The shi* is about to hit the fan.....

[Cyrus Ramsey]

and its looking real good.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/01/senate.iraq.ap/index.html

Democrats force Senate into unusual closed session
Majority leader decries move as a publicity stunt

Tuesday, November 1, 2005; Posted: 3:30 p.m. EST (20:30 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that led to the Iraq war and deriding a lack of congressional inquiry.

"I demand on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted," Democratic leader Harry Reid said.

Taken by surprise, Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas," the Republican leader said.

Reid demanded the Senate go into closed session. The public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, and the doors were closed. No vote is required in such circumstances.

Pre-war intelligence at issue
Reid's move shone a spotlight on the continuing controversy over intelligence that President Bush cited in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Despite prewar claims, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and some Democrats have accused the administration of manipulating the information that was in their possession.

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted last Friday in an investigation that touched on the war, the leak of the identity of a CIA official married to a critic of the administration's Iraq policy. (Full story)

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said before invoking Senate rules that led to the closed session.

Libby resigned from his White House post after being indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.

Democrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration's contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House's justification for going to war.

A rare move
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."

A former majority leader, Lott said a closed session was appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons -- the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

In addition, Lott said, Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid's effort.

As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, who bore the brunt of Reid's criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

[Jack Masta Janda]

hahahaha. Good ole Democrats. Right now the White House is a complete fucking joke to me.

[DJPrato]

Maybe they could look at the information provided by the Able Danger special ops unit back in 1999 - 2000 that was blocked by Dept of Defense lawyers from being given to the CIA.

Pros:
-It identified 4 of the 9-11 hijackers by name (including the leader).
-It could force a complete overhaul of the Department of Defense.
-Had the Able Danger info been given to the CIA, 9-11 and the Iraq war might never have happened.

Cons:
-Although the Bush administration is involved in the late stages of the coverup (especially Rumsfeld) the bulk of this fiasco took place under Clinton. So it can't further any one party's political agenda.

Predicted outcome:
Forget the fact that we had intelligence that an attack was coming and the names of the terrorists a year in advance. Lets talk about how a high level official in this administration leaked the name of one CIA agent to a member of the United States press.

A much more pressing issue that is in no way politically motivated.

[Cyrus Ramsey]

Just a little update, the senate is back in public hearings. The republicans have promised to give a full investigative report into the allegations that the Bush administration possibly lied to the public about going to war in Iraq. This investigative report is expected back on January 14th.

Their is much more to this story but I dont feel like typing it all out. I'll just wait for one of the news agencys to report it.

[djxanlucero]

i think the parade of truths that are going to start anytime now could possibly be enough to begin changing the structure of social thinking in America forever.

[Cyrus Ramsey]

Maybe they could look at the information provided by the Able Danger special ops unit back in 1999 - 2000 that was blocked by Dept of Defense lawyers from being given to the CIA.

Pros:
-It identified 4 of the 9-11 hijackers by name (including the leader).
-It could force a complete overhaul of the Department of Defense.
-Had the Able Danger info been given to the CIA, 9-11 and the Iraq war might never have happened.

Cons:
-Although the Bush administration is involved in the late stages of the coverup (especially Rumsfeld) the bulk of this fiasco took place under Clinton. So it can't further any one party's political agenda.

Predicted outcome:
Forget the fact that we had intelligence that an attack was coming and the names of the terrorists a year in advance. Lets talk about how a high level official in this administration leaked the name of one CIA agent to a member of the United States press.

A much more pressing issue that is in no way politically motivated.

And that is going to be one of the main focuses of the investigation.

let not forget the Scooter is the first high administration official to be indicted in over 130 years. That alone is enough full to start the investigation.

[auralassassin]

that report was something that they had agreed to talk about 2 weeks from now anyway...

second of all, it wasn't about whether or not Bush lied, rather whether or not Cheney should resign, because of misusing information.

put your torches down and disband your mob.

[DjNyx]

hahahaha. Good ole Democrats. Right now the White House is a complete fucking joke to me.



or just the whole effing government itself.

