Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditReports are that Rupert Murdoch plans to offer Tony Blair a prominent position in his media empire when Bush's poodle steps down as prime minister or Gordon Brown finally stages a coup. Now that's a Fox and Friends episode I'd like to catch.
Just imagine the possibilities…Murdoch could give Tony his own show.
Given the PM's involvement in the quagmire in Iraq, Fox News should call it: Sticky Situations with Tony Blair. Its focus: public figures who need to wriggle out of a mess of their own making. There would be no shortage of guests.
Take for example Mitt Romney, who recently got himself into a sticky situation by using racially charged slang--"tar baby." Mel Gibson could provide the Hollywood star factor with tearful explanations about the link between alcoholism and anti-Semitism. And Katherine Harris is a guaranteed weekly guest. After she loses her Senate race, she'll have a lot to get off her chest.
Of course, all opinion shows needs their recurring segments. Tony Blair's could be: Peace in the Middle East, Turning the Corner in Iraq, and My Friend George.
Yes, the possibilities are endless. I hope Bill O'Reilly is ready for the competition.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
dont forget - murdoch bought hillary too - perhaps one day we will see the tony and hillary show - 2 people many once trusted who sold out to an australian version of satan...one yank, one limey...oops - i said "limey" - i'm soooo sorry....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2006 @ 3:20pm
What about a show about rich liberals who hide their money in tax shelters so that the poor won't get it via social services? Do as I say, not as I do, eh, KVH?
Posted by woodyee at 08/02/2006 @ 3:20pm
oops - i said it twice...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2006 @ 3:21pm
Posted by WOODYEE 08/02/2006 @ 3:20pm
YEAH KVH! GIVE US ALL UR MONEY U HYPOCRITICAL LIMO LIBERAL! who do you think you are? being wealthy and speaking up for the non wealthy. give woodeye, at least, all your money - he seems to have some good uses for it!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2006 @ 3:23pm
Good idea IBB. It's clear that WOOD is such an obviously sincere advocate for the poor that I think we should all send him our money. I have no doubt he's deeply involved in anti-poverty work so he probably doesn't have much time for personal enrichment.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/02/2006 @ 3:27pm
jeez - 15 or twenty minutes alone and uncencored with rupert and god knows what yould probably hear - but a lot worse than "tar baby" and antisemitic slurs....and a lot more...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2006 @ 3:29pm
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 08/02/2006 @ 3:27pm
i could not agree more...lol
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2006 @ 3:31pm
Re-read this piece and am still perplexed...
Is Ms vanden Heuvel upset that...
A. Blair is still in power after "betraying" his Labour roots for the last 4 years, supporting Bush, etc.
B. That Blair will leave politics for Media (much as Carville, Stephanopoulous, etc. have) and get well-paid for it?
C. That Fox News continues to dominate ratings in the cable news world?
D. All of the above and she just needed to vent?
Posted by Mask at 08/02/2006 @ 3:38pm
Ouch Peter! What, you get taken out to these high class DC restaurants and now you become a spokesman for for the rich and liberal. You sold out! Power to the people!
Posted by woodyee at 08/02/2006 @ 3:57pm
Well if we're going to consider future guests on potential 'Fox and Friends' episodes, how about...
How about Rumsfeld who can try to explain yet again how starting a war "with the military you have" is such a good thing.
Or, maybe Dick Cheney can try yet again to explain how shooting someone in the face is no big deal...happens all the time...no story there.
Posted by Lillian at 08/02/2006 @ 3:58pm
Posted by MASK 08/02/2006 @ 3:38pm
we all need to vent from time to time. but i guess its just ironic that the head of the equivelant of britain's democratic party, could first become sooooo attached to the bush administration in lieberman like stickiness, then exibit all the outward sign of having sold his soul by associating with satan himself, australian publisher and lord of darkness, rupert murdoch...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2006 @ 3:59pm
MASK
I pick D.
It is the most correct answer.
Posted by CPT at 08/02/2006 @ 4:01pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 08/02/2006 @ 3:59pm | ignore this person
Not sure I see any point in writing this, then, IBBLE.
One last "poke" at Blair before he leaves office and cashs in (as so many others Left and Right have done) with The Media?
And not sure I see the "Satanic" side of Murdoch....except that he's conservative and successful (which I guess is enough...hehe).
Posted by Mask at 08/02/2006 @ 4:03pm
Ouch Peter! What, you get taken out to these high class DC restaurants and now you become a spokesman for for the rich and liberal. You sold out! Power to the people!
Posted by WOODYEE 08/02/2006 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person
Wow Woodyee, sounds like somebody is jealous. Don't you know that all rich people worked hard for everything they have and deserve every penny....Maasch has been declaring such for quite some time over on the 'Republican hypocrisy re: minimum wage/estate tax" thread...along with the fact that anyone who hasn't yet 'got theirs' is simply lazy and, if they complain, are secretly jealous of those that have 'got theirs'.
Posted by Lillian at 08/02/2006 @ 4:04pm
Posted by MASK 08/02/2006 @ 4:03pm
nah - murdoch has been more than just conservative, mask, and u know that. he has been conservative and owns a huge chunk of the media which includes one conservative news station and ZERO liberal news stations. also he is conservative and then some.
the point? kick blair a couple of times? why not, eh? i say he deserves it. the irony supports a certain dark humor. good to vent, you know.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2006 @ 4:10pm
Re-read this piece and am still perplexed...
Posted by MASK 08/02/2006 @ 3:38pm | ignore this person
This seems to be an ongoing problem with you Mask...you often either mis-read articles at The Nation and ascribe intent that simply isn't there (for instance, with your 'options' A - D) or simply fail to grasp the article alltogether.
Might I suggest a you enroll in a remedial course in Reading Comprehension 101? Then maybe you can sit down and explain it to CPT.
Posted by Lillian at 08/02/2006 @ 4:13pm
Lillian's on a roll. Go Lillian!
Posted by woodyee at 08/02/2006 @ 4:16pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 08/02/2006 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person
Then we agree...it's just "venting".
As for Murdoch, he provides a service...people WANT his service (note: latest ratings on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC)...and he invests where he makes money, not where he loses it (say, for instance, "Air America").
Not seeing the "Satanic" part of that...any more than I'd see some right-winger calling the odd, but just-as-successful Ted Turner "Satanic".
Posted by Mask at 08/02/2006 @ 4:18pm
Posted by LILLIAN 08/02/2006 @ 4:13pm | ignore this person
Okay, LILLIAN....What IS the point of Ms vanden Heuvel's article?
and remember, can't be any of my "A,B,C," or "Ds".
Posted by Mask at 08/02/2006 @ 4:19pm
Posted by MASK 08/02/2006 @ 4:18pm
because, imp, thats not the satanic part - look, if we use the ratio of conservative news networks to liberal news networks he owns as a measure of his politics, he is incalculably more conservative than he is liberal! and he controls and therefore filters news and information, thereby subtlely lying to buzillions...his past and recorded comments have not exactly painted him to be "limo liberal", and for a foriegn national, he sure is influential in my country. oh well, guess we should get used to that. but yeah - satanic.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2006 @ 4:29pm
Posted by ZERO 08/02/2006 @ 4:34pm
and i want to keep kicking him and a lot of others for a long time after ALL of this is history. deserve(s) it. in the interest of accurate historical record.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2006 @ 4:38pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 08/02/2006 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person
Well, again, IBBLE....even if he's "concentrating" in conservative media, it's pretty good business practice, isn't it?
FOX, stomping the competition, (with nobody FORCED to watch it)...while un-abashed liberal media, like "Air America" loses its flagship in NYC and can't break out of the doldrums of A.M. religious broadcasting-type ratings.
So is Murdoch "conservative and he's successful in the media he's purchased"...or "successful because he's invested in conservative media"?
