points to send to the media or to your senator / congressperson who may be presented with a strengthening the Patriot Act bill or whatever in the not too distant future.

[whatelseisnew]

2. Even worse, the RW has co-opted the Media and sadly

also co-opted many Dem elected officials

[skeptic9]

3. Idon't like the term "LIHOP". First, it's jargon. Second,

even if it accurately describes what really happened, it's not the simplest explanation. I prefer to say, Dubya moved into the WH and very likely was too negligent or too ignorant to understand the security measures installed by previous tenants. Figuratively, he left some doors and windows unlocked and some alarms turned off, increasing the odds of terrorist attacks. He didn't lock those locks and turn on those alarms in time. Some of them STILL may be vulnerabilities for our security, since his major security response to the attacks has been denial that anything was awry before 9-11.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Here's my best guess...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1296064

[aquart]

7. That acquits him of any and all malice.

Which cannot possibly be an accurate version of the vicious and malicious George.

LIHOP is the most accurate description, unless you believe he was able to coordinate the actions of Muslim men. He needed to LIHOP or he couldn't get his war or his dictatorship. WHO BENEFITS? The one who benefitted the most was GEORGE.

Remember his job ratings the day before 9/11? Remember them the day after?

At TAP, the message board I was on at the time, we were saying that if George went down to fifty percent, America would go to war. Lo and behold.

[rustydog]

4. The Right Wing can't connect any dots unless they are in a

numbered sequence.

[Selwynn]

6. This is what I have been terrified about - and no one else seems to ...

...pay much attention.

Everyone is so excited hoping that the 9/11 report will be damning to Bush. In reality, what its more likely to be, is damning to whatever is left of the American way of life.

I think the report will place blame on the Intelligence agencies primarily, and then use that exact argument - that our government was unable to "connect the dots" toward this terrorist threat because they were hampered by the law - laws which are about guaranteeing us our rights and maintaining the spirit and integrity of constitutional principals. They will make the case that it is the fault of "too much" freedom that caused this attack, and they will renew their argument that in the face of this "new post 9/11 world" such luxuries can no longer be afforded. The report will serve as a "manifesto" for stripping even more Civil Liberties and ascribing more power to the state.

That's exactly what I think will come of it. The report will point the finger at liberty and say "she is to blame for not stopping 9/11" - and the recommendation will be that she be raped in the name of "security."

Welcome to the next decade of hell.