[r0t8]

or just the whole effing government itself.
or half the united states

[Cyrus Ramsey]

that report was something that they had agreed to talk about 2 weeks from now anyway...

second of all, it wasn't about whether or not Bush lied, rather whether or not Cheney should resign, because of misusing information.

put your torches down and disband your mob.

hahaha, the republicans have agreed to talk about this over and over again. Lott even promised a full investigation, an investigation of course that never happened. The republicans are always saying "we wil look into it" and "were gonna talk about it" and of course a few times they have talked about it but what has come of it?

Pat Roberts is crying now saying that"well this is gutter politics, all they had to do was ask us to look into it". Well fucking duh. How many times in public have they asked you to start the investigation? Lott even said on public TV, twice even, that they would investigate it. I fucking watched him say it on Meet The Press.

The mob is in full force buddy. The dems are finally growing some balls. Lets get it on.

[The Professor]

bullying in the government is the next step in the slide toward fascism...

this should be interesting to watch...

[Cyrus Ramsey]

the republicans have been bullying the dems around for a long time now. i am finally releived that one of the dems is fighting back, well actually in this case 7 of them.

[DJPrato]

let not forget the Scooter is the first high administration official to be indicted in over 130 years. That alone is enough full to start the investigation.

Yeah, it's almost as if some high ranking official (say, the President) lied on the stand during his Grand Jury testimony, was found in contempt, and was impeached.

Or maybe I'm crazy.

[DJPrato]

^^^ and, for the record, I don't like the president much either. I just hate this irrational mob mentality even more. The revisionist history and questionable news "reporting" that's going on nearly every news channel is undermining what really are valid critisims of the administration.

It's fine to pile on the Vice President and his staff for what is an obvious abuse of power. But to link it, in any way to the war destroys everyone's credibility.

All I'm saying is, when you have the opposition on the ropes... don't get sloppy.

[Cyrus Ramsey]

Yeah, it's almost as if some high ranking official (say, the President) lied on the stand during his Grand Jury testimony, was found in contempt, and was impeached.

Or maybe I'm crazy.

Ok well first Clinton wasnt impeached.

2nd I think lieing about oral sex is far less of a problem wiht our nation then say lieing about the facts to go to war and thus killing over 2000 of our own soldiers in your conquest for more $$ and oil.

Ohh and you cant indict a president, any and all presidents who have appeared before a grand jury did so willingly, to include Clinton and Nixon.

[DJPrato]

And if the Democrats want to have hearings on the reasons the President went to war, for god's sake, they shouldn't use the flimsy pretense of this CIA leak scandal. They'll blow their chance. Use some common sense.

[DJPrato]

RJ man, don't go with the oil argument when we have some of the most oil rich land on the planet. The Gulf, Alaska, we don't need or count on middle east oil.

Want proof? When did the prices go up in recent history? When we began waging war over there? Or when our primary oil supply (The Gulf) was temporarily ravaged by the hurricanes.

[Cyrus Ramsey]

And if the Democrats want to have hearings on the reasons the President went to war, for god's sake, they shouldn't use the flimsy pretense of this CIA leak scandal. They'll blow their chance. Use some common sense.

Ok Prato that doesnt make sense.

The CIA leak was a direct result of harsh critisism of the Bush administrations reasoning for going to war. The reason why whats her faces name got leaked was a punishment to her husband who so blantely spoke out against the administration. The investigation is not only looking into the many lies that brought us to war with Iraq but also they ways and means the Bush administration used to shut up the people who spoke out against them.

[Cyrus Ramsey]

RJ man, don't go with the oil argument when we have some of the most oil rich land on the planet. The Gulf, Alaska, we don't need or count on middle east oil.

Want proof? When did the prices go up in recent history? When we began waging war over there? Or when our primary oil supply (The Gulf) was temporarily ravaged by the hurricanes.