Posted by Mask at 08/02/2006 @ 4:41pm
Read this in the SFGate:
"British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- in an apparent end run around a Bush administration that has stubbornly resisted addressing global warming -- signed a partnership Monday to share technology and scientific research aimed at fighting the effects of worldwide climate change. The nonbinding accord is the first between the United Kingdom and a U.S. state on global warming, establishing what officials said would be a continuing commitment to focus on the issue."
Did the Terminator violate the Compact Clause of the Constitution?
'No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.'
Posted by woodyee at 08/02/2006 @ 5:00pm
Interesting thought Woodyee. I hadn't heard of the "compact clause" in decades. Thanks.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/02/2006 @ 5:24pm
MASK/LILLIAN
You know i re-read this article and I STILL say the choice is
D, all of the above, being the MOST correct answer.
You see Lillian and given KVH history; A is true, she is sacastically mocking Blair and the Gordon Brown reference is the clincher.
But B is also true, in that she is explicitly saying that "Murdoch could give him his own show; Sticky Situations with Tony Blair"
C is absolutely true as well, it cannot be denied by even the most abashed FOX hater.
So you see D; all the above is the most correct answer.
Posted by CPT at 08/02/2006 @ 6:24pm
Sensationalism, brightly colored and naturally simplistic, with attractive female news readers OF COURSE will garner the majority of viewers unwilling and/or incapable of engaging in thoughtful critical analysis.
Appearances ARE deceiving and I, for one, enjoy KVH's pokes at entrenched "powers that be," especially putative liberals, really neo-liberal imperialists, like Blair.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/02/2006 @ 6:46pm
Posted by MASK 08/02/2006 @ 4:41pm
ok, murdoch does not use his buzillions and incredible power to advance his randian economic philosophy?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2006 @ 7:12pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/02/2006 @ 7:14pm
On the money LV. Blair is the only statesman in Europe. The real quagmire exists in the heads of KVH and her cohorts.
Rupert Murdoch is a king maker and not a dyed in the wool supporter of conservative parties. He has supported political parties of the Left, middle and Right on the basis of whether their policies are in sync with his agenda. He doesn't mind dumping an erstwhile favourite if they are not doing the job ( he annointed them to do ) properly.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/02/2006 @ 8:01pm
They have forgotten that there was a time when even the left understood the need to confront whatever evils were threatening in a given period.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/02/2006 @ 8:19pm
but we do confront the evil that is threatening in a given period.
you hamsters are um... next
Posted by Will C. at 08/02/2006 @ 9:39pm
How about a KVH show on MSNBC---Segments could be entitled "Islamic Fascist--just misunderstood" -----"I'm a progressive not a socialist"------"The United States really is The Great Satan"-------"Castro and Chavez, a model for the U.S."------ "Why the government, with people like me in charge, will know better how to spend your money than you will"
Come on Conservative posters --I know you can do better than my weak efforts.
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/02/2006 @ 9:47pm
Cunning conning cons.
This is The Nation's blog site.
Viva la raza!
Go back to ditto locales
and continue neo-cons.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/02/2006 @ 9:56pm
They have forgotten that there was a time when even the left understood the need to confront whatever evils were threatening in a given period.
This is why it is not yet safe enough in the world to allow these people any real power. The U.S. can survive both republicans, and democrats in office as long as both are willing to defend American interest and confront evil. The far left views their fellow citizens who disagree with them with more disdain that people like Kim Jong Ill, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Osama Bin Laden. They would rather sit down to dinner with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah than American conservatives. They seem to feel that all these people and groups need is a warm hug and they will do what we want (Kumbyeyah--foreign diplomacy). Now I am sure that there are many on the far left who will disagree with my assessment--and I am painting with a broad brush, and I apologize to those who do not fit this discription (if you don't fit you are probably not within my definition of far left, you're probably just slightly left)---however, too many post on this site defend the people and groups listed above. They put the blame for evil not on who it belongs, but rather on America or American conservatives.
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/02/2006 @ 10:11pm
Lil,
"Maasch has been declaring such for quite some time over on the 'Republican hypocrisy re: minimum wage/estate tax" thread...along with the fact that anyone who hasn't yet 'got theirs' is simply lazy and, if they complain, are secretly jealous of those that have 'got theirs'. "
Never said such a thing..go back to 3 rd grade and try read again...slowly this time.
Posted by john maasch at 08/02/2006 @ 10:13pm
Viva la raza! -------Which race? Sounds a little racist to me.
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/02/2006 @ 10:14pm
LIL<
"This seems to be an ongoing problem with you Mask...you often either mis-read articles"
You are aflicted with the same disease and on you it is terminal.
Posted by john maasch at 08/02/2006 @ 10:15pm
Lil,
"Might I suggest a you enroll in a remedial course in Reading Comprehension 101?"
We should DEMAND this of you.
Posted by john maasch at 08/02/2006 @ 10:16pm
LEW,
"Sensationalism, brightly colored and naturally simplistic, with attractive female news readers OF COURSE will garner the majority of viewers unwilling and/or incapable of engaging in thoughtful critical analysis. "
You mean like Katie Couric? Where her breath taking climaxing interveiw(where,she, herself, orgasms on air) asks the question of the century of Harrison Ford....Will you ever direct?
And now she is hired, at $ 60 million, to finish off CBS, once and forever..the liberal thinkless tank for the dems?
Posted by john maasch at 08/02/2006 @ 10:22pm
Ibble,
"ok, murdoch does not use his buzillions and incredible power to advance his randian economic philosophy?
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 08/02/2006 @ 7:12pm | ignore this person "
And neither does Soros, the currency soeculater(hurts all of us more than inflation)..advance his socialistic/communistic, anti American philosophy?
Posted by john maasch at 08/02/2006 @ 10:24pm
Does anyone else besides me see the resemblance of KVH with Natasha in the old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons.
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/02/2006 @ 10:26pm
Here's a bit of Blair style "comedy":
THE WEST IS FIGHTING AGAIN FOR VALUES HONED THROUGH HISTORY
August 3, 2006
There is a world battle between moderate and radical Islam, writes Tony Blair.
What is happening today in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and beyond is an elemental struggle about the values that will shape our future.
It is in part a struggle between what I will call reactionary Islam and moderate, mainstream Islam. But its implications go far wider. We are fighting a war, but not just against terrorism but about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st century, about global values.
The root causes of the crisis are supremely indicative of this. Ever since September 11, the US has embarked on a policy of intervention to protect its and our future security. Hence Afghanistan. Hence Iraq. Hence the broader Middle East initiative in support of moves towards democracy in the Arab world.
The purpose of the terrorism in Iraq is absolutely simple: carnage, causing sectarian hatred, leading to civil war.
The point about these interventions, however, military and otherwise, is that they were not just about changing regimes but changing the values systems governing the nations concerned. The banner was not actually "regime change", it was "values change".
The reason I say this is that we could have chosen security as the battleground. But we didn't. We chose values.
We committed ourselves to supporting moderate, mainstream Islam. In almost pristine form, the battles in Iraq or Afghanistan became battles between the majority of Muslims in either country who wanted democracy and the minority who realise that this rings the death-knell of their ideology.
However, there was one cause which, the world over, unites Islam, one issue that even the most Westernised Muslims find unjust and, perhaps worse, humiliating: Palestine. Here a moderate leadership was squeezed between its own inability to control the radical elements and the political stagnation of the peace process.
So the opportunity passed to reactionary Islam and they seized it: first in Gaza, then in Lebanon. They knew what would happen. Their terrorism would provoke massive retaliation by Israel. Within days, the world would forget the original provocation and be shocked by the retaliation. They want to trap the moderates between support for America and an Arab street furious at what they see nightly on their television. This is what has happened.
So the struggle is finely poised. The question is: how do we empower the moderates to defeat the extremists?
Our values … represent humanity's progress throughout the ages and at each point we have had to fight for them.
First, naturally, we should support, nurture, build strong alliances with all those in the Middle East who are on the modernising path.
