http://www.Takeoverworld.info/naomi_fascism.html

Critique of Naomi Wolf's article: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

Naomi could have done more research. She's right about Bush and Clinton and early signs of fascism of course, but this is a system which has been modified in the USA to not rely on a single leader. Anyone who will transfer power and sovereignty to the Feds, and economic liberty to the mulitnationals, is acceptable.

Watered-down MOONBAT liberal opinions are not going to help the cause. Either go for the gusto or join the Republicans. This is a critique, not a condemnation.

Naomi also left out many things. She implies that fascism could develop some day, simply by the softness of her article. She seems to fail to display intent.

{"It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is."}

Don't be so sure. This statement directly contradicts Zbignew Brzezinski, the guy who founded Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
www.Takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_quotes.html

She could have at least mentioned that.

She could have also mentioned that although it was a surprise attack on Americans, it was not a surprise attack to some 20 or more of our allies, who did warn us, including one of the Taliban leaders. Apparently it must not been that much of a surprise attack to the dozen top American leaders who publicly wished for and hoped for just that event. (People have cognitive dissonance about that, so I'm clarifying that this was written in books and papers.)

It pisses me off so much that Naomi Wolf, as respected as she is, would not simply state the fact that THREE of our top foreign policy experts wrote about Sept 11 in advance as a lucky event they hoped might occur, and the fourth was an organization consisting of some 20 - 50 top people who also almost demanded such an event to jump start more aggressive US foreign policy -- a new Pearl Harbor leading into a New American Century of war. Just like a playbook, their disaster miraculously occurred right on time. [sarcasm] Probably a coincidence. Couldn't involve planning. [/sarcasm]

At very least, it's a treasonous sentiment which should be exposed and questioned, but it's obviously much more. The fact that it's not mentioned should be a clue. These are the same think tanks behind orchestrating the war, and behind the "news" spouted by "experts" on Fox and other major media. Google PNAC or simply "new pearl harbor". That's not just the title of a conspiracy theory book by David Ray Griffin, it's the description of what PNAC said they wanted.

Michael Ledeen published a nasty paper called Code Alpha ...