It wasnt the 5% drop in supply when the oil rigs went down that caused oil prices to skyrocket, it was the fact that the three biggest oil refinerys in the nation are located on the gulf coast and were shut down. With the refinerys shut down we could not process all that Mid East oil that we rely on so desperatly.

We do rely on Mideast oil. 70% of our nations oil supply comes directly from Opec nartions in the Mideast.

[DJPrato]

We are waging a sloppy war against the wrong group of people. Just because there are terrorists in Iraq doesn't mean we should have overthrown the government.

The right is wrong for citing the atrocities Saddam committed in his own country. The issue was harboring terrorists. Iran is actually a worse offender than Iraq. But it's not practical to go after, and overthrow, every seat of power in the Middle East. It's like a huge infestation. You knock down the nest and the hornets just scatter and regroup.

The left is even worse. Saying we should feel guilty for even existing. The major attacks on the West occured long before we went to war. So saying we have no understanding of their culture is a total copout. We have opposing sociatal philosophies. It's not what we've done LATELY. It's who we are and always have been. It's not like if we do a bunch of public interest stories on Islam or have a national day of Islam or anything else we'll suddenly be in their good graces.

[Cyrus Ramsey]

We are waging a sloppy war against the wrong group of people. Just because there are terrorists in Iraq doesn't mean we should have overthrown the government.

Those terrorist didnt exsist in Iraq untill we came in and made a mess out of the place.

The right is wrong for citing the atrocities Saddam committed in his own country. The issue was harboring terrorists. Iran is actually a worse offender than Iraq. But it's not practical to go after, and overthrow, every seat of power in the Middle East. It's like a huge infestation. You knock down the nest and the hornets just scatter and regroup.

True but dont forget that wasnt the only reason we went into Iraq, do you remember the claims about WMD? Ohhh and wasnt the lack of WMD's that got homeboy so pissed he publicly spoke out against the Bush admin which in turn got his wife outed as a undercover CIA operative thus making more of a mess in the long run? hmmmmmmmm

The left is even worse. Saying we should feel guilty for even existing. The major attacks on the West occured long before we went to war. So saying we have no understanding of their culture is a total copout. We have opposing sociatal philosophies. It's not what we've done LATELY. It's who we are and always have been. It's not like if we do a bunch of public interest stories on Islam or have a national day of Islam or anything else we'll suddenly be in their good graces.

Who on the left is saying that we shouldnt exsist? Are you listening to Rush again or Savage again? And no one of the left is saying if we start spreading Islam in our nation they will stop their attacks. What were saying is if we keep messing around with the goverments of the mideast were just fucking ourselves and making it worse.

[DJPrato]

We do rely on Mideast oil. 70% of our nations oil supply comes directly from Opec nartions in the Mideast.

So we put refineries in the middle of the Gulf? No drilling then going on out there? Seems like an odd place to put a refinery. Guess it's smelly or something.

As to your OPEC fact...I concede. We do import oil. Why is the question. With the reserves in Alaska we really don't need it.

Do we need the oil in Iraq? No.
Surely environmentalist objections to domestic oil production in Alaska don't exist any more. I mean these are the same people quoting the number of US deaths in Iraq. I'm sure they've had a change of heart.

[Cyrus Ramsey]

So we put refineries in the middle of the Gulf? No drilling then going on out there? Seems like an odd place to put a refinery. Guess it's smelly or something.

No stupid. EPA laws have greatly increased the cost of refineing oil and thus have shut down 95% of the major oil refineing capabilities of our nation. As a result the only three major refinerys located in the USA are in the gulf region in and around New Orleans, Biloxi etc... Those three major refinerys refine 89% of the oil that arrives into our county from the Mideast and the oil platforms out in the gulf.

After the hurricanes shut down the ports, and killed electricity those three major refinerys could not do their job. thus causing the enourmous spike in fule cost following the hurricanes.

As to your OPEC fact...I concede. We do import oil. Why is the question. With the reserves in Alaska we really don't need it.

My best guess is because it cost more to get the oil from the Mideast to here thus making the room for profit on the oil cost greater. When you stand to make a lerger profit you then want more of the capabilities to get that profit generating substance.