Second, we need to re-energise the Middle East peace plan between Israel and Palestine, and we need to do it in a dramatic and profound manner.
I know it can be very irritating for Israel to be told that this issue is of cardinal importance, as if it is on their shoulders that the weight of the troubles of the region should always fall. Let me make it clear. I would never put Israel's security at risk.
I want what we all now acknowledge we need: a two-state solution. The Palestinian state must be independent, viable but also democratic and not threaten Israel's safety.
This is what the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want.
Its significance for the broader issue of the Middle East, and for the battle within Islam, is this. The real impact of a settlement is more than correcting the plight of the Palestinians. It is that such a settlement would be the living, tangible, visible proof that the region and therefore the world can accommodate different faiths and cultures, even those who have been in vehement opposition to each other. It is, in other words, the total and complete rejection of the case of reactionary Islam. It destroys not just their most effective rallying call, it fatally undermines their basic ideology.
We need relentlessly, vigorously, to put a viable Palestinian government on its feet, to offer a vision of how the roadmap to final-status negotiation can happen and then pursue it, week in, week out, 'til it's done. Nothing else will do. Nothing else is more important to the success of our foreign policy.
Third, we need to see Iraq through its crisis and out to the place its people want: a non-sectarian, democratic state. The Iraqi and Afghan fight for democracy is our fight. Same values. Same enemy. Victory for them is victory for us all.
Fourth, we need to make clear to Syria and Iran that there is a choice: come in to the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us; or be confronted.
This struggle is one about values. Our values are worth struggling for.
Tony Blair is the British Prime Minister. This is an edited extract of a speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles this week.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/02/2006 @ 11:27pm
The human race, Mosse. Anthropologists distinguish only three subtypes: caucazoid, negroid and mongoloid, although these are tainted, it seems to me, with Euro-culturally perjorative connotations.
And Mosse, out from under pre-Darwinian rocks, many view "evil" as nothing in and of itself: merely the absence of "good." Remember Pogo's injunction: "we've found the enemy and they/he/she are us."
Reflect upon the possibility your uniqueness has bounds and that our "shadow sides" are only truly controlled/civilized when recognized, integrated, and we CHOOSE to do/be "good," and do what's right.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/03/2006 @ 09:29am
And the ends never, never, NEVER, justify the means.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/03/2006 @ 09:32am
Although Hitler's assasination wouldn't have hindered much good, IMHO.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/03/2006 @ 09:33am
"And the ends never, never, NEVER, justify the means."
Whereas George Washington had a very practical family motto, "Exitus acta probat," which translates (roughly) as "the end justifies the means."
Guess the problem is in always coming to a consensus on the "morality" of the means and the ends. Utilitarianism gets one thinking about things like the lesser of two evils or the greater good. Probably not a bad sort of religious motto but often quite useless for the successful ordering of a society of "morally flawed" human beings.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/03/2006 @ 10:22am
What's the difference between Faux News and those who claim 9/11 was an inside job. There is none.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/03/2006 @ 11:14am | ignore this person
Little daring there, huh, FRANK? Using the RESE/PLUNGER conspiracy crowd as a "bad example" to compare Fox to?
Posted by Mask at 08/03/2006 @ 11:34am
Lil,
"Might I suggest a you enroll in a remedial course in Reading Comprehension 101?"
We should DEMAND this of you.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/02/2006 @ 10:16pm
No offense, John, as you know you and I have been getting along, but Lillian's always struck me as smarter than you.
She sure appears to get under your skin, though. I think it's kind of funny watching you fume.
;)
Posted by New Dawn at 08/03/2006 @ 12:28pm
Liberty's talking SpongeBob, Len is talking Bullwinkle cartoons...
Draw your own conclusions as to who the smart folks in the room are...
Posted by New Dawn at 08/03/2006 @ 12:29pm
Sorry... "whom"
Posted by New Dawn at 08/03/2006 @ 12:29pm
The ends "never, never" justify the means, Lewwelge? So what we know about the human organism through the use of vivisection was largely a waste of time?
Posted by MyCrow at 08/03/2006 @ 5:07pm
ND,
You must understand that having grandchildren widens your horizons beyond the History Channel, Free Speech TV, Link TV, or the Cable News channels.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/03/2006 @ 1:41pm
My brother's children watch Spongebob - I know what it is. Never even heard of Free Speech TV or Link TV, but am I to understand that you're subtly slamming the History Channel? Can't imagine why...
But my point stands - the cartoon references are very immature - Especially when you are just trying to make some kind of slur against KVH - how childish - I thought you were above schoolyard taunts, since you regularly talk shit about others here who do the same. More Liberty hypocrisy shouldn't surprise any of us here, though...
As I said on another thread - I think you're just trying to get back at others for all of the swirly hairdos inflicted on you in school. The real shame is that you aren't even good at it - at least when the others here make sarcastic swipes (from both sides), they're slightly clever.
No such luck with you.
And I notice you regularly take issue with FrankGrits, who has a son involved in the conflict in Iraq, when he posts things you don't like - you immediately resort to the standard bullshit right-wing propaganda techniques - now, he's a terrorist sympathizer.
You forgot to call him a traitor and unAmerican. Getting senile, are you?
Posted by New Dawn at 08/03/2006 @ 6:39pm
Molly Ivins http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=12250 wrote in October 2001, "It now looks, with 20-20 hindsight, as though he should have taken a few more deep breaths before smacking that tar-baby that is Afghanistan."
John Kerry http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062103.shtml described 1992 hearings on missing soldiers in Vietnam as a political "tar baby."
Posted by RonS at 08/03/2006 @ 9:19pm
RONS:
What is your point?
Posted by jorcheim at 08/03/2006 @ 9:20pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 08/03/2006 @ 9:20pm | ignore this person
Read KVH's comments
Posted by RonS at 08/03/2006 @ 9:26pm
RONS:
I think perhaps you should explain a little instead of just posting links. I read her comments. STill don't get your point.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/03/2006 @ 9:29pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 08/03/2006 @ 9:29pm | ignore this person
"Take for example Mitt Romney, who recently got himself into a sticky situation by using racially charged slang--"tar baby."
Posted by RonS at 08/03/2006 @ 9:31pm
If you are trying to imply that Kerry's and Ivins' uses of the term "tarbaby" were somehow racial in nature, you're ignoring the intention behind their comments, and were instead referencing literature to make a point. Romney's comments were racial in nature because of HOW he used it.
For example, the term ass could mean a pack animal, or it could refer to the insufferable ones on this blog.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/03/2006 @ 9:32pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 08/03/2006 @ 9:32pm | ignore this person
Wow, you are a master of spin! HOW did he use it? Or is it a matter of WHO?
Posted by RonS at 08/03/2006 @ 10:11pm
RONS:
It is a matter of intent, as I said. It's not a matter of spin. Next thing you're gonna try to do is try to explain away Mel Gibson's drunken anti-semitic outburst... lol.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/03/2006 @ 10:14pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 08/03/2006 @ 10:14pm | ignore this person
I guess you are the bigot. I do not like Gibson. He is an anti-Semite. Why would you think an atheist would be a fan of Mel Gibson?
You obviously believe you know Romney's intent, but you cannot explain why.
Posted by RonS at 08/03/2006 @ 10:17pm
For example, the term ass could mean a pack animal, or it could refer to the insufferable ones on this blog.
Posted by JORCHEIM 08/03/2006 @ 9:32pm | ignore this person
LOL!!!
Jorcheim, I notice there seems to be almost 40 minutes between your post and Rons response. I have this image of him sitting there at his keyboard, scratching his head, and wondering why you called him a pack animal.
Priceless! ;-)
Posted by Lillian at 08/03/2006 @ 11:23pm
Read KVH's comments
Posted by RONS 08/03/2006 @ 9:26pm
Read "Brer Rabbit"?
THE WONDERFUL TAR BABY STORY
"Didn't the fox never catch the rabbit, Uncle Remus?" asked the little boy the next evening.
"He come mighty nigh it, honey, sho's you born--Brer Fox did. One day atter Brer Rabbit fool 'im wid dat calamus root, Brer Fox went ter wuk en got 'im some tar, en mix it wid some turkentime, en fix up a contrapshun w'at he call a Tar-Baby, en he tuck dish yer Tar-Baby en he sot 'er in de big road, en den he lay off in de bushes fer to see what de news wuz gwine ter be. En he didn't hatter wait long, nudder, kaze bimeby here come Brer Rabbit pacin' down de road--lippity-clippity, clippity -lippity--dez ez sassy ez a jay-bird. Brer Fox, he lay low. Brer Rabbit come prancin' 'long twel he spy de Tar-Baby, en den he fotch up on his behime legs like he wuz 'stonished. De Tar Baby, she sot dar, she did, en Brer Fox, he lay low.
"`Mawnin'!' sez Brer Rabbit, sezee - `nice wedder dis mawnin',' sezee.
"Tar-Baby ain't sayin' nuthin', en Brer Fox he lay low.
"`How duz yo' sym'tums seem ter segashuate?' sez Brer Rabbit, sezee.
"Brer Fox, he wink his eye slow, en lay low, en de Tar-Baby, she ain't sayin' nuthin'.
"'How you come on, den? Is you deaf?' sez Brer Rabbit, sezee. 'Kaze if you is, I kin holler louder,' sezee.
"Tar-Baby stay still, en Brer Fox, he lay low.
"'You er stuck up, dat's w'at you is,' says Brer Rabbit, sezee, 'en I;m gwine ter kyore you, dat's w'at I'm a gwine ter do,' sezee.
"Brer Fox, he sorter chuckle in his stummick, he did, but Tar-Baby ain't sayin' nothin'.
"'I'm gwine ter larn you how ter talk ter 'spectubble folks ef hit's de las' ack,' sez Brer Rabbit, sezee. 'Ef you don't take off dat hat en tell me howdy, I'm gwine ter bus' you wide open,' sezee.
"Tar-Baby stay still, en Brer Fox, he lay low.
"Brer Rabbit keep on axin' 'im, en de Tar-Baby, she keep on sayin' nothin', twel present'y Brer Rabbit draw back wid his fis', he did, en blip he tuck 'er side er de head. Right dar's whar he broke his merlasses jug. His fis' stuck, en he can't pull loose. De tar hilt 'im. But Tar-Baby, she stay still, en Brer Fox, he lay low.
"`Ef you don't lemme loose, I'll knock you agin,' sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, en wid dat he fotch 'er a wipe wid de udder han', en dat stuck. Tar-Baby, she ain'y sayin' nuthin', en Brer Fox, he lay low.
"`Tu'n me loose, fo' I kick de natal stuffin' outen you,' sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, but de Tar-Baby, she ain't sayin' nuthin'. She des hilt on, en de Brer Rabbit lose de use er his feet in de same way. Brer Fox, he lay low. Den Brer Rabbit squall out dat ef de Tar-Baby don't tu'n 'im loose he butt 'er cranksided. En den he butted, en his head got stuck. Den Brer Fox, he sa'ntered fort', lookin' dez ez innercent ez wunner yo' mammy's mockin'-birds.
"`Howdy, Brer Rabbit,' sez Brer Fox, sezee. `You look sorter stuck up dis mawnin',' sezee, en den he rolled on de groun', en laft en laft twel he couldn't laff no mo'. `I speck you'll take dinner wid me dis time, Brer Rabbit. I done laid in some calamus root, en I ain't gwineter take no skuse,' sez Brer Fox, sezee."
Here Uncle Remus paused, and drew a two-pound yam out of the ashes.
"Did the fox eat the rabbit?" asked the little boy to whom the story had been told.
"Dat's all de fur de tale goes," replied the old man. "He mout, an den agin he moutent. Some say Judge B'ar come 'long en loosed 'im - some say he didn't. I hear Miss Sally callin'. You better run 'long."
Posted by New Dawn at 08/03/2006 @ 11:45pm
Tar-Baby Encyclopædia Britannica Article
Page 1 of 1
A sticky tar doll, the central figure in black American folktales popularized in written literature by the American author Joel Chandler Harris. Harris' "Tar-Baby" (1879), one of the animal tales told by the character Uncle Remus, is but one example of numerous African-derived tales featuring the use of a wax, gum, or rubber figure to trap a rascal.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/03/2006 @ 11:46pm
RONS...
Why?
Posted by New Dawn at 08/03/2006 @ 11:46pm
LILLIAN -- The time difference is due to different time zones. LOL
Posted by RonS at 08/04/2006 @ 07:54am
Posted by NEW DAWN 08/03/2006 @ 11:46pm |
Exactly. So tell it to Molly Ivins and John Kerry. (Read the thread next time.)
Posted by RonS at 08/04/2006 @ 07:57am
LILLIAN:
I am glad someone caught my little joke. Geez, everyone is so serious on this blog that most attempts at humor just fly right by. Glad you appreciated it. :D
Posted by jorcheim at 08/04/2006 @ 08:30am
Exactly. So tell it to Molly Ivins and John Kerry. (Read the thread next time.)
Posted by RONS 08/04/2006 @ 07:57am
I read the thread, thanks.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/04/2006 @ 12:28pm
A good transition for Tony Blair..from being Bush's lapdog to Murdock's lapdog...all he needs to do is change the collar with the name of the new owner.
Posted by kevin99999 at 08/04/2006 @ 1:06pm
LILLIAN -- The time difference is due to different time zones. LOL
Posted by RONS 08/04/2006 @ 07:54am | ignore this person
Good one Rons. So which timezone did you teleport yourself to between 9:32pm and 10:11pm that is what, 30 minutes ahead of Jorcheim's?
Posted by Lillian at 08/04/2006 @ 5:54pm
I T ' S
A L L
A B O U T
T H E
P R E T E X T
If you retrace Bush 41s footsteps from the Reagan era forward, you'll see how a criminal enterprise was developed between Bush Senior and many co-conspirators (Primarily Israel and the Christian Coalition) whose primary motivation was power and greed.
Former CIA Head and US President 41 was in bed with Israel and Mossad running tons of drugs.
He was floored when he lost his power to the Sax-playing Governor from Arkansas with whom he had a secrecy pact that allowed for Bush 41's CIA drug shipments to Mena Arkansas:
"I have put thousands of Americans away for tens of thousands of years for less evidence for conspiracy with less evidence than is available against Ollie North and CIA people. . . . I personally was involved in a deep-cover case that went to the top of the drug world in three countries. The CIA killed it."
Former DEA Agent Michael Levine CNBC-TV, October 8, 1996
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/mena.html
ARKANSAS GOVERNOR BILL CLINTON PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH CIA DRUGS FOR GUNS CONNECTION
http://www.ncoic.com/clinton.htm
Mena began as the brain-child of CIA's Bill Casey, operated by CIA pilots flying out of NSA-controlled facilities. But the process became an NSA institution, a vast money-making enterprise by the nation's largest, best-financed intelligence agency. And they've been making too much money to stop.
No, the Systematics project overseen by Vince Foster wasn't just a matter of NSA spying on U.S. domestic transactions (the data turned over to analysts at FinCEN). It was a vast project that also involved the oversight of money for covert operations, and the laundering of the proceeds of drugs and arms sales. When Vince Foster spooked, the NSA was one of several parties who had a good reason to want him dead.
Is that why when Vince Foster left the White House at approximately 1 p.m. on July 20, 1993, approximately two hours before his death, he met with a man whose Arkansas license plates were registered to a company that builds signals collection facilities for the National Security Agency?