Do we need the oil in Iraq? No.
Surely environmentalist objections to domestic oil production in Alaska don't exist any more. I mean these are the same people quoting the number of US deaths in Iraq. I'm sure they've had a change of heart.

woah woah slow down buddy. No "we" dont need oil from Iraq. But c'mon man. The Bush administration has been making the bulk of their fortune off of mideast oil for 50 + years now. Dont oyu find it funny that nealy all of the terrorist that were responcible for the 9/11 attacks were Saudi Arabian, but yet we didnt attack Saudi Arabia, but rather went into Afghanistan? We still have yet to hold the rich and powerful Saudis accountable for their terrorist breeding nation.

[DJPrato]

You're right RJ, the terrorists popped up right after we went to Iraq. The 1st bombing of the World Trade, USS Cole, The US embassy, and 9-11... they must have known we were going in there long before us.

WMD was Bush's biggest mistake. We had intelligence Saddam was harboring and giving financial aid to terrorists (you can thank Clinton for that, he brought attention to it enough). That was enough to take millitary action. We turned Afganistan into a Democracy and thought we could create another friend in a volitale region with Iraq. Maybe even get close to the real problem areas (Iran). Stupid and a distraction to the war on terror. Bush confused military action in the region with playing the board game RISK. Now we have to deal with the mess.

He should be called out. But understanding the real reasons he did things will make any attacks on his judgement more effective.

[auralassassin]

The president shouldn't be lying to the American people about ANY subject, from cheating on his wife, to cheating on sources in order to take us to war.

As Mullen said, it should be interesting to see how it plays out, but if nothing comes of it--I am sure you will cry coverup... what happens if we just went in on Bad Intelligence, instead of outright lies... Democrats and Republicans BOTH voted to go to war based upon the same intelligence, should they not ALL be pissed?

[r0t8]

anyone who defends bush at all is automatically a fucking retard in my book

[DJPrato]

RJ and I had to take the argument offline and hash it out over the phone. We agree about most stuff. It's mostly an argument over motivation for the war. The notion that the President's main motivation for going to war was for personal financial gain threatens to debase the valid critisisms the left actually have. You can have good intentions and be a fuck-up.

My point is, it's more logical that the motivation for actions in Iraq were to create a friendly nation in the center of a terrorist-producing region than making oil dollars for a handful of already rich people. Wacky conspiracy theorists give the left the bad name that wacky religious zealots give the right.

[Cyrus Ramsey]

ok my brain hurts now. i'll get back on this subject tomorrow after a good nights sleep.

but trust me i have plenty more to talk about.

[r0t8]

i love when bush supporters use the arguement that bush is good for the "fight against terrorism", when in fact bush has been the major CAUSE of terrorism (not only in the US, but in the UK and Spain) since he's been in office. i wonder if some people really think car bombings were so frequent before our occupation in iraq? attacks against our troops don't qualify as terrorist activites. if an army from another country came over here and tried to occupy my home and my country... pulling me out of my house so they can search it for bombs and shit, holding a gun to my head etc... of COURSE i would fight back. we go over there and occupy their shit, then pretend like WE are the victims. that's just totally amazing and nonsensical to me. that's what happens when you try to break up someone elses fight. you get smacked in the face, then you get pissed that the guy hit you when you shouldn't have even bothered trying to break it up in the first place. sure, saddam is/was a really shitty person, but at least he generally kept his problems at home rather than spreading them onto other countries. and i wonder if the people of that country will be much better in 50 years under our occupation than they would be in the same time, under the rule of a new leader after saddam. before, they had to worry only about saddam... now they have to worry about their neighbors. what's your arguement again? oh... capitalism and democracy = happiness? really, is it so simple? don't think so. and $500 billion spent on it in 10 years? awesome.

let's also not forget his stance on issues like the environment, stem cell research, his nominations for the supreme court, the patriot act, the handling of natural disasters, fueling tensions with north korea (lets hope he doesn't get involved in the china-taiwan dispute), fueling tensions with iran (thus fueling tension with russia and china), promoting the union of church and state, giving tax breaks only to the rich, the invasion of afghanistan for no reason other than to catch one person - brilliant (yea taliban camel riders are a real threat), the CIA leak scandal, etc etc. these are only some of the major issues. extrapolate and i think it's reasonable to assume that he's made irresponsible decisions on 'minor', less publicized issues.