Why did the Rose Law Firm begin shredding files upon hearing of the death of Vince Foster? What was Foster involved in that made it necessary to destroy the files? Why did two Rose Law Firm lawyers show up at Foster's house and remove approximately eight boxes of records? What happened to those records? Why did Foster keep them in his basement? What was in the envelope addressed "eyes only, not to be opened, William Kennedy" that Deborah Gorham testified Vince Foster kept in Bernard Nussbaum's safe?
Why have the U.S. Park Police been guarding the grave of Vince Foster in Hope, Arkansas? Have they done the job with the same bungled skill they demonstrated at Ft. Marcy Park? Or are they there simply to keep the Wackenhut Corporation from stealing the body?
Why has someone reportedly put out a murder contract on Lt. Com. Alexander Martin? Who would have an incentive to see him dead? Is NSA's National Programs Office involved? Is an ex-Vice- President of the United States involved? Does it have to do with a little company he has an interest in common with General Secord?
Why is the Mossad, like the White House, in panic mode over the reopening of the investigation into Foster's death? What is it they don't want the U.S. public to find out? Why did the operating code for a new computer developed by NSA-subcontractor E-Systems of Dallas, Texas, end up in the hands of the Israelis within one month? Did Vince Foster sell it to them? Why are two LAKAM representatives offering a fee of $75,000 plus 1 percent of the proceeds to recover money from Swiss Bank Corporation? Is it because Vince Foster is not around to release it for them? Or did the armed raid on Mossad headquarters by U.S. contract agents within the past year create so much confusion someone just forgot the authorization codes?
http://orlingrabbe.com/part33.htm
http://orlingrabbe.com/part34.htm
http://orlingrabbe.com/vince_foster.htm
N U C L E A R
B L A C K M A I L
One nation, ISRAEL, becomes a VIRTUAL NUCLEAR POWER.
Missile launches take place in a virtual reality. Given the proper launch code, the missile will attempt to go to its programmed destination without further theological debate.
A country possessing the launch codes and also targeting information for another country's nuclear missiles could become a virtual nuclear power. (The targeting information would be as important as the launch codes. For before you launched a missile, you would first want to know where it is going. After all, it could be aimed at you.) Getting your nuclear arms this ways would have obvious economic advantages: someone else would foot the military bill.
Jim Norman states in Fostergate:
"According to a heavily-redacted New Mexico FBI counter- intelligence report, Maxwell was apparently allowed to sell two copies of PROMIS back to the U.S. weapons labs at Sandia and Los Alamos, for what Inslaw claims was a hugely inflated price of $37 million. That would have allowed Pollard, if he was using the rigged program, to obtain U.S. missile targeting data long before Israel had its own satellite capability, thus making it a real nuclear threat to the Soviet Union."
Well, yes, it could make Israel a real threat to the Soviet Union. But not from Israel's own puny missile program. Rather, Israel could be a threat to the Soviet Union because it would be able to launch our (U.S.) missiles at the Soviet Union. Being a virtual nuclear power would mean not having to say you are sorry. If a U.S. missile were launched at Russia, the defense system of Russia would, in its virtual view of the world, see the missile as coming from the U.S. It would launch a retaliatory strike against the U.S., because in its reality only the U.S. could be responsible. It wouldn't be programmed to recognize "Missile from U.S. not U.S.-intended action."
Being a virtual nuclear power means you could blackmail people in both directions: you could blackmail the targeted city or area. More importantly, you could blackmail the U.S. If the U.S. doesn't go along with your demands, why, you could involve it in a nuclear war in which you would be a spectator, not a participant. The U.S. would know it has more to lose than you do, so it would give in to your demands.
Vince Foster's NSA connections wouldn't give him access to such launch codes and targeting data. Not even with the help of Jonathan Pollard. It would take the cooperation of a small circle of friends--friends with Defense and Intelligence connections. People with access. People with authority.
Would any of the U.S.'s own Defense Department or Intelligence personnel in the 1980s or the 1990s, people other than Jonathan Pollard, have been involved in such a transfer of information to a foreign power--whether to Israel or to anyone else?
Surely not anyone connected to the account numbers KPFBMMBODB or KPFBMMBODE held at the Union Bank of Switzerland? Please, say it ain't so.
http://orlingrabbe.com/part7.htm
The existence of a so formidable nuclear power in Israel's hands can not be convincingly attributed to its own Research and Development efforts nor even to its role as a tool of American policies. On the contrary, a nuclear power of that magnitude must be presumed to run counter to U.S. imperial interests.
The only plausible explanation is that Israel has acquired its nuclear power with at least some help of its 'Jewish friends' in the U.S. Yehezkeli's and Sadeh's information about 'the nuclear bases on the territory of the former USSR' fits well with what Geoffrey Aronson, relying on State Department sources, reveals about the Pollard affair ("The Christian Science Monitor", January 27). He writes that according to 'unanimous response' from these sources, what Pollard has been always said to have betrayed, were 'this country's most important secrets', namely the 'information relating to U.S. targeting of Soviet nuclear and military installations and the capabilities and defenses of these sites'.
This seems to accord with Israel's global aspirations based on its nuclear power. Aronson also quotes his sources to the effect that much of intelligence passed on by Pollard 'was unusable to the Israelis except as bargaining chips and leverage against the United States and other countries' interests'. In view of this fact Aronson conjectures that Pollard's intelligence was used by Israel for deals with Moscow consisting of 'trading nuclear secrets for Soviet Jews'."
Why is it that the sale of bona fide national security secrets is tolerated, even rewarded with lucrative payments to Swiss accounts, while journalistic reports about THE LOOTING AND SALE OF U.S. NUCLEAR SECRETS are quashed as "national security"? Is the Pentagon run by lunatics and thieves?
http://orlingrabbe.com/part8.htm
Clinton had the goods on Bush 41, and was likely still receiving hush money from him as they ran against one another for President.
Bush loathed the fact that Clinton was in the White House and sought to bring him down. Remember the vast Right Wing Conspiracy claim by Hillary. She knew what she was talking about. Bush Senior aligned himself with his Israeli drug-running partners to bring down the Democratic Party once and for all - with Israel as the promised beneficiary.
The "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY" of which Hillary spoke was a deal done between Bush 41 and Israel.
The CIA and Mossad were already BUSINESS PARTNERS in the drug trade - under the protection of Bush 41s network. Both 41 and Israel had broader strategic goals - and a common purpose in pursuing them together. A critical third leg of the stool was America's Christian Coalition, who would serve to provide the moral authority for the criminal enterprise.
The co-conspirators were impatient, and didn't want to wait 8 years for the popular Clinton/Gore White House to run its course, leaving Gore in position to retain it for 8 years thereafter. A PRETEXT was required to destroy the Clinton Presidency.
First they launched a full blown investigation into the Whitewater land deal, and when that didn't stick, they looked to more extreme measures to accomplish their GOAL OF DESTROYING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
S E X P I O N A G E:
Sexpionage is so important to Israel, that it opened an office for this purpose right smack in the center of US political power -- Washington D.C. The office fronts as a post 911 anti-terrorism institute and is located at 3811 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 720 Arlington, VA 22203. The Chief of the office is non other thaN the former Director of the Israeli MOSSAD, Shabtai Shavit.
http://www.aztlan.net/israeli_sexpionage.htm
Mossad had just the agent for the job - and her name was Monica Lewinsky. The case of intern Monica Lewinsky is now history. It was one of the major factors in the destruction of the legacy of the presidency of Bill Clinton.
Lewinsky was actually a "sexpionage agent" working on behalf of the Israeli government. She was, and probably still is, what the MOSSAD calls a "Swallow".
It is believed that Lewinsky's primary mission was to sexually compromise Bill Clinton in order to bribe him to release the Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. The timing and unfolding of the "White House Sex Scandal" coincided with the efforts and meetings by the then Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu with President Bill Clinton in the White House.
1997 Israeli agents place a tap on Monica Lewinsky's phone at the Watergate and record phone sex sessions between her and President Bill Clinton. The Ken Starr report confirms that Clinton warned Lewinsky their conversations were being taped and ended the affair. At the same time, the FBI's hunt for "Mega" (the code name of a top Mossad Operative inside the White House) is called off.
The fact that Jerry Falwell's acknowledgment of how the Lewinsky affair was used as a club against Clinton--in tandem with "Bibi" Netanyahu's appearance at the White House, following the meeting with Falwell--was published in Vanity Fair is interesting in and of itself. That magazine is owned by the far-flung publishing empire of the billionaire Newhouse brothers ("Si" and Donald) whom Forbes dubbed the 25th richest family in America and who are known to be generous contributors to the Anti-Defamation League and other elements of the pro-Israel lobby.
http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_MichaelCollinsPiper3.htm
In an effort by Clinton to rid himself of the "Swallow", he transferred her to the Pentagon with the highest "security clearance" possible and which is only afforded to top brass and a few high level government officials. Soon Monica Lewinsky was cavorting with Admirals and Generals and became pregnant. She says she aborted the baby.
No one knows what Pentagon secrets Lewinsky was able to pass on to the Zionists, but perhaps Paul Wolfowitz' great success in involving the USA in the War against Iraq may be the results of Monica Lewinsky's efforts on behalf of Israel. Sexpionage pays and it is paying big for Israel.
AND REMEMBER PRESIDENT CLINTON'S FINAL ACT UPON DEPARTING THE WHITE HOUSE? THE PARDON OF MARC RICH.
Rich was known to do business with Iran and Iraq as a means of supplying the Mossad and other Israelis with intelligence information.
http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0109/israel.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/rich.htm
And who are the agents of Marc Rich and Mossad in the White House?
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3005target_libby.html
THE PLAN FOR THE MILITARY COUP TO OVERTHROW THE US GOVERNMENT UNDER THE FALSE-FLAG BANNER OF THE "CONSERVATIVE" REPUBLICAN PARTY – AND CHRISTIANITY.
Lobbying for Armageddon
By Sarah Posner, AlterNet. Posted August 3, 2006.
Some influential evangelical leaders are lobbying for an attack on Iran. But it's not about geopolitics -- it's about bringing about the End Times.
In a perfect world, a reporter at last week's press conference with George Bush and Tony Blair would have asked Bush, in the presence of his principal European ally, if he believes the European Union is the Antichrist.
Although it sounds like the kind of Pat Robertson lunacy that makes even the wingnuts run for the nearest exit, it's a question Bush should be forced to answer. Bush and other leading Republicans have lined up behind a growing movement of Christian Zionists for whom a European Antichrist figures prominently in an end-times scenario. So they should be forced to explain to the rest of us why they're courting the votes of people who believe our allies are evil incarnate. Could it be that the central requirement for their breathlessly anticipated Armageddon -- that the United States confront Iran -- happens to dovetail so nicely with the neoconservative war agenda?
At the center of it all is Pastor John Hagee, a popular televangelist who leads the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. Hagee doesn't fear a nuclear conflagration, but rather God's wrath for standing by as Iran executes its supposed plot to destroy Israel. A nuclear confrontation between America and Iran, which he says is foretold in the Book of Jeremiah, will not lead to the end of the world, but rather to God's renewal of the Garden of Eden.
http://www.alternet.org/story/39748/
Posted by plunger at 08/05/2006 @ 12:04pm
ENTER KEN LAY AND THE PRETEXT FOR OIL EXPERTS TO BE INSTALLED IN THE WHITE HOUSE…
THE FAKE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS.
Bush 41 and Ken lay conspired to create a pretext for the Republican Party to recapture the White House AND THEREAFTER – A SECONDARY PRETEXT TO JUSTIFY THE invasion of Iraq and Iran in order to acquire their oil. Their ISRAELI PARTNERS IN CRIME were hell bent on EXPANDING THE REALM OF ISRAEL TO INCLUDE ALL OF "ERETZ ISRAEL" - which conveniently overlapped the OIL MONGER's strategy. Getting the American Public behind such an invasion was just one part of the essential pretext to justify an invasion. An oil shortage in the US was a REQUIREMENT – and Mr. Lay's electronic oil trading platform was more than capable of creating a distribution log-jam in DEMOCRATIC California sufficient to sway voters to elect OIL EXPERTS to the White House. The plan was ALWAYS to have Dick Cheney be on that ticket.
Wouldn't if be nice to learn the details of how Lay and Cheney were divvying up the oil fields in Iraq on a big map, even before 9/11?
Wouldn't it be enlightening to hear that Lay knew for a fact that 9/11 was going to happen as the pretext for the war plan which he clearly had knowledge of prior to 9/11?
Why would you sit around countless energy planning meetings dividing up the oil fields of Iraq in advance of 9/11 unless there were a plan in place to make it possible?
Such a plan would by necessity be a war plan, and this war plan was actually in place prior to 9/11.
Surely any good war plan requires at its core a starting point, a trigger if you will that provides a good "cover story" to implement it. Clearly you can't just go around invading countries without a good reason...you need to be attacked first, then retaliate.
Was 9/11 simply part of the war plan?
Why wouldn't it have been?
You can't hit the "GO" button without a pretext.
9/11 was the pretext for the invasion of the Middle East - all by design.
9/11 - THE TERROR PRETEXT
The term NeoCon roughly translates to "Israeli Spy." If you always assume that anyone referred to as a "NeoCon" is in fact an operative for the Zionists – you'll likely be correct.
GIVEN A CHOICE, THE NEOCON WILL ALWAYS CHOOSE THE BEST INTEREST OF ISRAEL OVER THE UNITED STATES – AND LYING IS JUST PART OF THE EQUATION. Lying for Israel is the right thing to do.
Whenever you hear that testimony is being given without the requirement of being sworn under oath – you can be certain a NEOCON is behind that decision.
If one-half of the pretext required an apparent energy crisis in the United States, the other half of the pretext required TERROR. Bush 41 was well acquainted with false flag terror tactics, and knew full-well that Mossad were the experts. With Cheney and Rumsfeld firmly in control of the entire plan, and with the aid of their internal NeoZionist Operatives (Libby, Feith, Wurmser, Zakheim, Chertoff, etc.) running interference from inside the US Government, Mossad could be relied upon to recruit the operatives necessary to implement the PNAC's "NEW PEARL HARBOR," which would serve as the ESSENTIAL PRETEXT for the activation of their new business arrangement with Israel.
Beginning in early 2001, Cheney and Lay began meeting with other top oil industry executives to iron out a strategy for how best to handle the acquisition of the oil fields in the Middle East.
Although we recognize the need for executive privilege, it is hard to imagine anything related to something as non-national-security related a topic as our an energy policy, that would be such a threat to national security as to declare it off limits to all. By US Law this is public information, but Mr. "Shred the Constitution" Cheney has used every ounce of executive power in order to keep the lid on his meeting notes.
What could they contain? Dealings with the Taliban; negotiating a pipeline perhaps? Enron deals? Does anyone remember that Bush used an Enron company jet to travel during his campaign and that one of his campaign platforms was to deal with the "energy crisis", which turned out to be nothing more that an Enron scam on California? Could it be details parsing out Iraqi OIL? Hmm? Must be some important stuff in there, Dickey;-)
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/cheney_s_secrets.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR200511 1501842.html
For a full accounting of all of Cheney's lies relative to his plan to take over the oil fields of the Middle East, go here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/cgi-bin/search/exec/search.cgi?search=chene y+maps&perform_search=Search&skin=
As Cheney was working to lay the groundwork for the enrichment of himself and his cronies (through the increase in oil prices and the requirement for replacing the infrastructure that he knew would be destroyed), other Operatives within the administration were busy knocking down any attempt to uncover the developing plot for 9/11.
GW himself personally told the FBI to back off any and all investigations related to the Bin Laden Family, the Able Danger Unit was shut down and all of its files were destroyed, and field reports regarding suspicious foreigners at flight schools in Minnesota and Florida were magically buried.