[auralassassin]

solve our problems for us Jenz. Please?

I see a lot of people who talk shit on someone, when in reality, they do jack shit to make the world a better place. I disagree with 99% of the shit Bush does, but I generally have a pretty good reason for it--mainly, because I am a REAL republican...

check this out...

there was this document written a LONG time ago, I think that it is the supreme law of the land, and a few other people do too... one of them is his newest Nominee to the supreme court.

See, a TON of people think that this guy is anti abortion, which isn't entirely true--he's PRO LIFE, which means that his personal opinion is that women shouldn't have abortions.

That is MY personal opinion as well, but I am pro choice--how does this work, you ask?

Because I do not wage war against rights. Yours or anyone else's, be they from my personal posse or not. Be they democrat or republican. I also, if I was a judge, could put my personal opinions aside and vote based on WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS--even if I disagree with it... THAT, my friends, is what makes a good judge.

Now think back for a moment to that archaic document--the government shall make NO LAWS regarding Religion... Religion is in the MIDDLE of a sentence and capitalized... I bet Dear ole Andrew can explain what a proper noun is for those who don't know... it means that someone went and said RELIGION, with a capital R. That means that while the federal government WON'T choose a national religion, that the nation can still be founded on the pricipals of Christianity and NOT be choosing RELIGION.

See, you have the freedom OF religion, not FROM religion.

Now if you take the constitution and translate the damn thing literally it means less and less what you THINK it means, and starts meaning something completely different.

All of the sudden, ACTIVIST JUDGES(the ones who think and act like Andrew would like them to) started making laws from the bench(unconstitutional) regarding... you guessed it, RELIGION and prayer is schools, etc.. pro or con, this is OUTRAGEOUS--and I see noone arguing about that side of the issue, even though it is unconstitutional.

I could go on and on about every little MINUTE fucking transgression by both sides of the ticket, but just a brief analysis of RELIGION and how fucking ass backwards liberals are on the subject is a good primer for you to read the damn document on your own. Pay special attention to capitalization and grammar--also note tone of the document... you think someone needs to go to fucking law school to know what thier rights are?

Read the Constitution.

Those are what your rights are. Any stretch of the imagination = NOT YOUR RIGHTS. THOSE powers are left up to the STATES. I.E. ABORTION.

You think some woman pregnant with a fetus/child/animal/mammal/plant/organic lifeform that we both created shouldn't have to INFORM(not get consent, but fucking inform for christ sake) me before killing that kid?

What about a 12 year old daughter of mine... should she not have to tell me either? See, THAT is what the case that keeps being cited is actually about--noone even bothered to mention that, they just took what other implications it had and spun thier talking points whichever way caused controversy.

I bet you'd be SUPRISED to know that the nominee UPHELD partial birth abortion!!!

See, noone here has actually read this guys rulings... noone here KNOWS what this intelligence was or wasn't... and THIS FUCKING MEETING WAS ALREADY ON THE DAMNED AGENDA OF THE SENATE FOR THE LAST MONTH--THE DATE HASN'T CHANGED, ONLY THE FACT THAT IT IS IN THE NEWS NOW BECAUSE OF THIS.

Get it?

It's a fucking stunt.

[Cyrus Ramsey]

Ralph i really think this reply belongs in the other thread about Bush's latest court nominee. \/

solve our problems for us Jenz. Please?

I see a lot of people who talk shit on someone, when in reality, they do jack shit to make the world a better place. I disagree with 99% of the shit Bush does, but I generally have a pretty good reason for it--mainly, because I am a REAL republican...

check this out...

there was this document written a LONG time ago, I think that it is the supreme law of the land, and a few other people do too... one of them is his newest Nominee to the supreme court.