ENTER MOSSAD SWALLOW #2 – CHANDRA LEVY
Whereas the Monica Lewinsky case involved mere deviant sexual trysts in the Oval Office, the Chandra Levy case involving Democratic Congressman and senior member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Gary Condit, involved murder.
As member of the committee, Condit was privy to highly classified information of much interest to Zionist Israel. The MOSSAD leaned on their "sleeper and sexpionage agent" Chandra Levy to obtain the secret US government information that the Israeli government needed. The MOSSAD arranged for Chandra Levy, than a US government intern, to meet Congressman Condit.
Whatever classified information Levy was able to obtain, on her "sexpionage mission", was at the cost of her life. One day before she was to return to California, she disappeared without a trace.
A spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney, said Cheney met with Condit around the same time Levy was logging off her computer in her apartment May 1, 2001 – the day she disappeared.
Juleanna Glover Weiss said the meeting happened between 12:30 p.m. and 12:50 p.m. in Cheney's office in the House of Representatives. The meeting was "at Condit's request," she said, and included Cheney and some of Cheney's staff discussing the California energy crisis.
Had Condit informed Levy of a pending attack on the World Trade Center – or did she learn of it on her own? Remember it was Cheney's job to ensure that the TERROR PRETEXT come off without a hitch. If Levy knew, she had to be eliminated. She was about to fly home to California to visit her parents, and told them that she had some "BIG NEWS" to share with them.
In 2001 it was discovered that US drug agents' communications have been penetrated. Suspicion falls on two companies, AMDOCS and Comverse Infosys, both owned by Israelis. Comverse Infosys builds the tapping equipment used by law enforcement to eavesdrop on all American telephone calls, but suspicion forms that Comverse, which gets half of its research and development budget from the Israeli government, has built a back door into the system that is being exploited by Israeli intelligence.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
It is quite likely that Mossad had tapped Levy's call to her parents, and informed Cheney that the "Big Wedding" (9/11 plot) had been compromised. Levy's meeting with Cheney at the exact time of her disappearance was specifically designed to provide Levy with an alibi.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and September 11th
December 23, 2001
For those who are able and willing to accept the way in which history actually works, the evidence provided by the U.S. events of Sept. 11th permitted but one concise conclusion: The crucial developments inside the U.S.A., between the bookends of approximately 08:45 and 11:00 h EDT, were a reflection of an attempted military coup d'état against the U.S. government of President George W. Bush.
My detailed knowledge of the onrushing strategic crisis within which those attacks were situated, allowed no other conclusion, than that this was an attempted military coup d'état with a global strategic purpose of the most ominous implications imaginable.
Once those facts are taken into account, two leading problems in subsequently adopted U.S. policies must be emphasized.
First: Why, apparently, did senior professional military and intelligence professionals not advise President Bush against permitting the diversionary targeting of former U.S. special-warfare asset Osama bin Laden, as the alleged prime culprit in this affair?
The second, related question, is: Why, despite the massive accumulation of relevant actual evidence since Sept. 11, do many official circles around the world still prefer to defend the consoling delusion, the current, officially blessed explanation of the events of Sept. 11, that "Osama bin Laden did it," even after months (years) of their failure to present the public with any solid proof of their allegation?
For competent counterintelligence specialists, the first question posed by the bare facts of the attacks on New York and Washington, was: What was that continuing action waiting to be unleashed by the successful effect of those attacks? The coup-attempt could not have been mobilized without the presence of such pre-existing, more broadly based intentions. Those intentions are well known to all relevant authorities: a.) setting off a richocheting thermonuclear alert; and b.) the launching of a generalized state of religious and related warfare throughout most of the planet, with the ongoing actions of the current Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as its leading expression. Now, after the events of Sept. 11th, there is no reasonable doubt of such broadly-based intentions. Therefore, any competent counterintelligence investigation, and consequent strategic assessments, must be crafted accordingly.
Therefore, the investigation must judge the plot behind Sept. 11th as crafted as a means to an end; it is that end on which our attention must be focused, and against which the effort must be concentrated. As in war, once the plot itself has failed, the plotters will become vulnerable to exposure, and their complicity can be reviewed safely, calmly, relatively at leisure.
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2002/2901zbig_sept11.html
Zbigniew Brzezinski
The Grand Chessboard
American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives
Key Quotes From Zbigniew Brzezinksi's Seminal Book
"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last."
As America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."
"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization."
http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard
Posted by plunger at 08/05/2006 @ 12:04pm
I don't currently have time to check your lenghthy posts Plunger, but nevertheless appreciate them. Personally, my up-thread assertion the "ends never (O.K. very, very, very rarely) justify the means" has been challenged with George Washington's Utilitarian family motto and Science's (read: hubristic secular humanism if not, possibly, amoral atheism) history of perhaps/likely useful experimentation using "vivisection" (full disclosure: I had to look it up) to add to the sum of human knowledge.
The more we know, the more we know how much we don't know.
Learning is like a three-tiered cake the base/bottom of which is "knowledge" or fact. This is admittedly value laden and hierachical so the second better tier is "understanding," or how the facts go together to form patterns.
The highest/best/most sophisticated and frequently ambiguous form of learning is "wisdom," or how the patterns go together to form Gestalts/schemas.
So, thank you absolutist grammarian critics. Allow me to "stand corrected" amending my assertion/claim to the logical Truth, IMHO, that "the ends very, very, very rarely justify the means."
Hope you're all enjoying your Saturdays, even you pinched folk.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/05/2006 @ 12:52pm
Posted by LILLIAN 08/04/2006 @ 5:54pm | the same one you were between 8/3/06 11:32 pm and 8/4/06 5:54 pm! :-)
Posted by RonS at 08/06/2006 @ 12:18pm
Lewwege
I enjoyed your three tiered cake metaphore. But you forgot the frosting on top i.e. "spin" or what the philosopher Wittgenstein once called "the bitwichment of our intelligence by means of language." Couching it in terms of your image we could call it "empty calories" I suppose.
Too much of it here from the Right at times.
Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/06/2006 @ 1:25pm
I'd say our language IS our intelligence, Red, thus much/most of the value in speaking/understanding/thinking beyond monolingualism (or "one-right-way thinking"). Different perspectives. Relativism. Tolerance of diversity.
Yeah, I don't much go for "spin." It's "form over substance" and has always seemed deceitful/artificial/dispiriting. Guess I'm not a PR or an HR kind of guy.
I've not read Wittgenstein, but my wife and I are watching the movie adaptation of Philip Roth's "The Human Stain," Roth's late '80's take on Racism during the suzerainty of Clinton neo-liberalism (is there another form?). The Weinstein's who produced the Anthony Hopkins' starring film allow the miscast, IMHO, adolescence/spouse abused character love interest Nicole Kiddman to state "action is the enemy of thought" just prior to Hopkins' and her physical commitment.
I found the statement profound and submit to you the proposition that all action is of and deals in the bottom tier of learning, knowledge, per se. "Spin" or lies/deceptions, like true statements/assertions, are both facts and pieces of greater understandings/patterns. Action is "here and now," thinking/thought/language is/are abstractions and, of course, understanding and wisdom are attempts at reconciling ambiguity, which sophists usually present as dichotomies so as to better effect the "win" in arguement/debate.
Reality is much more multifacted.
THE joke: there are only two types of people in the world, those who think there are only two types of people in the world and those who don't.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/06/2006 @ 9:25pm
.
THE FOLLOWING IS AN ORIGINAL WORK – NOT a Cut & Paste piece.
I suggest you copy it and save it.
911wasinsidejob, why would you think that Israel is blackmailing U.S? I thought that U.S. and Israel were partners.
By: EZZYT on August 06, 2006 at 09:18pm
Start with the concept of their own document entitled "A Clean Break."
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
Note that it is written by those who were put INSIDE THE US GOVERNMENT in positions to cause the US to go into a war based on false pretense (Wurmser, Feith, Libby, Perle).