See, a TON of people think that this guy is anti abortion, which isn't entirely true--he's PRO LIFE, which means that his personal opinion is that women shouldn't have abortions.

That is MY personal opinion as well, but I am pro choice--how does this work, you ask?

Because I do not wage war against rights. Yours or anyone else's, be they from my personal posse or not. Be they democrat or republican. I also, if I was a judge, could put my personal opinions aside and vote based on WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS--even if I disagree with it... THAT, my friends, is what makes a good judge.

Now think back for a moment to that archaic document--the government shall make NO LAWS regarding Religion... Religion is in the MIDDLE of a sentence and capitalized... I bet Dear ole Andrew can explain what a proper noun is for those who don't know... it means that someone went and said RELIGION, with a capital R. That means that while the federal government WON'T choose a national religion, that the nation can still be founded on the pricipals of Christianity and NOT be choosing RELIGION.

See, you have the freedom OF religion, not FROM religion.

Now if you take the constitution and translate the damn thing literally it means less and less what you THINK it means, and starts meaning something completely different.

All of the sudden, ACTIVIST JUDGES(the ones who think and act like Andrew would like them to) started making laws from the bench(unconstitutional) regarding... you guessed it, RELIGION and prayer is schools, etc.. pro or con, this is OUTRAGEOUS--and I see noone arguing about that side of the issue, even though it is unconstitutional.

I could go on and on about every little MINUTE fucking transgression by both sides of the ticket, but just a brief analysis of RELIGION and how fucking ass backwards liberals are on the subject is a good primer for you to read the damn document on your own. Pay special attention to capitalization and grammar--also note tone of the document... you think someone needs to go to fucking law school to know what thier rights are?

Read the Constitution.

Those are what your rights are. Any stretch of the imagination = NOT YOUR RIGHTS. THOSE powers are left up to the STATES. I.E. ABORTION.

You think some woman pregnant with a fetus/child/animal/mammal/plant/organic lifeform that we both created shouldn't have to INFORM(not get consent, but fucking inform for christ sake) me before killing that kid?

What about a 12 year old daughter of mine... should she not have to tell me either? See, THAT is what the case that keeps being cited is actually about--noone even bothered to mention that, they just took what other implications it had and spun thier talking points whichever way caused controversy.

I bet you'd be SUPRISED to know that the nominee UPHELD partial birth abortion!!!

See, noone here has actually read this guys rulings... noone here KNOWS what this intelligence was or wasn't... and THIS FUCKING MEETING WAS ALREADY ON THE DAMNED AGENDA OF THE SENATE FOR THE LAST MONTH--THE DATE HASN'T CHANGED, ONLY THE FACT THAT IT IS IN THE NEWS NOW BECAUSE OF THIS.

Get it?

It's a fucking stunt.

[JustJohn]

Ok well first Clinton wasnt impeached.




Clinton was impeached, he just wasn't removed from office. Impeachment doesn't mean removed from office. To impeach means to charge a public official with improper conduct before a proper tribunal; to try to discredit or challenge.

[auralassassin]

Yep, Clinton was impeached, and to be honest he broke the law.

I personally liked Clinton, but the president should be held to a higher standard than the average man/woman--so he should have been gone--just like Bush.

[JustJohn]

bullying in the government is the next step in the slide toward fascism...

this should be interesting to watch...


I don't even think most Americans would even recognize a fascist government. We practically live in a fascist society as is. Its just an economic fascism.

True Democracy requires more responsibility than most people care to have, so slowly over time they begin to give up powers to the government, and eventually your living in a totalarian(sp?) state. Its already happened and most people don't even know. Human beings are psychologicaly incapable of governing themselves.

[auralassassin]

Human beings are psychologicaly incapable of governing themselves.

true dat.

[r0t8]

"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

racism could be anyone non-christian in bush's case

[JustJohn]

"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."



sounds like the US except we have a fascist oligarchy