The first two paragraphs of the document mention the word "Zionism" three times. Clearly, Zionism is the focus...not Israel, not the United States, not peace...ZIONISM.
From the document:
"Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism."
"This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power."
" Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas"
" Forge a new basis for relations with the United States stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform."
Zionism IS NOT JUDAISM
ZIONISM IS CONTRARY TO JUDAISM
First and foremost, Zionism means one thing...Populating Israel with Jews by compelling Jews the world over to move to Israel. Note I did not say by "Enticing" them – I said by "COMPELLING" them.
Clean Break is about breaking with the United States. It's about sucking the host dry and moving forward. The only way to compel Jews in the United States to move to Israel is to make their lives in the US miserable.
The goal of the Zionists is for ALL Jews to move to Israel. How then can the Zionists make the lives of American Jews so unpleasant that they are compelled to leave the United States?
This would require either making portions of the US uninhabitable (Chernobyl effect), or fueling so much anti-Semitism that Jews feel unsafe in the United States, or destroying the US economy.
Assume that all three of the above are in their plan.
No one benefits more from anti-Semitism than Zionists.
THE STATE OF ISRAEL HAS DECLARED ALL-OUT WAR ON THE JEWISH PEOPLE WORLDWIDE
Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel told the crowd at a Rome hotel. "We are witness to a great wave of anti-Semitism, and apart from the usual anti-Semitism against Jews, there is today the added hate of the collective Jew, which is Israel."… "The best solution to anti-Semitism is immigration to Israel. It is the only place on Earth where Jews can live as Jews," he said. (BBC website of Monday, 17 November, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3275979.stm)
This is Zionism in reality:
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has urged all French Jews to move to Israel immediately to escape anti-Semitism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3904943.stm
The Israeli prime minister has told Jews in Italy the best way to escape "a great wave of anti-Semitism" is to move and settle in the state of Israel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3275979.stm
Clearly, PEACE is not the goal. Moving all the Jews to Israel is the goal. In order to accommodate millions of new residents, Israel must "Expand The Realm" to create "Eretz Israel"
What is "Eretz Israel?
THIS is Eretz Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel
In order to accommodate this greatly expanded population, the Zionists know that they must control the water supply in order to "make the desert bloom." It is no coincidence that Israeli operatives within the US Government compelled the US Military to invade Iraq, which has abundant water:
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/07/00_dionisi_why-2017-is-optim istic.htm
It is further no coincidence that the Israeli ground forces in Lebanon sought to force the entire population there North Of The River.
As protests against Israel's genocide of Lebanon begin to gain strength in the United States, the Israeli-controlled US Media will be quick to call this "A New Wave Of anti-Semitism in the United States."
Remember this...
Virtually EVERYTHING that is happening is scripted, based on a time table that was written years earlier.
Nothing is a coincidence.
The media has already received its instructions about comparing protests against Israel to anti-Semitism. These themes will be hammered home across the popular media –
ALL "anti-Semitism" – ALL THE TIME.
Mel Gibson was just the opening salvo in the media manipulation of the citizens of the United States. The Media's GOAL is to foster anti-Semitism.
The ZIONISTS ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM.
They CONTROL THE MEDIA.
Central casting has already arranged for the Brown Shirt Nazi Storm Troopers to appear at these protests, and these are the images that you will see on your televisions whenever protests against Israel occur within the United States.
The Cover of TIME Magazine will feature their lead character with a headline that screams:
"THE NEW FACE OF ANTI-SEMITISM"
The goal of the Zionists is for America's Jews to be FORCED TO LEAVE AMERICA.
America's Jews are being duped.
ZIONISM IS AT WAR WITH JUDAISM.
The reason that Israel is blackmailing the leadership of the United States is - BECAUSE THEY CAN.
Our so-called leaders, selected by AIPAC for their low moral character, are the type of people who are easily manipulated. They take the bait. As was the case with Bill Clinton and Gary Condit (and countless others whom you've not yet heard about), Israel's SEXPIONAGE unit sends the likes of Monica Lewinsky and Chandra Levy in to seduce, then compromise America's leaders.
Israeli Sexpionage : The McGreevey, Condit and Clinton Affairs
http://www.aztlan.net/israeli_sexpionage.htm
Chandra Levy and Monica Lewinsky – "Swallows" for Israel.
Isn't it interesting that Lieberman's name pops up in the case of two similar-looking tarts, who were "Honey Pots" (or "Swallows" - the term used to describe women in the employ of Israel whose job is to compromise US Officials) for Israel's Mossad?
Note that this article is dated less than TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO 9/11.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/21/missing.intern/index.html
Did Levy learn about the 9/11 plan?
Cheney just happened to be meeting with Condit at precisely the moment Levy disappears? Nice alibi!
CHENEY ORDERED THE HIT TO PROTECT THE 9/11 OPERATION?
Who was Jeff Gannon working for when he compromised the entire White House? Why did that story drop out of the headlines? They're saving it. The truth is only valuable as leverage when it has yet to be revealed.
When Cheney and Rumsfeld partnered with Mossad to implement the attacks of 9/11, Mossad recorded every meeting and phone call. The assumed partnership between the US Shadow Government and Israel was not a partnership at all...it was a STING Operation.
George Bush Senior quite literally own the CIA – and he is the main individual being blackmailed. 41 and Mossad ran drugs together for decades. Clinton ran cover for Bush 41 and the Mena Operation.
Israel quite literally controls the entire US Nuclear arsenal. They control the targeting of all our missiles, and they have the launch codes. Israel is 100% in control of the United States.
This capability was the direct result of the work of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. It is NO COINCIDENCE that the recent arrest and conviction of Larry Franklin in the AIPAC SPY SCANDAL was centered around Franklins passing intelligence on IRAN to Israel.
Israel is demanding that Cheney Nuke Iran. Cheney is being forced to create a pretext to justify the attack – otherwise Israel will simply launch one of our nuclear missiles on Iran and make it appear that we struck them for no good reason.
The reason why Democrats are so reluctant to stop the Republican agenda is that they are all fully aware that Israel is running the show. Israel hijacked the Republican party and the Christian coalition to do its bidding.
The evidence that Bin Laden had no role in 9/11 is overwhelming. The CIA shut down its Bin Laden Unit months ago, and the FBI admits it is not seeking Bin Laden in connection with 9/11.
If you take the time to read the various MANIFESTOS published by the Zionists over the past decade, and compare their words to the actual events that have followed, it is clear that the plan is being followed to the letter.
I leave you with this:
"In executing this plan they have successfully escalated anti-Semitism throughout the world.
There is great pain that the press and politicians are calling the actions of the Zionist movement "Jewish actions."
With these words they are helping the Zionists to fulfill their dreams.
We call upon the world again to understand that the state of "Israel" does not represent the Jewish faith and traditions and that Zionists are the greatest enemies to the Jewish people.
We appeal to people of good will in the media itself to open their minds and hearts to what we are proclaiming about the truth of Judaism, which has been distorted by the Zionists."
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=53448
"Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
Michael Rivera
SO NOW YOU KNOW.
What are you going to do about it?
Save your Jewish friends from the fate that the Zionists have in mind for them.
STOP THE ZIONISTS
.
Posted by plunger at 08/07/2006 @ 08:23am
I'm a member of Nakba-48 at the University of Florida, Plunger, and they are an eloquent voice against Zionism. While still skeptical about some/many aspects of your posts, I refuse to close my mind to the possibility of conspiracy not leastwise due to the Zapruder tape.
Thanks once again for your obviously heartfelt efforts for justice.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/07/2006 @ 10:29am
With my ignore list functioning as intended, my previous post was the 86th recorded/listed on my PC. Coincidence? I think not having read John Redfield's seminal New Age bestseller "The Celestine Prophecy." We've 86'd the neo-con competition brothers and sisters!
Posted by lewwelge at 08/08/2006 @ 06:43am